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:AndyTheGrump - threatening behaviour, ongoing refusal to assume good faith.

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

---

User:AndyTheGrump removed a number of adequately sourced entires in List of deprogrammers‎ [1] under the guise of violations of WP:BLP. I had previously re-enstated the names, however I had then gone ahead and added references as requested by other editors in order to comply with BLP.

User:AndyTheGrump removed these new additions (which had taken me a few hours to research, btw) - and couldn't adequately explain why, despite repeated requests. He has threatened me with banning[2] and has made several personal attacks against me, calling me a liar, and qualifying my mistaken addition of a duplicate source as intentional trickery. [3]

After calling for a RFC on the article in question[4] Andy decided to add a non-neutral comment within the filing, effectively poisoning the well against me in the eyes of any eventual neutral third party.

This user is disruptive, uncooperative, and refuses to see things objectively. Zambelo; talk 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You changed the sub-title from notable deprogrammers to known deprogrammers, and unlike the initial list, none of your additions have articles. So Grumpy might well be concerned that you're creating a list that does not pass muster, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the title change, actually - I was focusing on trying to integrate and format the new references... Zambelo; talk 05:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to first create articles for the individuals you're trying to add, and prove their notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo has already created several articles on this topic concerning individuals of questionable notability (judging by the currently-running AfD's) - I don't think that more of the same would be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I'm just saying he's doing things backwards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I've created one or two and contributed to others. The issue I've had is that the article stubs have been nominated for deletion just weeks after creation. And as I've mentioned, there has been a concerted effort to delete anti-cult movement-related articles by certain editors. Some of these individuals may not be notable enough to merit an article (and some are, but let's not get into that), but are certainly notable enough to be included in a specific list on the topic, as they are referenced in secondary sources as deprogrammers/exit-counselors. Zambelo; talk 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of nefarious motives is not the way to win support. If you create an article on any subject, it is subject to the "notability" question. Being "known" and being "notable" are not necessarily the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of filing a report here [...]

(as I had informed Zambelo after a recent post at WP:BLPN) - my report follows:

As a previously-uninvolved person, I recently came across two related threads at WP:BLPN [5][6], concerning the actions of User:Zambelo, who has been adding, against a clear consensus, names of (presumably) living persons to a List of deprogrammers and Template:Opposition to NRMs. Given that the source being cited for incusion [7] merely names these individuals as being included in "Rolodex files" of the Cult Awareness Network. it seems self-evident that reliability is open to question, never mind establishing the level of notability required to merit inclusion in templates ands lists. Despite the issues with this source being made entirely clear at WP:BLPN, Zambelo chose yet again to add the names to the list [8] - citing the same questionable source twice under slightly different names where previously it had been given once. Since this was not only clearly a WP:BLP violation, but grossly misleading, I reverted it, and warned Zambelo that were the names added again without consensus, I would raise the matter here. Though Zambelo has not as yet done so, s/he has repeated the same stonewalling behaviour and refusal to address the legitimate concerns over sourcing that were raised at WP:BLPN, and has deleted my response to a RfC that s/he started at Talk:List_of_deprogrammers [9]. I note that this is not the first time Zambelo's behaviour over this issue has been raised here [10], and I further note that User talk:Zambelo contains much evidence of previous questions relating to edits concerning cults, new religious movements and the like. Frankly, it seems evident to me that Zambelo has far too much emotional involvement regarding this issue (why, I don't know - though it doesn't really matter under the circumstances), and given the sensitive nature of such topics, combined with a clear inability to listen to the advice of experienced contributors, I have to once again, propose, as was done in the previous ANI thread that Zambelo be topic-banned. I realise that there was little traction for this proposal in the previous thread, but it seems to me that his/her behaviour since suggests not only an unwillingness to learn, and to listen to advice, but also something which was not previously apparent - a willingness to engage in fundamentally dishonest behaviour, as evinced by the duplicate citation of a single source under slightly differing names. Given that we frequently place our trust in contributors when it comes to accurate reporting of sources (e.g. when material isn't verifiable online), such dishonesty must be considered significant in such circumstances, and that this, combined with a general battleground attitude, provides sufficient grounds to exclude this contributor from topics that need careful and circumspect editing, and adherence to the highest standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reply: As I mentioned, I had added new references, a fact that Andy has completely disregarded. The discussion on the BLP noticeboard was in relation to the template, and I have adequately explained myself there as well as on the talk page for the Opposition to NRMs template talkpage.

As much as andy would like to obfuscate the issue, combining the discussion regarding the template with the discussion of the list, they are two separate issues, with separate ongoing discussions surrounding them. What we are discussing here is the reversal of the referenced content on List of Deprogrammers, and the then ongoing refusal to listen to reason. In contrast, I have always been part of the conversation regarding these issues: in fact it was to comply with the BLP questions[11] that I researched and then added new references supporting the inclusion of the names, a well-intentioned edit that Andy instantly reverted citing BLP violations [12] - and has refused to answer why.

The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors - and this was never discussed on the article pages in question, and there was no attempt at getting outside look through a RFC: it went straight to the BLP noticeboard. The source you cite here is a secondary source mentioning the rolodex, not the rolodex itself, btw.

Instead of removing entries that he had an issue with, Andy decided to revert the entire edit, which I had spent hours looking up. When asked why, he refused to answer, saying only that there was a "duplicate" source, without going into any more detail.

If there was an issue with a source, why not remove one of the duplicates, and remove the entry if it was in violation of BLP?

My "behaviour" has never been an issue. It is easy to verify that I have made nothing but constructive edits to articles relating to New Religious Movements, while there has been a sustained attempt to destroy them over the past week by several editors. The only emotional attachment I have with the articles is in relation the the amount of time I have spent on them, only to have them torn down by a small concerted group of editors over the past week or so.

I propose that Andy be topic banned, and banned from contacting me in future.

I'm happy to answer any questions in relation to specific edits. Zambelo; talk 05:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors" - that just about sums the issue up here. Zambelo has decided that a mere mention on a Rolodex file is enough evidence of notability to merit inclusion in a controversial list, and anyone arguing the contrary is doing so because of 'POV'. And I should be topic banned for this 'POV', should I? For arguing that the source shouldn't be used, after coming across the issue at WP:BLPN? And expressing an opinion concerning a topic I can't even recollect contributing to before? My comments regarding this issue have been confined solely to WP:BLP issues regarding notability, and to the suitability of sources - I've not expressed an opinion one way or the other concerning the topic, and quite possibly don't know enough about it to do so. Evidently though, the mere fact that my opinion (as a long-term contributor familiar with policy) differs from Zambelo's when it comes to the inclusion of these particular names based on questionable sources is grounds for a topic ban? Nope - and I have to suggest that this ridiculous proposal to ban me from a topic I have shown little evidence of being interested in will be seen for exactly what it is - further evidence of the battleground mentality of a contributor clearly incapable of neutral editing - a contributor with an axe to grind, and with little inclination to do anything but engage in the very POV-pushing that s/he accuses others of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Your proposal to topic ban Andy will not fly. And I see nothing in this thread that warrants that Andy be topic-banned. And on a side note: When Andy states something about a WP:BLP issue, he is often, if not usually, correct. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I rescind my proposal for a ban - I'm sure Andy thought he was doing the right thing based on the limited information he could see on the BLP noticeboard. In this case however, he is wrong. Zambelo; talk 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute in general, and specifically a violation of the way lists are supposed to be created, especially lists of living persons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see that Andy has acted improperly here and there are certainly no grounds for a topic ban. I suggest that this discussion returns to the talk page of the article(s) in question where it belongs.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made a report asking for Zambelo to be topic banned. Should we not at least discuss the matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. (And I'm not even going to comment on the silly tit-for-tat proposal concerning Andy). In the past few weeks, several AfDs have been running in which Zambelo diplays a basic misunderstanding of what reliable sources are, what constitutes in-depth coverage and time and again fails to comply with AGF. As Andy says, their apparent emotional involvement with the topic is simply too much. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Note that Randykitty isn't neutral in this, and has a COI in this matter, having, over the period of the past week or so proposed multiple articles for deletion that I had been working on. I would invite any editors here to look at his editing history over the past week.

As I've already mentioned, I have no emotional involvement in the content, but I dislike people wasting my time. Proposing multiple articles for deletion, and ganging up as a group of three to ensure they are deleted is both unethical and bypasses due process. Zambelo; talk 11:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh YES! Please follow Zambelo's advice and compare my edit history with theirs (last week, last year, any period you like). Meanwhile, Zambelo could read up on the difference between COI and involved. And as far as I am concerned, I only got involved (in the WP sense, as simply !voting in an AfD normally does not make one involved.) because of Zambelo's tendency to accuse everybody who disagrees with them of having a POV. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also note this attempt to circumvent an ongoing AfD heading for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't circumventing, that was me agreeing with Drmies proposition to merge the article, since the article was clearly going to be deleted, despite new references being added. "Circumventing", that's a bit rich coming from an editor who has been consistently bypassing deletion procedures. I've made a statement here sharing my concerns, along with those of other editos regarding COI and editors involved in Landmark editing, which lists the articles targeted relating to the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article, about a documentary critical of Landmark. I think it's rather plain what is going on here. Zambelo; talk 12:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, Zambelo, I've had it, this is one personal attack too many. Your "evidence" at the ArbCom request is that I !voted deleted where you thought that was wrong. You have been warned more times than I care to count to assume good faith. Please either provide evidence of me having a COI and circumventing deletion procedures or apologize. Barring that, I will call for you to be blocked. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, it's a remark on your editing history. I apologize if you feel it's a personal attack. My comment about you circumventing deletion procedures was a remark on your disinterest in discussing references, while actively seeking to delete multiple articles simultaneously, without giving me a chance to properly discuss the issue, the references, or the deletion proposal. I've brought this up numerous times in the AFDs[13]. Zambelo; talk 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Block requested. Perhaps an uninvolved admin could have a look at the above paragraph, just compounding the personal attack on me. I note that this is not the first time and that Zambelo has been warned to assume good faith multiple times. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest Block - support TBAN as absolute minimum. *Support topic ban for Zambelo. User violates BLP, repeatedly pushes the same poor sources, reacts antagonistically to any disagreement, and seems entirely too emotionally involved in the small area they have chosen to edit to contribute neutrally there. If some of "their" articles have been deleted, well, that speaks more to the nature of the POV "walled garden" they were tending than any "gang of three" they imagine exists. User seems only capable of viewing disagreement as signifying membership of an opposing cabal - they should consider that the reality is that this is not the case, and that other editors are merely trying to maintain a neutral, BLP compliant encyclopedia. Begoon ^talk 11:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  Which sources are poor? How was this determined? There was never a discussion regarding the sources, the articles were simply listed for deletion, leaving me scrambling to try and save them, because there are in fact notable in the scope of New Religious Movements - which you would know if you looked at the sources I was providing. I have been a constructive editor to many New Religious Movement articles, not because of some supposed emotional attachment, but because I find the topic interesting. Maintaining a BLP compliant wikipedia is fine - and I have complied barring a few reversions in two articles, (which btw, I hold were adequately sourced, but which Randykitty et al. refused to discuss) - and even then after eventual discussion (which they chose to hold directly on the BLP noticeboard instead of the talk page) I accepted the consensus and went looking for more sources to comply with BLP issues raised - the references I found were from noted academics - religious scholars specialising in New Religious movements - so your assertion that I "push the same poor sourcesW is unfounded. All of what I say here is easily verifiable - I don't know what motives, if any, the three editors had to delete the articles without first attempting to discuss the issues or even look for sources, but I do know that out of 13 articles connected to the original Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous only 3 now remain after two weeks of deletions, by the same people who were pushing to delete the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article in the first place. Zambelo; talk 13:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing issues are well described by Andy above. There are many additional examples in the linked discussions and articles of inappropriate sourcing, often due to (AGF here) a misunderstanding of when primary sourcing is appropriate - clue: very limited circumstances. You start from the wrong place, Zambelo - you have something you wish to include, then try to work out how you can shoehorn it in, and fight like hell with anyone who disagrees. Then they are enemies. Is it a gang of 4 yet? Or 5? Don't forget Andy. That's not what we do here - we see what reliable sources have deemed worthy of mention, and include it, if and only if it is due, relevant, BLP compliant, and improves and serves a neutral article. You have the cart before the horse. I fixed your comment formats/indents again - please try to use proper indents etc. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 13:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The "gang" was in reference to the editors pushing for deletion, and bypassing due process. The articles were being deleted because of notability concerns, and so I attempted to demonstrate notability by integrating new references into the article - because this is how you show notability - through secondary sources. Don't be snide, please. Zambelo; talk 14:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Don't be snide please"? I've fixed up your comments here 5 times now - don't be lazy and inconsiderate please. You've made a personal attack on Randykitty. Don't attack folks please. You asked for a topic ban on Andy. Don't come here with ridiculous trumped up demands to try and head off a legitimate complaint please. Is that enough pleases yet? I could find more. Begoon ^talk 14:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• And please stop talking about deletions bypassing due process. Each and every deletion has been after a regular AfD that was open for at least 7 days. Nothing improper here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to religion. cults and psychological counseling, very broadly construed. First of all, the editor is way to emotionally invested ever to be able to edit in this topic area with sufficient detachment and objectiveness. Second, the editor has demonstrated a high level of battleground behavior and even sneaky trickery on several AfD's, and seems incapable of working cooperatively and civilly with editors with who he disagrees, of which there are several other seasoned editors besides Andy. His "gang" comments in this thread are particularly disturbing. Third, there is a major lack of competence as far as our policies and guidelines are concerned, especially WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and no apparently willingness to address that deficiency. Fourth, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apply. And last of all, the editor has made quite a mess that needs to be cleaned up by multiple AfD's. Sorry, but I would also support an indefinite site ban. I've seen this type of editor before and the experience was harrowing. Let's nip this in the bud. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban of Zambelo on all articles related to religion, per Dominus Vobisdu. This sort of behaviour and this sort of editor is nothing new and I (clearly not alone) am tired of it. Encyclopedia, not soapbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Strong arguments have been made for a topic ban which I support, though I do not think Zambelo is the only one guilty of violations. We might need to put in places stronger policies for sensitive topics. Articles related to religion are always sensitive and people have a tendency to want to block those who do not share their own POV. Dominus Vobisdu suggest an indefinite topic ban based on violating several policies. I'd be inclined to think the same should apply to the user, who is happy to ignore ongoing discussions to push their own WP:POV, more interested in reverting than discussing, and with a blatant disregard for WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Just like they accuse Zambelo of nothing being here for the right reasons, Dominus Vobisdu is quite clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to religion in an WP:NPOV way. We'd need more users who are willing to discuss and find consensuses, less users who revert at sight without providing any topic-related arguments just because it suits their WP:POV. Policies that would limit blanket reverting without discussing, or discussing without providing factual arguments, may be helpful on many sensitive area.Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So did you have a comment on this discussion about Zambelo, or a recommendation as to how to proceed? I'm not clear from what you say. Begoon ^talk 15:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently I mistakenly deleted the first part of my comment before posting. I said that I fully support a topic ban for Zambelo based on the evidence provided here, but that I think the blame is not only on them. That was not the exact sentence, but the essence of what was deleted. I then proceeded to say how articles related to religion are always sensitive and that some who accuse Zambelo, particularly Dominus Vobisdu, appear to behave no different themselves.Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, don't be sorry. My fault entirely. I didn't see the part where you fully supported the topic ban, which I appreciate, and I erroneously focused on the part where you discussed the other !voter instead. Peace. Begoon ^talk 15:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I now re-edited my comment to make my position clearer.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much clearer now you added the first bit. I'm sorry for my confusion. If you have concerns about another editor, I'd generally recommend a separate process because there are, believe it or not, a few other folks as slow on the uptake as me, when rushed, who could get similarly confused. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. This user has a very poor understanding of our sourcing requirements and is extremely belligerent. Zambelo has disrupted multiple AfDs with underhanded tactics to try to avoid an inevitable delete consensus on articles Zambelo thinks they WP:OWN. Any disagreement is met with ultra-defensive ranting and accusations of bad faith. This user is clearly not a net positive. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The entire article has now been blanked. Might as well finish it off and delete it. Looks like Andy got his way. What a shame, again. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot more than this one article out there. Zambelo has made quite a large mess, with a bunch of articles winding their way through AfD at the moment and more on the way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

How would you ever justify a topic ban here? The editors voting for my ban have a COI in this matter, and have previously been edit warring over several articles, attempting to push their POV. This is all verifiable. I have been a productive editor to the topic, in fact, if you consider the spate of recent article deletions, I am the only editor currently actively productively contributing to articles on the topic. I invite editors to look at the entire story, stemming from the edits to Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous, which I attempted to save (unsuccessfully) from deletion which then caused a flurry of deletions on articles relating specifically to that article, and anti-cult articles in general. Editors responsible for the deletion of the Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article have been working in tandem to ensure the deletion of these articles, by flooding the voting system, thereby bypassing correct AFD procedure. There was never any discussion on the article pages on how they could be improved' nor did any of these editors make any attempt at searching for new material or references. My attempts at trying to save these articles on notable individuals from deletion by 1) Finding new references to support notability 2)Voting to keep them from being deleted may have come across as belligerent, but this is because I was actively attempting to save these articles from being improperly deleted without discussion. The only form of "discussion" came when I was reported (by one of editors making the deletions) to the BLP noticeboard - and unfairly portrayed as a disruptive editor, when all I had done was revert two articles a few times, because these editors disagreed with my inclusion of adequately sourced content. I leave it up to my peers, really. It's easy to join a witch-hunt, but I invite you to have a look at the entire story before banning me on the accusations of a few biased and annoyed editors. Either way, this will be my last post on Wikipedia for a good while, I expect the deletions to continue unabated and unchecked. Peace. Zambelo; talk 17:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your break. I'm rather hoping one of the first things you'll do on your return will be to apologise to "The editors voting for [your] ban" for your accusations of "COI", "edit-warring", "attempting to push their POV", collusion, bias and vote-stacking. I know, as one of them, I, at least would appreciate that, since the accusations are utterly baseless and I find them rather offensive. That's what we mean by personal attacks, by the way. Begoon ^talk 04:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've previously filed for a TBAN on this editor for the exact same reason. This will be the fourth time he's been shown to violate WP:BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Would someone care to wrap up this set of threads with some kind of a close? It would be a shame to let all this pretty prose get archived without some kind of closure. Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be fundamental WP:BLP issues in our coverage of 'deprogramming'

Having looked into the underlying topic here - that of so-called 'deprogramming', I have to suggest that there are fundamental WP:BLP concerns raised. Specifically, the 'deprogramming' article states in the lede that "Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group. Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion. The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved, and deprogramming has been shown to result in PTSD". On this basis, the inclusion of any person in a 'list of deprogrammers' amounts to an accusation of criminal activity - clearly a breach of WP:BLP policy unless the individual has been convicted of such activities. Were it not for my prior involvement in this discussion, I'd be tempted to blank the 'list' immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And looking at the 'list of deprogrammers' article again, I note that the present version (with the questionably-sourced individuals discussed removed) provides only one citation for a criminal conviction - where it states that Galen Kelly was "Convicted of kidnapping Debra Dobkowski in May 1992". Our article on Kelly however states that the kidnapping conviction was overturned. Given that Zambelo had edited the Kelly article five times, I think we can safely assume that s/he had read it - and accordingly I think we need an explanation from Zambelo as to why the 'list' describes Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, given that s/he must have been aware that this statement was false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The charges were for kidnapping, not deprogramming. Furthermore, deprogramming wasn't (and still isn't - illegal), the methodology has changed however. Kelley was convicted of kidnapping. The fact that his conviction was later overturned after he served time is irrelevant - he was still convicted of kidnapping. You are not following the references here, and are entering the realm of Original research. There is no connection between being a deprogrammer and being a convict. Zambelo; talk 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly qualify as an "Oops!" In general, would you say that unless someone is convicted of something, they don't belong on the list? What if they claim to be deprogrammers, and neutral sources back up that claim, but they don't happen to have committed any crime? But what I'm really curious about is the editor's motivation or interest in creating and/or expanding the list. Is he in favor of deprogramming and is trying to promote deprogrammers? Or is he opposed to deprogramming and is trying to expose them? Either way, it seems shaky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm neither - I'm interested in establishing a neutral article about deprogrammers, which were an integral part of the anti-cult movement and relate to my larger interests on New religious movements. The facts are that deprogrammers did exist, and during the time they were active (and to this day) are notable as either "cult experts", "counsellors", "deprogrammers" or all of the above. Deprogramming was a profession back in the day, not a conviction title. Zambelo; talk 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that having been asked why the list stated that Kelly had been convicted of kidnapping, but failed to note that the conviction had been overturned, Zambelo is claiming that s/he "knew nothing of the kind - the references said he was convicted". [14] This is despite having edited the Kelly article six times - an article that starts the penultimate paragraph with the prominent statement "Kelly's conviction was overturned in 1994 by the appeals court because of prosecutorial misconduct". I invite all those reading this thread to look at the Galen Kelly article, and ask themselves whether it appears remotely plausible that anyone reading the article could possibly miss this statement. I for one find it impossible to believe - and if it were to be true, I would have to suggest that it would demonstrate a lack of competence to be editing such sensitive material anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at Deprogramming. God, that's a mess. A statement in the lead "This was started in 19xx by name" with no citation. It just lurches on from one POV statement to the next, all the way through the article. The whole article screams POV piece. I considered making some edits, but WP:TNT keeps springing to mind. You kicked over an anthill, Andy. One that needed kicking over, I think. Begoon ^talk 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo has now clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that s/he is completely and utterly incapable of understanding elementary WP:BLP policy.

On being asked once more why the 'list' described Galen Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, when the Kelly article (which Zambelo had repeatedly edited, and must have read) made it entirely clear that Kelly's conviction for kidnapping had been overturned, Zambelo posted the following:

"Gallen Kelley was convicted, you understand. His conviction was overturned after he served time, but he was convicted of kidnapping." [15]

Given this unequivocal demonstration of either gross incompetence or a complete refusal to even make a pretence at complying with elementary WP:BLP policy, I have to suggest that the proposed topic ban discussed is insufficient, and that we should be instead discussing an indefinite block for Zambelo, on the grounds that he cannot under any circumstances be trusted to comply with Wikipedia policy. That anyone should think that it is remotely acceptable to assert in an article that Kelly (a living person) was convicted of a serious crime without also stating that the conviction was overturned is beyond belief - yet Zambelo is arguing exactly that. S/he is a menace to Wikipedia, and needs to be immediately and unceremoniously thrown off the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already altered my vote above to support a block, before you posted this. That's just incredible, though - we can't tolerate a cavalier and biased approach like that towards the lives of real people. I fear we may have some substantial work ahead cleaning up the damage in this "walled garden" they have created, but it certainly can't continue. Begoon ^talk 15:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The circumstances of Galen Kelly's conviction and that conviction's subsequent overturning and the other events in that saga are much more complex than Zambelo's comment makes it seem. I can't tell if Zambelo is incompetent or if he's pushing an agenda, or both - but no matter what, he's got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the rest of the articles and contributions, Bugs. I promise you all will become clear. Begoon ^talk 16:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sock?

Checking Zambelo's edit history, I note that beyond cult/'deprogramming' related issues, s/he has edited few other topics. Two that stand out are Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician). Interestingly, User:Sfacets, a former contributor blocked back in 2008 having 'exhausted community patience' and a confirmed sockpuppeteer, [16][17] likewise took an interest in the cult/deprogramming issue - for example adding a huge slew of articles to Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals in November 2007 - and likewise significantly edited the Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician) articles [18]. Furthermore, a confirmed Sfacets sock, User:Couchbeing, had taken an interest in the 'deprogramming' article - and had edited the Galen Kelly one. While it is entirely possible for multiple people to take an interest in the cult/deprogramming topic (and be promoting a similar POV), and simultaneously to be interested in Sahaja Yoga (itself a cult-related topic, according to some opinions) just how likely would it be that both Zambelo and Sfacets would also be making significant edits an article on a Pakistani American rapper if they were unconnected? I have to suggest that sockpuppetry seems a much more plausible explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree, as per WP:DUCK.Jeppiz (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem an unlikely series of coincidences. Zambelo has put a "vacation" template on his/her user page. I'm sure they'll address this, too, when they return. On the other hand, and at the risk of assuming bad faith, I guess we should also consider, given this, that Zambelo may not necessarily return as Zambelo. Begoon ^talk 11:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Close requested. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I added it to WP:ANRFC, but that's stupidly long at the moment. (This is #73) Agree it needs formal closure before the archive bot kicks in. Begoon ^talk 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Multiple AFDs, minutes apart, obviously pointy...

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

---

MayVenn today started a string of AFDs, all listed on today's log. I think there are 11 in total, with some nominations starting (literally) a minute after the lodgement of a previous AFD for a different subject. WP:BEFORE has been completely discarded and the deletion "rationales" are as weak as you would expect including claims that articles should be deleted because they have no English sources (see WP:NOENG). This nomination reveals what is actually going on - the editor has taken issue with the nomination ("censorship") of another article and so has decided to retaliate with these. This is plainly just an attempt at disruption. Could an admin please close the nominations in question and block MayVenn. Thanks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, (in addition to the info presented above) the nominations for the Japanese bios in particular seem at least a tad uncivil (they may also be bordering on NPA, but I'm not sufficiently familiar enough with that policy to feel comfortable using it except in the most obvious of circumstances). - Purplewowies (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I can agree with the above perception of NPA but according to WP:NOTPOINTy:" commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"". Someone might want to check all of the nominations but even one of the editors involved believes the nominator is likely right with Aimi Tomori. This is certainly not a blockable offense.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence why I said "may" and then added that I'm not really familiar/comfortable with using it except when it's obvious. (Unless that's the perception you disagree with. :P) I just felt it worth mentioning, because most of the Japanese bios had within the reasoning "their otaku probably made it because they're kawaii desu" which, if not uncivil, is a bad faith assumption. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's been pointed out that these have all been nominated because they are articles created by Innotata who started this nomination with which MayVenn strongly disagreed. They are entitled to their opinion there (as was I, for the record) but they doesn't entitle them to trawl another editor's creations and nominate them en masse to make a point. That there are one or two in the group (now 15 or so) that the author concedes might not meet our inclusion criteria doesn't make the harassment right. MayVenn is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute productively. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• IMHO blockable. Interesting how he continued his mass nomination even after being reported here. The point is not that a couple of his nominations could be incidentally right, the point is that MayVenn started a dozen of AfDs just as a retaliation against another editor, with some ridicolous rationales such as "some random composer" or "some random model". Cavarrone 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed one AfD with poor reasoning and then I see this. If an editor with an account less than 24 hours old with only 34 edits creates 11 AfDs all for articles created by another single editor, then one need not be Hercule Poirot to conclude that something fishy (AKA retaliatory) is going on. Broken clocks are right twice a day, so maybe some of these articles should be deleted, but every one deserves serious scrutiny. But I need sleep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"It's been pointed out" "that these have all been nominated because they are articles created by Innotata who started this nomination with which MayVenn strongly disagreed." I don't see MayVenn's name there at all. That AfD was closed on September 24. All of MayVenn's edits have been within the past 24 hours. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, the retaliation is crystal clear if you read the rationale in this AfD ... Cavarrone 08:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not crystal clear at all, unless one is saying that MayVenn is a sock of someone involved in the Danièle Watts article or AfD debate, in which case someone should file a SPI. Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppertry is possible, retaliation against User:Innotata is obvious ("It was super hypocritical to say a Black actress with multiple famous rules (ie Watts) was not notable and try to censor her article while making an article on a Japanese actress with ONE role.") Not to mention his point that Pile has just one role is false. Cavarrone 09:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Point taken; MayVenn could very well be Danièle Watts herself. In any case, note to DGG and other admins: In addition to filing 12 AfDs within hours of registering their account, MayVenn is edit-warring and section-blanking on Racism in the United States. The user clearly needs at least a time out (block) to re-group, as well as a ban on AfDs, in my opinion. Thus far all they've done is be extremely disruptive. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• One has to ask why a brand new user immediately starts with nominating articles for deletion, creates 12 AfDs within hours of registering, and does not notify the articles' creator(s) about the AfDs. I think this is indeed blockable behavior, clearly disruptive, pointy, and WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I went through the nominations, examining each one individually on its merits. I closed some as snow, one as a keep because of expressed bad faith in the nomination itself without a bar to immediate renomination, one I'm not sure enough about I just !voted keep; one I simply cant tell; one seems headed for delete. The nom. seems to have caught at least one questionable article in the net, but this is not the way to do things. . I'd support a topic ban on deletion nominations for a week or so, to prevent further disruption. I think it would be premature to go further than that at this time. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this is actual disruption but I could see a temp topic ban if you felt inclined and the community agrees. I can support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what I think, the editor absolutely deserve a very close look, as do the nominations. however, the nominations themselves cannot be seen entirely as just retaliatory just for the nominations themselves. Check for all the usual signs, and if there is reason take action, but I do not support a block for this. Give me a break. We need to educate not destroy new editors. We need to assume good faith here. This isn't as obvious as some would have us believe even if the reasons for some of the noms may seem pointy or even based off a bad reaction. If they are a sock...then there is a direct action to be taken. If they are edit warring then there is a direct action to be taken, but all parties need to be looked at in these types of situations. We don't just get to take out our opponents because they are new, less experienced and we just don't like what they are doing. Engage the editor and then see how they react.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way User:Stalwart111...any chance you might actually notify the user of this ANI complaint? It is kind of a requirement. Appears to have been done.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Mark, I added it as an addendum to my previous thread on his talk page rather than starting a new one. I get where you're coming from but to me it was pretty clear cut and then after two warnings (from me and another editor) he continued to nominate articles on the same basis, with the same sort of rationales. Clear cut because the rationales themselves weren't policy based - just whatever he could think of as a thinly-veiled excuse for nominating a particular person's contributions for deletion because they disagreed with that person's AFD of a different article. By the way, I disagreed with it too and said so in the original discussion - but not once did I think that nominating the nominator's work for deletion was the appropriate response. I've seen editors blocked/reprimanded for nominating one or two articles in retaliation. But 10+? St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding due to the ninja edit conflict bug that afflicts ANI. See my comment inside this hatted section. In summary, if your, or another editor's, post is mysteriously deleted and doesn't show up in the history, it is good practice to assume that it is due to this mysterious bug. Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Restoring my earlier comments that was deleted by Mark Miller: Final unambiguous warning issued. If they create one more I will block without further ado. If I'm not around, perhaps another admin can make the required preventative block to quickly put an end to this spree. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC) What the hell are you talking about Kudpung? I deleted nothing. I see no reason to take unilateral action.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Please point out the deletion you are speaking of [19] I see no deletion in the history. Please retract your statement.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Mark Miller: FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Again...I did not delete your post.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC) That sometimes happens by accident, when it should throw an edit conflict but for some reason it doesn't and just loses someone's edit - there's a software bug in there somewhere, for sure. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Absolutely. It's a perennial "issue". Has happened to me at least 3 times, and I've seen it happen to others - you don't always get the edit conflict window. I'll add a diff to one time it was discussed in a minute. Begoon talk 11:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Here, towards the end of this thread it is discussed, with links to when it happened. I've seen it on numerous other occasions, too: link. Begoon talk 11:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC) There was no edit conflict. My post was removed by Mark Miller when making his post. I've made the same error myself, but I always press my Preview button before saving, and then I always take an extra look at what I have posted before finally leaving the page. The problem with ANI is that it gets everyone jumpy, but if they are here simply to criticise admins, rather than do some investigation, then maybe they might not be inviting the most friendly, if nevertheless courteous, reactions. It's a weird issue that seems to only really hit ANI because of the high traffic and numbers of posts that happen on any given day. It's hit me a couple of times to my memory, once when I was posting something and I ended up getting ninja-ec'd by a close which I didn't notice and another time when I tried to reply to a heavily posted thread that ended up changing what I wanted to do into something that I didn't want to do ( the details escape me). It's generally good advice to assume that if there is a weird deletion of your post or your deletion of someone else's post that it's due to the ANI ninja edit conflict bug. Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Back on topic: Anyone properly investigating this issue will note that MayVenn is almost certainly not a new user. The question y'all should be asking is: who is he really? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You have no way of substantiating that accusation, as you were not watching the editor when he made that edit and you have absolutely no way of knowing exactly what happened. But I can tell you something that most definitely does happen occasionally - previewing looks fine, and then you save, and someone else's edit gets lost with *no indication whatsoever* that anything has gone amiss. The only way you can tell something has gone wrong is if you then recheck your edit after you have made it - preview *does not* show the fault. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Preview wouldn't help in those circumstances, honestly. It's a bug, and it's known. The only way to avoid it (well, actually, be aware of it, and able to fix it), is to religiously check your diffs after editing. It's fairly rare, but it does happen. Especially when the page is large, it seems.

Anyway, as you say, we should stay on topic. Begoon ^talk 11:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me with Jimbo Wales once. A one second difference and my post even showed up on my side after I hit save and then it was gone. Made me think I had done something wrong but he assured me, as others did, that it was just a simple glitch in the system that occurs sometimes. I did not remove anything, I have no reason to. Anyway, staying on topic, I have suggested to the editor that they refrain from making any further nominations for one to two weeks as a voluntary topic ban and requested that they make a small statement to that effect here.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at MayVenn's edit history, I agree with Kudpung that this user is very likely a sock. Never seen new editors registering their account and, in a few minutes, starting a dozen AfDs without making any error in the procedure. The editor is clearly an experienced one. And as pointed above the only other significant edit by this user was an attempt to remove a large chunk of sourced text in Racism in the United States, replacing it with the sentence "None of this has actually changed the fact that white supremacy is everywhere in America.": [20]. IMHO warnings will not have any effect, as the editor is very likely already back to his/her official account and we'll never see MayVenn editing again. A SPI would be enlighting, however I don't see any reason for not blocking this account per WP:NOTHERE. Cavarrone 12:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  For what it's worth CheckUser doesn't suggest any other accounts, but in this case it wouldn't have been too hard to use a different IP range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  The Daniele Watts AfD I started sure got a lot of people riled up, and strayed into accusations of bad faith, likely BLP violations that still are visible, and off-topic discussions of the police and racism, despite my efforts to keep it on topic. I wouldn't be too surprised if people caught onto it off-wiki. I see that just before MayVenn registered their account, an unregistered editor posted this. Maybe they're an old unregistered editor, also considering that they caught on to the similar account Bristolbottom? Only the Aimi Tomori AfD (which I personally think is the only one they got right) has had editors actually calling for deletion, so can all the other outstanding AfDs be closed without prejudice to relisting? —innotata 17:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close - as suspected, this seems to have been a throw-away account used to start these nominations and edit-war in a couple of other places. There have been no edits since the last AFD was started on 5 October. Attempts to teach/reason with a throw-away account would be futile. Some of the AFDs have been dealt with - this can probably be closed by an admin able to deal with the rest. Whether the account is blocked now is probably moot. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

India Against Corruption again- possible legal threat by editor who states policies don't apply to him

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

---

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - is this a legal threat by User:Claus at Name Defend DE? His userpage states

• This is user page of Claus @ Name Defend.
• I am a declared paid editor to inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF "Terms of Use" etc. which have legal consequences, and which breaches and consequences the average editor may be unaware of.
• I do not consider myself bound by self written community policies. I am editing under WMF "Terms of Use" and "privacy policy"

He is editwarring at India Against Corruption (just gave him a 3RR warning) and on his talk page explains his edit by saying "However, my edit is a constructive edit to uphold a core policy of the Wikimedia Foundation's "Terms of Use" - to prevent impersonation of the named organisation. The controversial deleted text was inserted by another paid editor "Sitush", against whom the affected organisation has very recently filed a criminal complaint in India, including for impersonating a History graduate from Peters House / Cambridge University so as to mislead the Wikipedia community and pose as an authority." Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doug, see the section immediately above this. Note that Name Defend IPA was blocked indefinitely by Salvio giuliano as a checkuser block [21]. This is clearly the same person, and in fact, the socks are probably all the same person. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Claus at Name Defend DE now blocked by Euryalus for "Making legal threats: and probable block evasion as sock of User:Name Defend IPA". If yet more proof is needed that this is the same sock as all the rest, note that the copyvio tag on Anil Trivedi was actually placed by the blocked sockpuppet Duffycharles with a very inappropriate edit summary [22]. Within minutes of Duffycharles being blocked for sockpuppetry and legal threats, User:Claus at Name Defend DE registered an account [23]. Today he addded to the report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a checkuser look for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The section above was added while I was editing this one, so I missed it. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article should be subject to full protection as the socks/meats seem to regularly make the requisite edits to get around semi. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That is tempting, given the collateral damage they're prepared to inflict to get around semi-protection. (It is striking that someone claiming to oppose corruption would expunge an account of human rights campaigning.[24]) It doesn't seem that India Against Corruption is active any longer, assaults on Wikipedia by people claiming to act in its name aside, so while there might be details to fill in about its history, there may be no notable developments to add. NebY (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but it will only partially help. If this faction (who claim to represent the Hindustan Republican Association) cannot get at that article, they will continue disrupting multiple related articles, including biographies of those they perceive as their enemies. They will also keep pursuing time-wasting quasi-legal issues in retaliation. They have now made 2 unsuccessful attempts to have India Against Corruption removed from Google's search results on spurious claims of copyright violation when their spurious claims here didn't work out for them. They also claim to have filed a sexual harassment case with the WMF on behalf of one of their sockpuppets, etc. etc. Interestingly, the latest copyright infringement they reported (at Anil Trivedi) actually was an infringement, although not of their material, despite the bogus claims made at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 that they were "acting for the affected person/s". This is long-term abuse dating back to 2008. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This "faction" does not represent the Hindustan Republican Association.

Do you have any reliable source for your outrageously false claim on Anil Trivedi that he was in any way associated with India Against Corruption as continues to be stated in that article ?? This is exactly the kind of IMPERSONATION of the IAC organisation which the "outed" ADMIN "Sitush" was paid to promote on Wikipedia. (PS: Read the news report in the Times of India - Lucknow edition about paid senior editors of Wikipedia) which pisses the IAC off.

BTW: Claus has emailed Admin:Euryalus, our identities are disclosed and verifiable. NAME DEFEND is going to expose how corrupted paid Wikipedia Admins have systematically fabricated "checkuser" results to show that 27 NAME DEFEND editors systematically operating from many countries on very widely located ISPs and using different computers and networks are showing as a single editor (@IAC sock-farm), whereas the 983+ still active Wikipedia accounts being used since 2005 with over 4,00,000+ edits (incl. 38,000+ on 2014) are not being detected by Checkuser. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your above statement can you provide reliable sources to prove that Sitush was paid to edit Wikipedia. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the babblings above can't even get elementary facts right - Sitush isn't an admin - I can see no reason why we should be remotely interested in anything the latest sockpuppet could say. They have been plastering this noticeboard with pseudo-legal threats and similar bollocks for years, while presenting precisely zero evidence of any wrongdoing. Why should they do anything differently this time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the above, might it be reasonable to consider a blanket siteban on Name Defend, by whatever name? That statement comes off as an organizational mission statement to continually violate WP:NLT and pretty much blatantly states that the whole group is not here to write an encyclopedia. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well i think we can definelty lose this one, it seems uncommon for a new user to be able or willing to lodge an ANI and edit a request for arbitration [25] so soon form the start up. They appear to be tagging any page that can find that might be beneficial even if theyre not doing it correctly.Pretty much sums up not here.Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note appears theyve been reported to WP:AIV and blocked fromt here prehaps a good sign to close this off as it doesnt seem to serve any purpose now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

India Against Corruption again – further discussion

• Considering the personal attacks and allegation being made on their talk page, shouldn't talk page and email access be removed? Neatsfoot (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • DMCA India Against Corruption logo is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I wonder if a DMCA takedown notice is valid if it's filed under a pseudonym or if there's some requirement that the filer provides some proof of identity? NebY (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Irrespective of whether the DMCA takedown notice was valid, the image was appropriately removed from Commons as it was clearly a previously published non-free logo. It appeared in March 2011 on indiaagainstcorruption.org, the official website of the India Against Corruption organization (the one the WP article is about—not the one "Name Defend" claims to be "defending"). See Wayback Machine capture. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the Name Defend accounts operate from a limited set of IP addresses? If so what would be the collateral damage in blocking that range? Blackmane (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this before. Maybe you want to unclose it, User:Black Kite, since so many comments have accrued now? Not that I'm bothered. Anyway, Duffycharles is not a sock but a puppeteer, editing since 2008, with HRA1924 and Lindashiers| their socks, as confirmed by checkuser Ponyo. (Man, we sure have a lot of so-called "fabricated checkuser results" in this area. A whole CU conspiracy, obviously.) From Duffycharles's odd edit history, with long gaps, I'm sure there were more socks during "his" inactive periods. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling about the IP range, from what Ponyo told me. But might it be reasonable to tag all of the above as socks of Duffycharles per WP:DUCK? If it's even worth the bureaucratic trouble to try to keep what Black Kite accurately calls this mob tidily registered. In any case, I for one am certainly ready to block new quackers on sight, if people will tell me about them. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think this all needs to be documented on a page at WP:Long-term abuse to keep track of this lot and to help identify future socks. At the moment, the information and connections are spread all over the place. For example, there is an even older account than Duffycharles. See User:Landirenzo, registered in 2007 and checkuser blocked as a sock of HRA1924 in April 2014 by Tiptoety (along with 2 others). Plus there are Dkgpatel (blocked for legal threats but clearly a sock) and Rti india and AcorruptionfreeIndia (both with the same modus operandi as all the others and both with checkuser blocks but no apparent documentation as to whom they were socks of). "Claus Bruentrup" and "Name Defend" are simply the group's latest wheeze for pursuing HRA1924's agenda. The "company" website, Name Defend, Institut feur Geistiges Eigentum, was hastily assembled on 13 September 2014 (complete with copypasted German sentences and images of handcuffs and the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (!). It is registered to Sarbajit Roy [26], the convenor of the group now calling itself "India against Corruption" and who are pursuing their various attempts at legal action here and at Google. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if Long-term abuse is the best place, Voceditenore; it's being considered for deletion, for one thing, and nobody looks there, for another. Perhaps an SPI? Its archiving system works pretty well. I agree that there should be an overview somewhere, and SPI is surely the place people are likely to look. Considering the mentioned checkuser blocks that don't indicate a sockmaster, perhaps we should ask someone with checkuser permissions to lay out this mess, in some place. (There may already be an SPI that could be fattened up.) It's not an attractive job… hmm. I already pinged Ponyo. Pinging Tiptoety, DeltaQuad, and Elockid, who made the checkuserblocks mentioned above: does one of you guys perhaps feel like providing an overview? Yes, I know, it's amazing the lengths I'll go to to delegate messy work to someone else. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Oh boy that was a long time ago. The only thing the CU log indicates AcorruptionfreeIndia is that it was in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadurr/Archive or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ginsuloft/Archive. Those were the two cases I was investigating at the time of the block. Other than that, I have no recollection of the block and nor does my email. If I can help further, please let me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen. Reading this thread brings back bad memories. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to recuse myself from any further involvement following numerous legal threats, attempts at outing, and insistent emails from this group. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that, in order to keep things simple and ensure the accounts are blocked quickly in order to limit the excessive disruption, a synopsis of typical behaviour should be outlined on a user subpage (or at WP:LTA if it survives AfD). The page could be linked to when making duck blocks or in discussions such as this. This is a nasty group known to use extreme harassment and litigious tactics, on and off-wiki, to try to intimidate editors who disagree with them. The quicker each new sock/meat account can be shut down the better as opposed to adding unnecessarily to an already bogged down SPI process.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It rather looks as if Long-term abuse might survive, maybe even with a snow close, and is still in use. If there was an IAC entry there, could links to it be placed in archived SPIs? NebY (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat?

[27] This is not a legal threat of action on the part of Atsme. This is the hypothetical legal threat of action by the party of the article. It's laid on pretty thick to. Should this be reviewed under the legal threat policy?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a legal threat but deffinetly sounds like its supposed to have a chilling effect the whole if you dont think it could happen again definelty seems like its aimed at doing just that. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a legal threat at all to me. DocumentError (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

nope, Atsme was just informing you about the importance of BLP. took me a while to figure out what you are fighting over but it is Investigative Project on Terrorism and it appears to be a continuation of a past ANI. these are hard situations, and i am sorry you are in such a dispute, but this specific complaint has no merit in my eyes and reflects poorly on you. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Of course it wasn't a threat. This is what I get for agreeing to Serialjoe's suggestion to "seek out medcom for assistance." This ANI is nothing more than a continuation of Joe's relentless hounding and fulfillment of his publicly stated goal for me: My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [28]. The BLP issue was actually raised again by ARB committee member User:Newyorkbrad during Joe's recent ARB request in another of his relentless attempts to get me topic banned: The issues addressed may include whether including the prominent "Islamophobia" template on this article raises a BLP issue. [29] Serialjoe refuses to acknowledge the problems exist. Other editors and noticeboard reviewers have also drawn attention to the BLP and NOR issues plaguing IPT. [30] [31] Atsme☯^Consult 01:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Atsme diplomatically, perhaps too diplomatically, raises a valid point. This is most clearly not a WP:LEGAL issue. Under WP:BOOMERANG it would be merited to question the impetus for bringing it up here. It is not reasonable to just go around throwing things against the wall to see if anything sticks, in respect to other editors, and it appears - based on a history of interaction - this is what may be occurring with Atsme on the receiving end. This treatment forces other editors to divest from encyclopedia-building and engage in permanent defense and fort-building. This is something that needs to be addressed before this is closed. DocumentError (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Above you'll notice my first sentence. This is not a legal threat of action on the part of Atsme. Then you'll notice my last sentence. Should this be reviewed under the legal threat policy? Interestingly enough I asked this question in ANI.Someone mistakenly posted this at the top of the page This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. The reason I pose this question is that Atsme will do anything possible to end an argument. Canvassing is one example. I'll also point at that you will see above that I haven't asked for a ban. The reason for this is wp:legal suggests that a ban in these cases is to prevent disruption associated with litigation. At the conclusion of the legal threat brings the conclusion of the ban. Since there is no legal threat (again as pointed out above by me the original poster) there is no reason to ban. However while there is no reason to ban, is there reason to review it under the legal threat policy? Trying to promote fear of litigation to win a dispute could offer the same chilling effect as actually threat of litigation. At a point if this tactic becomes persistent then there is a cause to ban.

I'd also add that any promotion of a ban I've made has been that of a topic ban of Islamophobia and related articles. A topic of which Atsme has shown unquestionable bias in regards to. This is the first ANI I've opened on the subject. This is the 4th one in total. This about the conduct. I guess while quoting Newyorkbrad, Atsme missed where Brad said "MAY INCLUDE" and where ARBCOM offered no position on whether it was and further suggested the matter be taken over to BLPN. Did they move wp:BLPN? Is that why Atsme hasn't taken it there? There is currently a consensus to keep said template. Something crazy and unexpected could happen here. Atsme could take the advice of Arbcom and take it to BLPN and get a consensus that it is a BLP violation and that it should be removed. That would rather diplomatic. It certainly would be rare move in this tiresome dispute.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Also, who wrote this? There's no signature. DocumentError (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your comment with a sig. I have just left a note to you, in response to your latest post on Atsme's talk page here. DocumentError (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a legal threat or not, any statement that is threatening enough to chill discussion should not be tolerated. Atsme should be warned accordingly. It may be worth opening an RFC, for future reference, what the community thinks should be done to people who repeatedly attempt to chill discussion whether it be through roundabout means or indirect legal comments. (Note: My last sentence is in no way a reflection of this ANI, but something that may be worth thinking about for the future.) Blackmane (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I just have a thick skin but I don't find anything at all chilling about what Atsme said. It seemed like a frank response to a very aggressive style of interaction to which he's been subject. For the record, I'm not involved in editing any of these articles, but am closely observing as a disinterested party. DocumentError (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the editor, I personally wouldn't think much of it either, but there is obviously some concern about Atsme's phrasing. WP:DOLT and all that. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfriendly attitude of User:Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir

Hello! I am writing this report because I want to seek assistance in my relationship with the editors mentioned in the title. The statement The earliest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of the Romanians' ancestors in the reign of one "King Vladislaus' inserted by them in the article Origin of the Romanians isn't apparently existing in the provided source, namely Vékony, Gábor (2000). Dacians, Romans, Romanians. The word Vladislaus isn't even present in the book.

I added the Failed Verification template and asked on the talk page for the exact quotes from the source that they refer to, but they remove the template and refuse to answer to my request. What should I do? Eurocentral (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am always happy to help in relationship matters between editors, especially those involved in topics like eastern European history, for which I'm quite unlikely to ever have a dog in the fight or even much interest. I'm going to be offline for most of the next 24 hours, however, if you don't get a satisfactory response from anyone else before then - and assuming the issues in question don't rise to the level of necessary admin involvement - please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to insert myself into the articles in question as an active interlocutor. DocumentError (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, you are well aware the fact that Vékony used the word "László" (which is the Hungarian variant of "Vladislaus"), but I preferred the latter form because a Romanian historian (Victor Spinei) in his book which is also cited in the article used the "Vladislaus" form. We should be consequent when using names in the same article. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple content dispute. Actually, I even provided a link for Eurocentral. Instead of senseless accusations he should read Vekony's book.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Or, if he does not want to read the whole book, he should read the pages which are referred to in the relevant footnote. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I suspect that Eurocentral is not here to build an encyclopedia. He does not stop edit warring, even after an RfC had in the meantime been initiated, and all other editors were willing to seek a consensual lead ([32], [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]). He inserts words in well referenced sentences, although those words are not based on the cited reliable source ([42], [43]), and instead of fixing the problem, he deletes the proper inline template messages ([44]). Actually, I lost patience with him after spending years with fixing his edits which are not based on reliable sources or are based on books written in the early 20th century or in the 19th century (but are pretended to be published in the late 20th century or early 21th century). Fakirbakir, how do you think this problem could be solved? Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, his actions are very similar to a banned user's behaviour ("Iaaasi"). Your evidence above may be enough to initiate a sockpuppet investigation. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not identical. Iaaasi sometimes gets angry and uses disgustingly anti-Hungarian language, but he is otherwise correct. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I know Iaaasi can be correct. He has even asked for my support (on Wikimedia Commons) recently because he wants to return to Wikipedia. However I still maintain that his attitude resembles Eurocentral. I hope you are right on this. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. I will not comment it, because I am biased against this guy. I am totally fed up with his uncivil behaviour although otherwise I am quite tolerant (or I hope I am quite tolerant). I must be getting older and older. Or it is only the bad wheather. :) Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Iaaasi has just admitted that he gave instructions to Eurocentral. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So, he is a tool of a banned user. Interesting. Now I understand why the same edits were sometimes made by Eurocentral and sometimes by an IP ([45], [46], [47]). Previously, I thought that Eurocentral failed to log in in order to avoid 3RR, but it is now obvious that he cooperated with Iaasi who could not log in. Actually, I am disappointed because I have so far thought that Iaasi is a correct editor even if he is blindly biased against Hungarians. He now seems to (ab)use Eurocentral in order to continue "His Struggle". I think this is inhuman because Eurocentral is a human being, not a tool. All the same, Eurocentral has without doubt acted against our community rules. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. What is to be done? Fakirbakir, should we take him in an ANI? Borsoka (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should because now it is obvious that beside his disruptive editing and battleground mentality he/she is wikihounding with a banned user. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I left him a message on his User page (the guy styles himself as "dux magnus et potentia" on his Talk page). I suggest we should wait 24 hours. He might give us some explanation of his acts. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

Yes. Yet another Ryulong (talk · contribs) thread. This time he mass-deleted language articles just by labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields:

• languages with ISO 639-3 codes (i.e., Ethnologue entries): Tokunoshima language[48], Okinoerabu language[49], Yoron language[50] and Northern Okinawan language[51], and
• their supergroups: Amami–Okinawan languages[52], Amami languages[53], Amami language[54], Okinawan languages[55] and Kunigami language[56],

where I contributed substantially using a dozen of published sources (some of which are available online). This is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen since I joined Wikipedia in 2003.

Of course, labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields alone does not justify mass deletion. Otherwise one can revert any change s/he does not like. So his comment is synonymous with "I HATE YOUR EDIT!!!"

Ryulong is a regular at this incident noticeboard and is very familiar with 3RR and other conflict related stuff. But he has a fundamental misunderstanding on what Wikipedia is. Given the fact that he is an experienced user, there appears no hope that he would amend his behavior. I think the only feasible solution is to keep him out of Wikipedia. Any suggestions (especially on procedural details)? --Nanshu (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/U (that said, don't use such pejorative rhetoric there, or you won't get far) the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  I raised the edits in question on the Japanese WikiProject's page and another editor agreed that these divisions were not accepted by the linguistic community at large. The primary article on this language family only suggests that there are six when Nanshu created articles on five undiscussed languages. Nanshu has been particularly mad at me whenever I disagree with his edits, and this is frankly nothing new. He did not have to come here to this board first when he could have responded to the discussion at WT:JAPAN about his very issue. I see no such attempt. I will be restoring the articles to the versions prior to Nanshu's vast and u discussed changes, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Nanshu has also been warned in the past over his unnecessary attacks against me whenever I dispute his expertise on these topics. While I cannot easily access these threads in the notice board archives right this second,mother can be found. In fact, he was blocked earlier this year for disregarding the warnings he was given for his comments about me. He has called me a disaster at the langauges WikiProject already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  The previous thread is here which includes a warning from Atama, which resulted in a block in May of this year. Nanshu's comments at WT:LANG include claiming "Ryulong sees Wikipedia quite differently from us", has the gem that I am suffering from "Knowledgelessness (or simply ignorance)", "Unteachability and unwillingness to cooperate", claiming I am owning these pages, and referring to me as a "disaster". Atama specifically warned Nanshu that he was not to talk down to me as if he was a teacher and I was his failing student, and this is exactly what Nanshu has done, yet again. He may be a self proclaimed expert in these dying languages, but he cannot work with others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  I think the real problem is Nanshu's dramaticism. The whole "this is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen" thing, and his acting like some sort of victim of abuse should be evidence of that. He insults Ryulong's competence at WT:LANG multiple times, which he has been blocked for in the past. He has made no attempt at discussion whatsoever, only his complaints here and at WP Languages. He can't deal with criticism and refuses to coöperate with anyone who opposes his views. I will also say that this AN/I post would be about me, or anyone for that matter, had I/someone else had reverted his edits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Also see this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The various languages for which User:Nanshu created articles (Toku-No-Shima, Yoron, Oki-No-Erabu) are listed as such, i.e. listed as languages, in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, published by Oxford University Press – definitely not a fringe publisher. The IEOL also points out that these languages have no mutual intelligibility with Kunigami, to which Ryulong has redirected them, so I think Ryulong is on shaky ground here content-wise – at any rate this is not a matter that is clear-cut enough for an admin to ride roughshod over a contributor who has invested quite a bit of work to expand content in this area. Andreas JN466 05:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that there are more sources that say there are only six languages in the chain, because traditionally each island claims to have its own language due to isolation and areas of mutual unintelligibility. There is very little coverage of the languages Nanshu made pages for anywhere online, and this is under more discussion at the langauges project. Nanshu simply has a history with me where he sees me as inferior to him in his knowledge on this subject and finds anything I do a danger.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I believe the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics is quite authoritative. [57] (What content can be found online is really quite immaterial here.) 2. If you simply delete the content he creates, you should not be surprised that he sees you as a danger. Andreas JN466 05:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

all I am aware is that for the past several years we have only acknowledged the existence of 6 languages native to the ryukyu chain, and not the 4 new ones he made pages on that are considered dialects of two others and the content fork he made for the fifth because he disagrees with the name given to the language, which is even in the ISO standard. If there's very little documentation on these languages in general, that means they are not accepted as being separate languages as much as they are even referred to as dialects of each other. I also don't know why he has been repeatedly removing the kanji and kana names of these languages from the articles in question, why he has been insistent in his talking down to me, and his complete abhorrence to attempt to form a consensus, as I had started a discussion on this before he flew in a rage here and at the linguistics project. Nanshu is the problem. My stance in not agreeing that these splits, expansions, and the such based on an extremely small handful of paper sources that for all I know do not even discuss these as separate languages but rather dialects within the larger languages (as he has completely ignored one island's supposed separate language) but rather his personal research that he is posting to Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that "more sources" say there are only six languages. If some reliable sources say there are six, and other reliable sources say there are more, then we can and should produce duly weighted material covering both viewpoints, and make a note of the fact that reliable sources disagree. What we do not do is cover only the majority viewpoint and make wholesale deletions of the minority viewpoint. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The minority view point has only ever been presented by Nanshu in the last 72 hours.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then he's in the wrong too, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. You must stop removing reliably sourced content. If you feel it doesn't represent the majority point of view, either add reliably sourced text giving that point of view, or tag the article with {{NPOV}} or some other maintenance tag so that others are aware of the problem and will take steps to fix it. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources combine Amami (and its Northern & Southern split), Kikai (which Nanshu omitted), and Tokunoshima into one language (UNESCO) and Kunigami (what Nanshu redefined as "Northern Okinawa"), Okinoerabu, and Yoron into a second language (UNESCO, again). Nanshu produced these articles using minimal sourcing, reliable or not, to have an entire page full of the extensive IPA information. All of his articles rely on research performed by one individual years ago which defines all of these as dialects (because that's what the Japanese government considers them all) rather than unique languages. Much of the articles he produced were heavily unsourced, including the new classification systematics he came up with to categorize the several new articles he made to justify his rewrites and splits. All I did was restore status quo on something that was in effect a controversial decision. Just because it involves new articles does not make me any more wrong in my behavior than he has been acting.

And this is exactly how he has reacted to me adding information on other languages that he deems that I am a dunce in, such as the dispute over whether or not Hokkaido had a name in Ainu as seen here, the dispute over the use of ï at Kamuiyaki when I found sources that used "kamwiyaki" instead seen here, and a similar issue over the way to write the origin of the colloquial name of the New Ishigaki Airport as seen here. This is not, as Nanshu cries, an issue with me removing content. It is just Nanshu being unnecessarily combative whenever I challenge him and this needs to be stopped, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, but look – you've simply gone and deleted his articles – articles on languages that are listed in the Oxford University Press International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I think that's more combative than his crying foul. I'd become combative if I were in his position. Andreas JN466 13:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What does it say about the languages in said encyclopedia? Let's have a look. There's barely anything about them, and they're all listed under Japanese rather than independent entries that provide any level of information about the language. Because the majority of sources say that the languages he had created pages for are synonymous with each other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) I linked to the relevant page above. For all of them, it says, "Inherent intelligibility is generally impossible or very difficult with other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese." (Note the phrasing "other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese".) Even if these are considered dialects by some scholars or politicians, there is no problem with having sourced articles about them, where such disagreements about classification can be mentioned. Wikipedia has lots of articles about language dialects, and rightly so, as each dialect has its own characteristics that can be studied and described (see Alemannic German etc.); and if there are sources about these properties that satisfy RS, then I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about them. Andreas JN466 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I only just then saw that there's nothing in the book about them except the statement that there is "generally impossble" mutual intelligibility. This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. Every other source Nanshu exclusively used in the articles describes these as dialects (all Japanese sources do this). I do not see this listing in that encyclopedia (effectively one publication's insistence that Kunigami, Okinoerabu, and Yoron are all separate from each other) as reason enough to combine several sources describing them as "dialects" to produce all of the articles on the languages that Nanshu decided to make after he was bold enough to perform a major expansion on the original articles and call me a disaster and continually talk down to me, an act he was blocked for in the past.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice that Ryulong employs the repeat-a-lie-100-times strategy here. He has never proved that I misrepresent a fringe theory as being mainstream. The meaning of "majority" in his mind is quite different from ours. He only relies on the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger. Just compare UNESCO, Ethnologue and Glottolog. You will see they present drastically different classifications. This inconsistency can be attributed to complicated isoglosses reviewed by Karimata (2000). Recent papers including Pellard (2009) and Lawrence (2011) demonstrate that this problem is unsettled. For a complete list of sources, see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong. Ryulong knows nothing about the research history I outlined. And do not forget the most important question: how does this justify mass removal of content with reliable sources? --Nanshu (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You're presenting something which as far as I can tell from the research I've done, and the consensus that has existed on this site for years, is that you are presenting information which is not accepted by the mainstream. There should be more available on these proposed pages in any language than can be found. Below, WP:BOLD is cited by Rdfox 76. So that means WP:BRD should be followed. You were bold in your creation. I reverted (undid the split, and made pages redirects), and there should then be a civil discussion instead of you using your usual tactics of acting like a high and imghty tenured professor and I'm some student who just doesn't get it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, you say, This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. That's simply demonstrably false. For example, in addition to the highly reputable International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, we have Tomoko Arakaki (28 June 2013). Evidentials in Ryukyuan: the Shuri Variety of Luchuan: A Typological and Theoretical Study of Grammatical Evidentiality. BRILL. p. 7. ISBN 978-90-04-25340-7. This says, The contemporary regional varieties of Luchuan can be divided into two large major groups: Northern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the north, and Southern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the south (Uemura 1992). The Northern group is subcategorised into eight kinds of languages, and the Southern group is further subcategorized into three. The Northern varieties consist of Kikai-jima, North Amami Oshima, South Amami Oshima, Tokunoshima, Okinoerabu, Yoron, North Okinawan, and South Okinawan. The Southern varieties are: Miyako, Yaeyana, and Yonaguni (Uemura 1992[2003]; Shimoji & Pellard 2010). P. Heinrich wrote a book chapter on "The Ryukyuan languages in the 21st century global society", published by the University of the Ryukyus. Etc. The sources do not bear you out. As for the wider issue, firstly Wikipedia should reflect any diversity of opinion on whether these are languages or dialects, and secondly, why should it be improper for Wikipedia to have a well-sourced article on each of them? Sources are available. Andreas JN466 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All of this discussion should be happening at WT:JAPAN, where I first raised the issues of his edits, or WT:LANG where Nanshu also started a thread (that way I can pick apart the fact that he constructed IPA tables from sources that as far as I can tell do not use IPA to describe anything). The fact is that regardless of my own mistakes in not finding sources to support his edits, Nanshu has spent most of his edits in this content dispute personally attacking me. Perhaps I was wrong in reverting everything with the term "fringe theory" but Nanshu has spent as much time arguing that he is right and I am wrong as much as he has been calling my edits an act of violence (twice in this very thread), calling me a disaster and lacking knowledge amongst other attacks (in his thread at WT:LANG). Nanshu is being a drama queen about this all. Ever since he and I began having content disputes, he has failed to assume good faith in every instance. I have complained time and time again about his personal attacks towards me whenever we find ourselves editing the same article. I suffered from his attacks in 2010. It happened again in 2013, and I raised it for discussion when it happened again earlier this year. Nanshu has been warned in the past that he should not be talking to me as an inferior being or a child, and he was blocked for it but because he infrequently edits Wikipedia the block basically served no purpose. The only reason he is editing Wikipedia heavily now is because I dared to challenge his expertise. Why else is he constantly acting as if I killed his father and then shat on the grave?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want Nanshu to dial down the rhetoric, I recommend you lead by example rather than exceeding him. All of this is quite unbecoming. Take a break; you can do better than this. Andreas JN466 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have documented how Nanshu has done nothing but belittle me whenever I happen to get in his way over disagreements over dying Japanese languages. I do not deserve the abuse that he sends my way just because I disagree with his contributions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, note that Ryulong is trying to obscure the point. This is not split/merge stuff. What he is doing is complete removal of content with reliable sources. I don't think there is a way to defend his misconduct. ---Nanshu (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You split up two articles to make 5 new articles, one of which is just a content fork of one of the original articles, and I reverted that split. You don't go to ANI automatically to cry foul.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Might I make a suggestion at this point from an outside non-admin perspective? Wouldn't the simplest solution here, the one that would likely result in the least gnashing of teeth, and the one that would resolve the situation in complete compliance with WP guidelines and policies, be to temporarily restore the articles and then immediately send them to WP:AFD? Do that, and we can get an outside consensus on whether these qualify for separate articles, or should be merged back into the original ones. The delay would also provide some time to determine if there are additional sources supporting the separate articles; remember, there is no deadline, so waiting a couple of weeks for a final resolution won't hurt anyone.

Without digging deeply into the issue, as this is NOT an area I hold any expertise in beyond one semester of Japanese in college--the second aborted when I realized that my mid-30s was too late to try and learn kanji--my personal opinion would be that Nanshu seems to have made a decent case, based on a reliable source; I don't know if I'd necessarily keep them as separate language articles, but at a minimum, I would retain the information in a merge rather than just revert to status quo ante. Ryulong, I understand that there may be past history involved, but even so, "Be Bold" is one of our pillars, and editors should not be chastised for performing major expansions to provide due weight to a reliably sourced opposition view, even if it hasn't been covered on Wikipedia before--PARTICULARLY in that case, actually; new, reliably sourced material should be welcome for examination and editing for weighting purposes. Only items already discarded by consensus as fringe theories, unsourced and controversial material, and items sourced to unreliable sources should be rejected out of hand. (However, this entire paragraph is my personal belief, based on a mildly inclusionist view of policy and the pillars. Either way, I suspect that an AfD would resolve the issue with much less shouting than an ANI...) rdfox 76 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then there's going to be some policy war on what constitutes the notability of a language. And, again, it's not a reliably sourced opposition view. He used Japanese language research papers defining these as "dialects" and their minimal listings in Ethnologue and that Oxford encyclopedia to justify completely renaming the Kunigami language as the "Northern Okinawan language" and produce pages on the other partially intelligible dialects, new pageso n his own personal means toc lassify allo f thepage s he made, and consistently removing any Japanese language text providing the names of the languages from the article without justifying why. I'm all for a discussion, which is why I started one at WT:JAPAN, but Nanshu went over my head to call for me to be banned because he's dramaticizing everything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I feel that by just blanking pages, Ryulong circumvents the normal deletion procedure, where we need a consensus to delete rather than to add. But I also want to ensure in the ANI that mass removal of content with reliable sources would not happen again. If this kind of violence is tolerated, Wikipedia has no future. --Nanshu (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop saying my edits to turn a bunch of pages into redirects is "violence"? This is ridiculous. This is my problem with Nanshu. He is playing the victim over content which isn't actually gone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, Nanshu is objecting to the fact that you've reverted over 40 edits by him over the past three days across a range of articles. That's bound to piss someone off. I've seen milder actions described as wikistalking, bullying and harassment on this page.

In my view, this situation calls for wider input. The suggestion by rdfox 76 above is a good one. I propose we give Nanshu the time to bring the articles to the sourcing standard he would aspire to, and when he's done, let the community assess notability in a well-prepared AfD which right from the beginning presents all the sources used, and any other sources available that may impact notability (one that Nanshu seems to have missed is Noguchi's "Dialect acquisition and code-switching on Yoron Island", published in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics). Andreas JN466 17:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Rdfox 76's proposal is fine. But Nanshu's behavior is not. He can object to the actions I've done without insulting my intelligence by acting as if he is a professor and I am a student he's given a failing grade.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wider input? Ryulong gets what Ryulong wants, if not by hook than by crook. Look at the history of Ultraman, a Japanese TV show that was widely syndicated in the US. The article had a picture of the hero fighting a monster, demonstrating what Ultraman looked like. Ryulong constantly edit warred to have a screenshot of Ultraman replaced by Japanese text from the opening credits, essentially the same as replacing a picture of Superman with the wrod "Superman!" When a long-term compromise was reached using both the image and the opening credit card (still in Japanese, although this is en.wikipedia) he basically vandalized the sceenshot, which was already a cropped, low res image, and made it of unacceptable quality.

At the same time he complained the picture was of low quality, and insisted on my talk page that I upload a screenshot from another episode more to his liking. He then removed the image, and edit warred to have it replaced with a hi-res image of Ultraman stolen from a commercial website that provided no attribution for its provenance. So now the article has meaningless opening credit shots as its main picture, and a hi-res image stolen from a commercial website offering no license for its use in the text. But Ryulong prefers the monster in that picture, so a stolen hi-res pic is fine. (In the meantime my original fair-use screenshot was deleted as an orphan.)

I have a real life, I don't have time to battle this shi..tuff. Users like Ryulong (who's been blocked how many times now?) make it impossible for adults to edit mainspace constructively. I suggest a

• Lengthy Ban by some admin familiar with all the cases against Ryulong on this board. Oh, and BTW, I am no expert, but I happen to have Cambridge's Languages of Japan and various books by Roy Andrew Miller that contradict Ryulong's bizarre assertion of "fringe theory" here. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Medeis is making a mountain out of a mole hill in the content dispute we had at Ultraman where he was constantly upset that the screenshot he took and uploaded to Wikipedia (File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG) was repeatedly taken out of the infobox by other editors in favor of the show's Japanese (and English) title cards, as is standard practice on every other article on television programs. This is documented on the article's talk page at Talk:Ultraman#Why Can't We Have a Title Card at the Top? where another editor made a statement about the article's usage of Medeis's screencap in the infobox rather than the title card. At no point during the dispute was the file he had uploaded ever removed from the article. It was merely moved to a lower position, as seen here. Not to mention that he blanket reverted much of the article to a point he preferred, which included throwing the English title card into the infobox's "title" section and claiming that Japanese text has no place on an article on a Japanese topic. I could also point out Medeis's constant accusations of sockpuppetry whenever someone reverted him, or claimed vandalism (other reverts and other claims unsupported by policy going back several years). And he is really taking my request for a higher quality, but still small sized image as an unnecessary slight. And then when a different editor uploaded a different image to replace the one Medeis uploaded, Medeis began this narrative on the alternative image (File:Ultraman and Zetton in Thankyou, Ultraman.png) that because the uploader found the image online and uploaded it as a fair use image, it somehow counts as "stealing" because the website the image comes from was as he claims a "commercial website" and thus it was not valid fair use (my message to him here). I assume he's making the same statement about the completely different image I found that is in use on the article (File:Ultraman Festival 2013.JPG) because it's a clear photo from a press junket that has been resized rather than the grainy screenshot of a 1960s television show. This is not a reason to ban me. This is a reason to scold Medeis for holding this stupid grudge all because I dared to defy him, much like I dared to defy Nanshu. And "vandalizing the screenshot" when I resized it to comply with the non-free content policy. Please, Medeis. Grow up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And I've admitted my mistake and wrongdoings in regards to reverting Nanshu. This does not need to become a dogpile of more people who I've somehow slighted by daring to edit the same articles as they do and having some knowledge of policy and the topic that contradicts their actions as Medeis has made it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dogpile? He doesn't deny he downgraded the image or edit warred to have it deleted. Again we see Ryulong is a simple liar. He is the one who both insisted on my talk page that I upload some other image he preferred, and he is the one who downgraded the quality of the now deleted image (since the image was deleted after his edit warring, see an admin for its history). Nothing he says can be trusted, look at his block history, he should be banned for his endless disruption. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about a topic ban or a site ban? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a simple request to you, Medeis, to perhaps produce an image of better quality that more clearly depicted Ultraman and a monster he has fought. Anyone reading your talk page can see that. And I did not "downgrade the quality" of anything. I resized the file (an exact copy of this image in its original resolution can be found here) per WP:IMAGERES: "If you believe an image is oversized, either re-upload a new version at the same file location, or tag the image file page with a {{Non-free reduce}} template, which will place it in a maintenance category to be reduced by volunteers...". And I did not "edit war to have it deleted". You were the one edit warring over 3 years time to make sure the file you uploaded was at the top of the article. When the second file was uploaded, I removed it, you restored your file when it was replaced by the other editor, I restored your version, decided the other was better, you began your false accusations of not complying with policy, I reverted, self-reverted, self-reverted again, and then split the difference by uploading a third unrelated file with proper sourcing and attribution that clearly shows the subject of the article. This does not mean I deserve a ban. It means you deserve a trout because for someone who's been on Wikipedia this long, you should know the policies better than you're showing you do in your poor attempt to get me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong is a proven liar whose statements are ingenuous. He's claimed above that he wanted a better quality image of an image whose resolution he himself decreased. There's no question of this, and any admin with access can see the edits--given the image was deleted after Ryulong's edit warring I cannot provide diffs, but anyone familiar with this page is also familiar with Ryulong's endless disruption on every front. The user needs a long term general blocking for his inability to deliberate and act civilly and in good faith, not a topic ban, a general blocking. Read his history and all will be obvious. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  Are you actually reading anything I've said to refute your ridiculous claims? Your screen cap was shit quality. It was blurry. It did not clearly depict the characters in any way and I can prove that with the file that was mirrored on the Ultraman Wikia. I asked you if you could possibly procure a better looking screenshot but also reminded you that it had to be a certain set of dimensions because of the non-free content policy. I do not know why you are so fucking incensed over the fact that I changed the dimensions of the screenshot you uploaded in order to have it properly comply with WP:IMAGESIZE. Now get off your fucking high horse because all I ever fucking did was resize your grainy and poorly timed screenshot and dare to think someone else's discovery elsewhere on the Internet would be a better option even though you wiki lawyered five ways from Sunday any way you could have your version on the article and nothing from anyone else. Someone hat off this off topic garbage from Medeis, please, because it's clear he just will not accept that I know more about the non-free content policy than he does.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to interpret Ryulong's comments logically, but he appears to propose lots of new policies to Wikipedia. For example:

• We can be bold to mass-remove content with reliable sources, without discussion.
• If the title of a paper appears to be at odds with one's ideological agenda ("languages" and "dialects" in our case), it can be removed completely.

Will they be accepted by the community? The answer is obvious. --Nanshu (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And I wonder if Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) still endorses Ryulong's mass removal of content with reliable sources. --Nanshu (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• My advice would be bring some of the disputed reliable source to WP:RSN. If they are deemed reliable by others who are uninvolved then I see no reason why the content should stay removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The point here is mass removal. Actually, I posted a list of sources I cited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong and wait Ryulong to pinpoint the reason why each of them must be removed completely. If he would have done this, I would have gone to WP:RSN. --Nanshu (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do. Mass does not equal total. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Then help Ryulong. He has so many things to done to defend mass removal. --Nanshu (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

your sources for hese pages were minimal in content and context (some comprise one or two pages at times) and you seemed to be making much more out of 6 pages of Japanese text per subject than seemed possible. Not to mention that you cherry picked sources to prove that these dialects, as considered by the sources you gleaned and other existing sources, are languages unto themselves. Everything you wrote contradicts other articles on the project, and you still never answered me as to why you removed シマユムタ and ヤンバルクトゥーバ from the articles, completely renamed the Kunigami language into the Northern Okinawa language, and completely ignored the Kikaijima language. And additionally why you have constantly made ad hominem attacks whenever I dare contest something you've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming a typical Ryulong thread. Extremely long but no substance. He keeps replying. It does not matter to him however pointless his comments are. He is just waiting people to get fed up. Unfortunately, this strategy is proven to be very effective. After all, we are volunteers. Life is short and we can use our limited free time better. This is done at the cost of the devastation of the community. It's clearly harmful to Wikipedia's development. I ask for you patience. This strategy shouldn't work any more.

The point is simple from the very beginning. Ryulong mass-removed content with reliable sources, without discussion. He fails to defend his action. And judging from his comments here, it is highly likely that he will do this kind of disruptive editing again. We need effective measures to prevent this from happening. --Nanshu (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because whenever someone raises a thread against me on this board it is always for a trivial reason that outweighs the policy violations perpetrated by the original poster. There is also a growing consensus at WT:LANG that supports my actions due to the fact that there is nothing out there that supports creating separate articles for these 3 dialects, completely renaming a language/dialect, and making up your own personal interpretation of the language families that contradict every other article on Wikipedia on the subject and the mainstream theories.

Nanshu, you keep saying I'm violent, a waste of time, devastating the community, etc. Stop it. I am tired of it. You have been berating me and talking down to me since at least 2011 when I dared to add "Aynu Mosir" to Hokkaido and it has colored every single conversation we have had since. You did not bother to participate in any of the conversations that had been started. You automatically cried "violence" and brought this to ANI. You've clearly not learned anything. You are not superior to me. I am not superior to you. We are equals on this website and perhaps it is your behavior that is the issue. I don't think I've ever seen you participate in any discussion that hasn't been made for the express purpose of getting rid of whatever I might have contributed to the project in the area of these dead and dying languages of the Japanese archipelago, and constantly rehashing arguments after you've disappeared for months and the conversation either came to a decision without you or just died on its own. No one should have to deal with someone as obstinant as you.

And it's not my fault Medeis decided to open up his own old wounds and cry foul over a deleted fair use image he uploaded that he thinks was vandalized when I made it 50% smaller.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for quoting, but I just remembered something after reading this:

• "never answered me as to why you removed シマユムタ and ヤンバルクトゥーバ from the articles, completely renamed the Kunigami language into the Northern Okinawa language, and completely ignored the Kikaijima language".

Nanshu has done this specifically before, where he went through many of the towns and villages of Okinawa Prefecture and removed some of the native names of the settlements[58][59][60], while leaving others alone[61][62]. He then ignored my demands for a reason for his actions[63]. This is obviously a pattern. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. Unless you explain how this justifies mass removal of content with reliable sources, you are dodging the most important question.
• Unsourced. Ryulong's unsourced claims are unverifiable.
• Covered by the "Folk terminology" sections in a much better way (with at least 8 reliable sources, accent information whenever available, etc).

--Nanshu (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your bold actions to split up two articles onto all of these content forks that your claiming have reliable sources, despite the fact there is no established consensus on Wikipedia or in the linguistic community for the terminology and divisions you employed. I hoped that by restoring things to as they were it would foster a civil discussion on the merits of your system, but your behavior makes that difficult.

What unsourced claims? Because I have sources. You just constantly reject them because you think I'm inferior to you.

You did nothing of the sort in the edits that Sturmgewehr88 addresses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Because he is not getting the desired results here or at the linguistics project, Nanshu is making baseless claims in an unprecedented attempt to discredit my opinion on the topic. He has accused me of being some sort of political activist violation WP:Advocacy because I think one language classification is better than the one he produced on all of the articles he's angry at me for reverting him on. This has got to stop. Nanshu cannot edit this project collaboratively if this is how he reacts to every single disagreement he has, as I have shown throughout the larger thread above in other diffs and conversations (more like berating lectures) I have had with him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is doing an all-or-nothing game. He thinks he has a right to keep Wikipedia in the state of nothing unless he agrees to expand. This is not the way Wikipedia works. Admitting that mass removal of content with reliable sources (instead of merger, for example) was a mistake is the first step to depart from nothing. The most important question is left unanswered even though this thread is getting painfully long. It's clear who cannot collaborate with others. --Nanshu (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"WP:BULLDOZERING" of article / Possible Editor Stability Issue Issue with Editor Actions Effecting Stability of Page

The article 2014 military intervention against ISIS is already a contentious article, however, Legacypac, who has recently come off a 1-year topic ban on WP:BLP, has taken an extremely disruptive sense of ownership over it, making substantial, unilateral changes - including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) - while discussions are ongoing or after consensus has been achieved. The article requires careful editing, and a slow and methodical approach. But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade. (I'm sorry for that colorful metaphor, however, that's the most appropriate way to describe what has recently occurred succinctly.) A very small sample (of many examples of page moves and snow closes he's imposed that had to be undone) -

- On 6OCT, with no warning, he moved the entire page to "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" [64] even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before and was tracking a majority of "oppose" !votes to said move.

- On 2OCT he unilaterally moved the page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (see: [65]) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: [[66]]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action. Another editor had to undo it.

- On 5OCT, the same day a consensus discussion had closed regarding the order of nations in the Infobox, he - again unilaterally - changed the order of said nations to break consensus. His excuse, as always, was that it was "messed up" and he had to take immediate action, though he has been told it is not needed for him to assume "emergency powers" to make what he feels are "urgent" edits. The ordering/reordering of nations is a time consuming process and this behavior is supremely disruptive for those of us already putting hours into this article to see it trashed sans discussion in one fell swoop.

- On 4OCT he unilaterally and without discussion blanked the page Siege of Kobane, Syria with the note "kill messed-up page." Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content. [67]

- He, again unilaterally, has started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL" throughout 2014 military intervention against ISIS. But he's done it in such a sloppy way that we now have both terms being used interchangeably throughout.

- He repeatedly tells people who question these edits to "AGF" and repeatedly files frivolous ANIs asking for people to be topic banned. I use the term "frivolous" objectively - I was among those he filed an ANI against and it tracked 10 editor comments; only he and one other editor !voting in support of said ban.

Request: There is a fine "partisan" balance in these articles and the "side" on which LP has aligned himself (who, with the exception of LP, are cooperative and interested in consensus building) will most certainly oppose any action against him as this would disrupt said balance. So, I'm not asking for any "sanctions." What we would appreciate much more than that is an uninvolved admin simply doing a drive-by on the article's talk page for the next couple days. I know it's a lot to ask but I think it's more productive than bans or blocks. DocumentError (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The continual attacks and the editors own hostility and obvious bias speak for themselves. I already responded to most of these accusations in an ANi against DocumentError and on the talk page points 33-39. None of them have any substance. For example, the consensus dealt very clearly with the American-led coalition, but now DocumentError expands it to mean all parties - seems like a straight up intentional misrepresentation about me. I doubt I'll want to add much else here. Legacypac (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Telling you to "chill out" is not "hostility" but I apologize if you took it that way. We've tried everything from begging to bargaining with you in an effort to get you to discuss before editing, particularly the major edits that you specialize in (such as renaming every instance of ISIS to ISIL [which has to be painstakingly, manually, undone] or repeatedly moving entire pages). If I resort to California surfer talk, please construe it as total and complete desperation, not hostility. DocumentError (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we just have a conversation a few days ago in which you repeatedly cited the essay WP:CALMDOWN? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaping straight to the conclusion that Legacypac is "unstable" seems like a stretch. It looks like Legacypac has taken WP:BOLD to heart maybe more than is wise. These are contentious topics where nearly every article includes at least one heated discussion over how to present content. Legacypac should probably slow down and attempt to reach a written consensus before taking major actions like page moves and massive content reorgs. I don't see evidence of edit warrior behavior, but it's pretty easy to end up violating WP:1RR when you are making large edits without discussion, and it certainly can be disruptive. I will note that I agree with Legacypac's interpretation of the consensus on the alphabetical infobox ordering; it certainly wasn't my intent in voting yes for Assyrian militias to be listed above major players in the intervention, and I'm not sure how the consensus there could have been construed as such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I finally realize DocError must have thought everyone agreed with his strictly alphabetical position, while I think no one else agreed to that. As per the RfC question i understood we talking about groups within the American group. I guess he was the one that put the bell in such a strange order, while I assumed he had just reordered just the American led group as the rest of the editors agreed. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, not an opportunity to be insulted and maligned by a hound. I was starting to think that DocumentError was becoming quite reasonable dealing with the stupid Au vs Uk fight others engaged in but this AM I see i was mistaken. Note that the rest of his accusations here are baseless, just like the alphabetical issue. Spending so much time on this page I learned you can say pretty much anything without penalty including swearing but I will abstain. Dont want anyone else to think me unstable. As for my rework of the article the great thing about wikipedia is that anything can easily be changed so if any other editor has constructive criticism or edits bring it on. I did not revert anyone and i never even looked at who wrote what, just took a wholistic view of the article and related articles to best serve the reader. While I dont own the article I was feeling rrally good about all my hard work until someone said a bunch of stuff a lot harsher than 'calm down'. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about: "bring it on" is just not a constructive approach when dealing with a very delicate, emotional article. The edits you are making are so large that it is very difficult to undo them, though we have been patiently doing that anyway. Your refusal to discuss anything, instead simply yelling "Bring it on!" just isn't working anymore. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a serious misread of what Legacypac said: "if any other editor has constructive criticism or edits bring it on". Legacypac can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like he's merely noting that it's a collaborative environment and welcoming other editors to contribute or critique -- not daring them to challenge him or threatening to edit-war or anything like that. (That being said, his comments downthread are entirely less nuanced.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. My interpretation may have been colored by his comments downthread and/or elsewhere. I apologize if I misread his intention with "bring it on." DocumentError (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Kudzu1. That's not how I interpreted it when I closed it so we're both on the same page. However, I also don't think anyone thought we should relabel the sections to lump all non-U.S. actors into a single miscellaneous catchall category. That was never discussed and is a significant break from status quo. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me make something very clear. DocumentError keeps making up stories about me. Top of the section he accuses me of moving the page multiple times. Absolute bullshit. I moved it one time last night shortly after an uninvolved editor moved the page to something that would never get consensus. I only moved it back to the very closest available name.

• Long standing name: 2014 military intervention against ISIS
• new undiscussed name by another editor: Military intervention against the Islamic State
• the name I choose because I could not revert: 2014 military intervention against ISIL.

I would not have even made the move except to to get back to 32/33 characters of the long standing name so any future renames could be properly discussed. But why do I need to defend my actions? Can I simple pretend he does not exist? He seems to be here to wage war with various editors not build anything. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But why do I need to defend my actions? You don't. No one has asked for your banning or blocking. I have asked for a daily admin drive-by for the next few days due to a pattern of very aberrant and unusual behavior you're exhibiting. If you don't plan on doing anything highly unconventional in that time you don't need to "defend" yourself. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Can you wait for the RfC to finish before moving the article (or not)? – Epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Forget the RfC, which should not've been opened. There is a long-standing RM discussion that has been ongoing on the talk page. Until that is closed, there should be no more discussion of the title outside of that discussion. Please consolidate. RGloucester — ☎ 01:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the two discussions should be consolidated. We have groups of editors !voting in two different sections on the same thing. DocumentError (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To add fuel to the fire, Legacypac, moments ago, just unilaterally closed the discussion [68], declaring an older, seemingly abandoned, RfC on this topic to have "reached consensus" (after an IP editor injected a "support" !vote to seal it) and thereby essentially voiding the !votes of Epicgenius, Empire of War and others who commented on the most current RfC instead of the old one. He then declared our requests for him to stop and communicate prior to unilaterally barreling through the article to be "personal attacks" and unilaterally closed that discussion, as well. [69]. Legacypac, once again, you do not own this article - please just stop and communicate with the other editors before making page moves, major changes, and closing discussions. DocumentError (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

He was right to close the "RfC", as it wasn't really an RfC. The correct thing to do, DocumentError, is to direct those people to the requested move section, so that they can comment there. That way we'll have a nice consolidated discussion. I've added a notice to the bottom of the talk page as such. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, RGloucester. The problem is, the other move section was also closed almost immediately after he shut-down the "RfC." So directing people to a closed discussion is like directing voters to a polling place the day after election day. Shouldn't we have given Epicgenius, Empire of War, etc. a day or two to log-in and receive the alert that they need to move their !votes to the "consolidated" RfC before it was closed? (In fact, had they voted, the RfC wouldn't have been closeable as it would no longer have had consensus.)

I'm extremely concerned with how many editors are being shoved out of the decisionmaking process about this page due to a pattern of rapid and un-discussed RfC closings and structural changes. The problem becomes doubly concerning due to the fact all the editors being sidelined have the same editorial perspective. This will only result in continued ill-will, drama, and turf wars which I know neither you nor I want. (By way of comparison, I have a discussion point [non-RfC] right now that has been open for 24 hours and I'm the only person who has !voted. On the precedent that's being set, in another 24 hours I suppose I could declare consensus, close it, and start editing the page, but there's no way I would ever think about doing that and I can predict the hysteria that would result if I did. I think those of us on the "non-U.S." side in the page are hoping a similar level of respect can be extended to our thoughts and opinions.) DocumentError (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Separate Issue

Requested Admin Action: If DocumentError can't prove each of these 5 BS accusations here and now I want him banned. On second thought I want the Admins to take whatever action they think is appropriate - but I reserve the right to ignore the User completely and expect full immunity from any action he brings against me in the future. If he can prove these 5 points to the satisfaction of 3 different Admins Iand no he can't shop unlimited Admins until he gets 3) I'll take a 90 ban myself.
1. He falsely accuses me of including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) Show us the diffs to prove it. Yes yesterday I moved the article back (1 letter off) from a new title that DocumentError stated he does not like on talk. 2. He accuses me of going against consensus on the Belligerents order, but we have now established that he rearranged the Belligerents in a way that went against the consensus. Show us the diff for my revision and the consensus I breached. I'll submit what I did to any Admin to review. 3. He said (here and on talk) that "But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade." That sounds like loony behavior - and now I see he is backpedaling with a false apology. Show us diffs that are anything like what he describes. 4. He claims I yelled "bring it on!". (I really don't remember saying anything like that) Please show us the diff where I told him anything like that. 5. He says there are many examples of snow closes and page moves that had to be undone. Other then two snow closes a long time ago that were undone on a technicality (I had never tried a snow close before, still learning, and the editor that undid agreed it was snow) can he provide even 1 diff of the "many" snow closes that had to be undone. We either have community standards here we follow or its a free for all slander and disruption fest. I'm curious to see which it is. I'll check back on this in a few days. (edited for clarity)Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely pushing your luck here - asking for a WP:BAN? Seriously, stop digging your own hole and get along the panda ₯’ 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean your response to Epicgenius question above Can you wait for the RfC to finish before moving the article (or not)? is no? Again, this is what we're discussing. You are politely asked to stop unconstructive editing and instead of slowing down to discuss our concerns you become extremely excited and agitated. I think the only diff you've asked for that I haven't already provided is "Bring it on" - here is is: [70]. The rest are above, just slow down, and read them if needed. No one is asking for your banning or blocking; please read with an open mind what the community is saying about your most recent disruptive edits here and kindly consider adjusting your behavior. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius I have no interest in moving the article. If someone with more power than me can move the article back to the long standing title I will not complain one bit. Look this is not fun. That is my point. I ask other editors to think how they would feel if they were treated the way I am being treated and had these things said about them. Are each of you stable? Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good grief. If there is any administrative action that can or should even be contemplated in this entire clusterfuck of a dispute, it's an WP:IBAN. There is no case for a topic ban, there is no case for an actual ban, and the only case for even a temporary block in either direction (which I still think would be draconian) is this persistent, relentless WP:BATTLE and WP:HOUND activity that may have originated with nominator, but is now clearly being mirrored by Legacypac. Can we be done with this -- or at least done with blowing this up all over admin noticeboards and article Talk pages? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to simply ignore all communication or actions by the nominator. Life's too short to let such people ruin your day. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 00:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Possible Editor Stability Issue". Uhm...if there is nothing more to do here....boomerang the OP for a blatant violation of NPA. Suggest a 3 day block. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I don't mean "editor stability" as in "a crazy editor" I mean "stability" as in an editor's aberrant actions destabilizing the article; the aforementioned mid-discussion page moves, etc. Poor word choice on my part, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Mark Miller. DocumentError (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we're discussing. The fact you've been ignoring all communication from every editor; not just myself but all of us. The page has become incredibly unstable because of the unilateral, major edits you are making including moving the title, and renaming ISIS to ISIL throughout, while acting in a highly unusual way toward editors who attempt to engage or invite you into discussion. DocumentError (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError is correct, Legacypac did not have consensus to change the title of the page.--Empire of War (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a content issue. Either strike out the accusation or be in violation of NPA. Seriously. This isn't brain surgery.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Than you (edit after the fact) to DocumentError for the change!.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I also want to thank DocumentError for removing this personal attack on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIL: [71] I'm not sure the edit summary does it justice, but the de-escalation is nonetheless appreciated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, you need to stop right now. You're following LP's M.O. of wolf-yelling about non-existent personal attacks when people communicate directly and bluntly about disruptive behavior. I edited my remark because it wasn't concise, not because it was a PA. If you have any further issues, bring them up on my Talk page. Don't derail this thread which is already too long. DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Was your intention not to de-escalate when you removed the part of your comment where you issued Legacypac an ultimatum and warned he would be "riding into the sunset" if he didn't self-revert? I took it as an attempt to de-escalate, but your reaction is unexpected. Sorry if it was misconstrued. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I've responded on your Talk page. DocumentError (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending Legacypac's move to the new title, which obviously should not have been done while the move request was underway, but in the interest of context, it should be noted that he was moving the page from a different title to which the page was moved, without discussion, while the debate was in progress. IIRC, he should have been able to move the page back, as I don't think 2014 military intervention against ISIS was salted by the single undiscussed move, but there may be technical issues there that I am unaware of. Either way, he should have requested administrative assistance if he was unable to fix the title himself, rather than making a contentious move. But that's a mistake -- not evidence of "instability", IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The page is very unstable - he didn't just make the undiscussed move, he then went through and made 23 manual changes of "ISIS" to "ISIL." Again, all while a consensus discussion was going on trending in opposition to such a change and over the strenuous objections of half-a-dozen other editors. And it's not just this time or this one article. He did the same thing with Iranian-led intervention in Iraq and other places. Again, no on is asking for a ban or block. We are asking for an admin to join the discussion as he is non-communicative with his peer editors. DocumentError (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think changing one letter in an acronym that is already inconsistent in its usage throughout Wikipedia is "very unstable". I also don't see evidence of him being "non-communicative"; on the contrary, he has been posting frequently on the Talk page and has provided rationales for his editing. Should he have waited for the results of the discussion to shake out -- yes. And another editor would be within his or her right to revert the undiscussed ISIL/ISIS changes. But I think this has been blown out of proportion. It seems like this is being handled adequately by WP:BRD without the need for yet another AN/I report and this ridiculous back-and-forth sniping between the two of you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, just to note: there was a discussion on this matter at the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant talk page, which favoured using "ISIL" for consistency. It would be absurd to have a separate usages at each of these articles. Perhaps he merely thought he was enacting consistency? If so, bravo. This mess is quite a mess, and it's about time it got mopped up. Either way, no one should be moving this page whilst a move discussion is ongoing on the talk page. It'd be nice if some administrators came in and began to moderate the large amounts of vitriol and nonsense edit warring on both sides. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, RGloucester. DocumentError (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, slap my ass and call me Betsy, because it looks like all three of us agree on this. How about that for a sensible path forward? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Betsy"! *Smack!* ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's great we all agree. Not to be a buzzkill, but just to clarify what we are agreeing on, we agree that we would like to have an admin or two hang out on the page for awhile (as per my OP), is that correct? (Of course, that's easier said then done, since admins seem to an endangered species of late.) DocumentError (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see how it goes without an admin if we all make a better effort to communicate, AGF, and not participate in this WP:BATTLE stuff on AN/I and other noticeboards. That goes for all of us who are involved here, without prejudice. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I think we don't all agree then. But that's okay. DocumentError (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I am against having an admin around to keep things on track if necessary; I am generally a proponent of active observation, at least, of contentious pages and issues by uninvolved admins. But I don't like the way that this AN/I report is presented, suggesting that the admin should specifically target one editor for scrutiny, and I don't think we are helpless to resolve our own disputes and issues without the involvement of an admin. Hopefully that at least brings us close to being on the same page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I never asked for an admin to come by and scrutinize an editor. That's not what "drive-by" means. I presented the most current reason we needed an admin, and then requested one. Had I simply said "hey admin, come sit on this page!" they first question would have been "why should I?" If you want to get in the last word on this, go ahead, I think the case for observation has been made by RG, EG, EoW, and myself so I have no more input. The only thing I'll ask is you try not to offer an interpretation of what I said that gives it a sinister subtext. DocumentError (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Re page move. I did try to revert the uninvolved editors page move but could not. The last page move I tried to fix was blocked by the old page name occupying the space (and still is). I assure you there was no intent to override concensus on the trivial matter of ISIS vs ISIL in the page name. As for editors who make broad based personal attacks then edit them out after there have been responses to improve their image... that stinks of something of trying to make the other edit look like he is over reacting. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move sequence

It is the huge number of moves, page request to move, discussions about moves that causing a lot of problems and instability, this in turn if fuelling feelings of bad faith. This mess is a good example of this.

The page move sequence is a bit complicated but AFAICT this is what happened. There was an outstanding page move request on the article's talk page:

• 2014 military intervention against ISIS → 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

opened by user:Kudzu1 at 04:27, 25 September 2014.

• User:PleaseConsider unilaterally moved the page from 2014 military intervention against ISIS to Military intervention against Islamic State at 01:10, 6 October 2014 with the comment "ISIS officially announced themselves as the Islamic State; its unconfirmed whether the operation is just a year long conflict. Mos..."
• user:Legacypac unilaterally moved the page from Military intervention against Islamic State to 2014 military intervention against ISIL at 05:41, 6 October 2014 with the comment "almost exactly like stable title, but matches WP name for org. Last move was completely undiscussed and against results of previous mov..."
• I closed the RM at 20:21, 7 October 2014‎ and moved 2014 military intervention against ISIL to 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at 20:27, 7 October 2014‎ with the comment "Revert an inapropriate move made in the middle of an RM about the page name"

As I see the move history. User:PleaseConsider should not have moved the page while there was an ongoing RM. user:Legacypac should not have moved the page to yet another title (the correct procedure is outlined at WP:RM#Undiscussed moves) which is move it back to the original title or ask for a technical move at RM if there is a technical reason why a non-admin can not revert the move.

user:Legacypac the move discussion you initiated here was out of order for two reasons. All controversial moves should be discussed using the WP:RM procedure. You must not open another RM when there is one currently open on a talk page (apart from anything else it confuses the bot), and it can potentially confuse editors which means that one or both RMs my reach different conclusions because not all editors participate in both conversations. The correct procedure is to suggest the alternatives within the single RM and see if one of the alternative names gain a wider consensus.

user:DocumentError at the start of this long ANI section you wrote

"- On 6OCT, with no warning, he moved the entire page to "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" [72] even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before and was tracking a majority of "oppose" !votes to said move."

It seems to me that you were unaware that there was an open WP:RM higher up the talk page so the move discussion you link to was inappropriate (given the earlier still open RM), and that you were unaware that there had been another page move only four hours before user:Legacypac moved the page. Given this new information do you wish to alter anything you have written about the page move that user:Legacypac made? -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for the effort User:PBS. I've learned quite a bit about page move procedure and RfC (or so called "RfC's") in the last few days. There are obvious differences between the well thought out policy and the actual chaotic practice I've observed here, and I'm trying to learn how to use the official tools. I sincerely apologize for my evident policy breaches, and I assure everyone they were only in good faith. Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS. With respect to 2014 military intervention against ISIS, I'll just say that I think the fact the earlier discussion was shuttered immediately after the second discussion was closed - without alert given to the people who had registered an opinion only in the second discussion - was unfortunate. Had Epicgenius, Empire of War, etc., been given more than a few minutes warning to move their !votes before closure was declared by an involved editor, there would not have been a close consensus. I AGF that !vote-rigging was not the reason the fast sequence of closures were made but merely reflect that, in a highly charged atmosphere, great caution and deliberation is always preferable to WP:BOLD closures and edits.

In the separate case of 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq it appears [73] there was only one discussion occurring when the unilateral decision to move the page was made over the strenuous objections of the majority in that discussion. [74]. DocumentError (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing on Marketplace Fairness Act and Alliance for Main Street Fairness

Marketplace Fairness Act and Alliance for Main Street Fairness are both the subject of an ongoing ideological war between what seems to be PR staff or people otherwise interested in swaying the debate. This has been going on since April, and continues to today. Note: the diffs provided here generally encompass a number of edits each, in some cases including edits by unrelated editors; though the diffs I am providing represent the actions of each discussed editor, please check page histories for exact per-editor diffs.

On one side, we have Abouttheinternet. Aboutheinternet appears to feel very strongly, or at least be here to support very strongly, the notion that The Marketplace Fairness Act should not be passed, and that the Alliance for Main Street Fairness is wrong. Here is Marketplace Fairness Act before they came on the scene; here it is afterward. Similarly, here are the changes Abouttheinternet has introduced into Alliance for Main Street Fairness.

On the other hand, NotYourAverageRetailer appears to feel very strongly, or at least be here to support very strongly, the notion that the Marketplace Fairness Act should be passed, and that the Alliance for Main Street Fairness is fighting the good fight. Here is their first foray into Marketplace Fairness Act; here is their take on the Alliance for Main Street Fairness.

That we have two people trying to sway these articles two ways is problematic enough; however, in the process the users are reverting each other as well as uninvolved editors, leaving the articles in a constant state of see-saw from one POV to the other. For instance, from Marketplace Fairness Act's history: NotYourAverageRetailer edits, Abouttheinternet reverses the POV, NotYourAverageRetailer flips that back, is reverted by an uninvolved editor, tries again, is reverted by an uninvolved editor, I significantly prune both POVs from the article, Abouttheinternet pops back to insert a POV video, and NotYourAverageRetailer circles back around to make sure their POV is sufficiently represented. A similar effect has taken place on Alliance for Main Street Fairness, though in that case with NotYourAverageRetailer edit warring mostly with uninvolved editors to press his/her POV.

Previous accounts, now inactive, have also been involved in the warfare on these articles: Larrytheordinarydragon and White 720 spent months going back and forth repeatedly on Alliance for Main Street Fairness; Joedoe6 and Julio1297 similarly played a POV drama earlier this year; and Ollodart has been accused (see edit summary) of POV spamming for an ideological group.

NotYourAverageRetailer has been warned repeatedly about their POV pushing this/last month; Abouttheinternet, who was inactive between July and yesterday, has not. Nevertheless, I don't feel that it's in the encyclopedia's best interests that either of these editors - or any of the older POV pushers - be allowed to continue to push their POVs on Wikipedia articles, and I would like the community to put some remedies in place to stop these editors, protect these articles, or all of the above. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree; Marketplace Fairness Act in particular is kind of a mess. I had actually just suggested on the talk page that the 'Supporters' and 'Opponents' sections should be significantly reduced or even deleted over NPOV and undue weight concerns. As I said there, I don't think the article needs a paragraph for every person and organisation that has ever issued a statement about the subject legislation, and it currently has all those paragraphs because NotYourAverageRetailer and Abouttheinternet are both trying to prop up their respective POVs. Anyway, I'm just chiming in with my agreement here, for what it's worth. Neither user seems to be here for anything beyond their own self interest is how it looks to me. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the mess of the article, the community could place it on Article Probation per WP:GS and drop the bomb on anyone who keeps messing about in the article. Also, it might be worth considering a 1RR restriction for everyone who has been editing the article. Blackmane (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Alliance article is just a WP:COATRACK of the Mainstreet article and a nonsensical one at that. The Mainstreet article is about a single federal law and should and does end there. The Alliance article goes into various state laws which not even quoting discussions about the group itself other than the fact that it uses the term "Main Street" for the group and for the laws. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• As a side note, the POV pushing seems sufficiently clear to me that if I had come across it as an uninvolved admin, I would have been comfortable blocking at least the user who had been repeatedly warned; however, since I've edited the articles more than once to try to de-POV them, and warned the editor, I'm too involved to take any admin action here. That's why I brought this to ANI, hoping that some uninvolved editors would be able to work on the articles or handle the editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tagteam POV & TE on Ami Bera

Mark Miller and CFredkin are tagteam edit-warring on Ami Bera. They are working together to circumvent 3RR and manipulating a reliably sourced quote on the flimsy grounds of undue - while engaging in NPOV & TE - and ignoring the warning that their edits are also vios of WP:MOSQUOTE. Kindly address this. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks more like you're trying to insert WP:PEACOCK language. The talk page is handling it fine but feel free to review Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests as it's just a content issue now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hatting User:Jeppiz disruptively shopping his complaints to multiple threads/pages including this one which has zilch do with his gripe.--v/r - TP 20:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment I would agree, Mark Miller is a (Redacted). On this page [75] he gladly deletes nine sources after having discussed only three of them. Even after I made it clear to him that there was no consensus and urged him to engage with other users, he keeps reverting to delete content (most of which he never even discussed) declaring he doesn't need consensus [76], [77], [78]. So I would agree that Mark Miller clearly isn't here to work with others, and is happy to edit war to push the WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC) I'm still waiting for Jeppiz to "engage" and stop ranting and name calling in violation of NPA. But I can wait.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC) I've provided diffs of your edit warring, there's no name calling in that. I've tried to engage, your response what in effect that you're such an "experience editor" that you are above "the boggled down talk pages". And editor who believes himself to be so "experienced" that he doesn't need to bother with "boggled down talk pages" is not helping Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC) LOL! I told you that BRD is to be used by experienced editors (and compared to your less than 3500 edits, I feel confident that my 38,298 edits at least give me some leeway to refer to myself as "experienced) and that BRD is for when the talk page becomes bogged down. Then you called me a "super editor" and basically mocked me among your other personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC) I did notice you didn't mention all of your own recent edits were nothing but reverts...but I can understand you not wanting to point that out.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Now both Mark Miller and CFredkin are also flagrantly violating 3RR AND WP:MOSQUOTE. Please review. If necessary, a block, and possibly even a topic ban, should be seriously considered. It appears that other editors have also had unnecessarily unpleasant encounters with them because of their tactics and absolute refusal to follow rules or guidelines - unless of course, for when those rules suit them, or they can distort them to justify their disruptive and tendentious editing. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to apologize to Mark Miller, and indirectly to CFredkin for having made a premature and incorrect comment here. Looking at it more in detail, I see absolutely no indication of the two of them edit warring in team, quite the opposite, they have very different user histories, and both of them are serious users. My comment is already hatted but I withdraw it all the same, and feel quite embarrassed over having gotten caught up in the heat.Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• The edit warring has stopped and any discussion has moved to the talk page so I think it's resolved at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of RFC in violation of WP:TALK

I object to User:Jytdog's deletion of my RFC claiming that he didn't like either of the two versions being asked about, when one of them was his, and demanding that I "work with others so that the RfC really reflects both sides" after an impasse spanning weeks and several reverts. His comment that the listed sources "don't even include some of the best sources, like the Finkel review" should have been addressed as a response to the RFC. It refers to one (PMID 24119661) of the many literature reviews which do not reach a conclusion, a point of view which Jytdog apparently prefers, when there are several WP:MEDRS-grade sources which do reach definitive conclusions. Jytdog has demanded that I not use the words "inconclusive" and "conclusive" when referring to such reviews, respectively. EllenCT (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll not comment on whether he was right or wrong in closing. I will say I'm not a fan of pick mine or theirs style RFC's. It's like playing one of those picture games where one picture is slightly altered from the other and you have to find the changes. Typically an RFC will be seeking some of guidance but this seems more like a popularity contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 06:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have worked on this article and in my view this is a tendentiously-worded filing about a tendentiously-worded RfC. Following on from the concerns recently registered here at ANI[79], it seems to me EllenCT is now pushing hard for Wikipedia to state the fracking has been found to be bad for human health, and has been forum shopping to that end at WT:MED[80] and RS/N[81] (and abortively at DRN[82]) - where nobody has agreed with her position. This is because the good sources currently say otherwise: fracking carries a risk of adverse health impacts (sure), but there is no good evidence it actually has done harm. To her end, Ellen has invented two novel categories of source, "conclusive" (ones she thinks can support her view) and "inconclusive" (one which inconveniently state the current scientific position) and seems to think Wikipedia should prefer the former: even then, she is advocating original research to suggest their statements of risk are presented here as findings of harm, or that WP:MEDRS be set aside because it is "more important" to carry the view she prefers.[83] I think this shows a continued unwillingness to grasp that Wikipedia needs to convey neutrally what is stated in reliable sources, and that community consensus on that is not negotiable. This goes hand-in-hand with a quasi-judicial, rhetorical Talk page stance which makes interaction unnecessarily protracted and difficult—which I suspect we shall see more of in this thread. I propose that it would benefit the Project is EllenCT is topic banned from all environmental topics, broadly construed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Jytdog should not have struck out EllenCT's RFC, and doing so is an example of his bad faith and unilateral editing that has so inflamed their interaction. Alexbrn's proposal for a topic ban is beyond the pale, and his characterization of the content dispute is inaccurate. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Totally violates Talk Page Guidelines . If you believe the RFC is worded wrong, say so and as the originator to re-word, but don't delete it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Moderate support. Looking over the article talk page, it's looking like larger issues than just a content dispute and also like WP:BOOMERANG is in play here on EllenCT's part. The recent ANI [84] should have been enough of a warning for EllenCT to stop her disruptive behavior. One of my main concerns when posting that last ANI was that just attempting to interact with EllenCT in these topics requires a great deal of time and energy even at a minimum due to what's appearing to be either WP:COMPETENCE issues in how we deal with scientific sources or purposeful WP:ADVOCACY behavior for a specific POV (disruptive no matter the actual reason). That behavior results in any editor in these topics attempting to engage or help her about our policies and guidelines appear tendentious themselves (and are sometimes actually pushed to feel like they need to be to deal with the behavior as what appears to have happened here). Experiencing this behavior first-hand, I can voice my support for this ban as a potential solution, but I'm more in favor of starting with lesser admin action and ratcheting up if needed to hopefully finally get the point across. If any action is going to be taken against EllenCT, it might be better to to create a subsection below outlining her continuing issues as other editors reading this are probably not going to want to wade through the mess that tends to occur at related talk pages or the drama that seems to ensue whenever her behavior issues are brought up here. That way, we can focus on each editor's behavior specifically as the opposes so far are commenting on Jytdog, while the proposed action by Alexbrn is specifically about EllenCT's behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Responding to the initial post. I did strike the RfC tag. I realize that was not the right thing to do and to be honest I wasn't sure what the right thing to do was, given issues with EllenCT's behavior as described by Alexbrn above and the recent ANI on her behavior mentioned below. I'm sorry I did the wrong thing. I will certainly accept a trout for that. When EllenCT restored the RfC, she also removed my comment on the RfC, which explained the problem. (dif) Also a violation of TPG, so in that regard we are "even" and a pox on both our houses.

The context for the RfC, was that after EllenCT claimed for the Nth time that "well-cited secondary MEDRSs since 2011 claim that fracking is dangerous" to health, I asked her which sources she meant, and she told me. I took about an hour to build a wikitable showing what those sources actually said and whether they complied with MEDRS, trying to reason with her. Instead of directly responding, she launched the malformed (as described by Alexbrn above) RfC out of the blue, without discussion.

We just finished an ANI (see here) about EllenCT's disruptive behavior on another environmental article about pesticides. A topic ban was sought there; it was closed with no consensus but the closer, Drmies wrote "we have no clear consensus on a topic ban, though there are plenty of valid concerns about EllenCT's behavior and temperament, as is demonstrated in this very thread by Ellen's reactions" EllenCT's behavior continues to be full of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, and she just ignores WP:PAG, making up her own rules. That is the most frustrating thing - we cannot resolve disputes because she refuses to ground her arguments and behavior on PAG, even after they are explained to her multiple times. Intransigent. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Jytdog's lapse of judgement is far outweighed by the patience he has had in trying to work with EllenCT's WP:IDHT behavior. Interacting with EllenCT in these topics requires a great deal of time and energy even at a minimum due to very blatant WP:IDHT behavior that is already covered in-depth on the article talk page and the ANI about her behavior listed above. That results in any editor in these topics attempting to engage or help her about our policies in and guidelines appear tendentious themselves. If someone actually thinks this single action of Jytdog's requires admin action, then we'll also need to look at action on the larger behavior issues from EllenCT that lead to this as well. Deleting the RFC tag may not have been the smartest idea, but I'm also not sure how I would have handled the particular forum shopping behavior myself either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Looking over the recent edits at that talk page, EllenCT started an RfC about some content where there are strong disagreements, and formatted the RfC in a way that other editors felt was not fair in how it presented the issues. Jytdog removed the RfC tag, once. He has not subsequently reverted, and he has stated clearly here that he recognizes that it was a mistake to have done so. When EllenCT reverted Jytdog, she not only restored the RfC tag, but deleted Jytdog's comments, so she is at least as much involved in reverting against WP:TPO as he was. As it stands just before I commented here, the RfC is open, and the editor objections to the RfC are visible to editors who will respond to the RfC. Unless, as is unlikely, there is subsequent edit warring over the RfC, the best thing is to let it be, and perhaps open a better-worded RfC, after which there may be consensus to close the existing one. I don't think there is anything for administrators to do here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Strong Oppose Should have just asked for rewording. Also, there my be some meat puppetry going on here and on the page in question. It is a controversial topic with A LOT of money riding on it, which is part of the issue. Stoney1976 (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• An accusation of WP:MEAT is serious indeed; but you are unhelpfully vague. Who is engaged in it and where is the evidence? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring by Mark Miller

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

---

Mark Miller, already reported for edit warring on another article above, is actively edit warring at Historicity of Jesus. The article is highly contested, so editors have engaged in long discussions before Mark Miller swept in to disregard it. His first edit was to remove sourced content based on nine academic sources, despite there being no consensus on the talk page for it [85]. I restored the deleted content, saying that there was no consensus for such a bold removal but Mark Miller immediately reverted [86]. I restored the deleted content (with hindsight I shouldn't have) and informed Mark Miller of WP:BRD, that it was fine for him to first do the bold edit but know when he was aware there was no consensus for it, he should discuss instead. Mark Miller completely ignored in and deleted the content for a third time [87]. He also informed me that he is such an "experienced editor" that he doesn't need to bother with "boggled down talk pages" [88]. Not wanting to edit war, I left it at that. Trying to improve the article in other aspects, I inserted a clarifying sentence that is a consensus version crafted after long discussion among a large number of editors and sourced by the leading scholars in the field. I also explained at the talk page why my argument for the text. Mark Miller again reverted immediately, making it the fourth time in just a few hours that he enforced his preferred version [89]. He did not bother to discuss the changes in the talk page section I had started. Instead he headed straight to page protection to ask for full protection so that nobody can change the version that he unilaterally has imposed four times [90]. There was already a demand for semi-protection after IP-vandalism yesterday, nobody had asked for full protection.
In short Mark Miller has imposed his own version four times by now, he has removed a large amount of sourced content every time, he has explained that he is above talk-pages and he tops his edit warring by asking for full protection for his preferred version. This user is WP:NOTHERE to discuss with others. Incidentally, the same page had been disrupted for weeks by an WP:SPA, "Fearofreprisal" who admitted before being topic banned that he started that SPA to "protect himself". Perhaps it's just a coincidence that Mark Miller turns up for the first time to continue the edit warring right after the SPA is topic-banned, but a sock investigation could be warranted. Regardless of socking or not, Mark Miller's constant deletions of content regardless of what others, his assertion that he is above talk pages and his attempt to gain full protection for his own version (that nobody else shares) is highly disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn Mark and I get a bit intense this morning (morning for me at least), admins have warned us both and rightly so. For my part there is no need for this report to stay opened.Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny how when you demand someone else weigh in...and when they do, and it is not in support of you, you just edit war and start, yet more drama here. I have been patient with you as this is something you clearly have a very personal bias with. I am not a Christian hater, nor am I a supposed "super editor", but you have really been yanking on the rope being provided.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks WP:NPA. I have never said you're a "Christian hater" nor anything remotely similar. Nor have I said "super editor", so please stop putting words in my mouth. The I've pointed out you have inserted the same version four times in just a few hours. I've done it two times, perhaps I should just have done it once but twice is not an offence. Besides, I restored a consensus version with sourced content. What is more, you have not even discussed your latest deletion of a large number of sourced content, you just revert to your own version at sight and then asks for full protection.Jeppiz (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please show that there was an actual personal attack and not just a deflection and mirroring of the defense I have given against your actual violations of WP:NPA. I know asking you to defend your actions is not something you have been able to actually demonstrate yet...but I can wait. Seriously. I can wait because I am still assuming good faith that you are just too biased right now to see that I am not disrupting the article.....you are. I am now bowing out of this discussion as I feel this itself disrupts ANI. A discussion clearly is not going your way at the article talk page. Blowing up here and my replying is just filling up space.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Making insinuations about other users' bias by speculating about their religion is a personal attack. Deflecting the edit warring back at me is weird. You have inserted the same version four times. I've done it twice. I would even say mine was a bit justified as it restored deleted content, but I acknowledge that being right is no excuse which is way I haven't insisted. Your four edits to your preferred version is another matter, and your only provided reason for the latest is to make insinuations about my faith.Jeppiz (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Despite trying to encourage Mark Miller to discuss the content, the user just continues to rant at me. I asked for his reasoning to removing the sentence that was backed up by a large number of scholars, Mark Millers only answer was again to attack me, insinuating I edit because I'm Christian and treating this like my "personal theological discussion board" [91] All of those are ad hominem arguments that have nothing to do with the article. He further tries to make it out as if the discussion is about whether deities exist, which nobody has argued. The whole article is about whether the person Jesus existed. Regardless of personal opinions, we have a number of sources by leading scholars in the field saying clearly, in line with WP:RS/AC that there is academic consensus that he did. Mark Miller deletes those sources, provides no argument except personal attacks and disinformation. It could hardly get any more disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• See above. I really have nothing left to say. --Mark Miller (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So do we break out the wet noodle and commence the whipping of Mr Millar? I think we can skip that. I don't see any problem with the removal. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here. Either it's edit-warring and belongs at AN3 or it's a content dispute and belongs at the Talk page (and from there, on to dispute resolution etc). Having said that Mark Miller is edit warring, and has said some odd things e.g.:"Consensus is not required when the sources do not support the claims" and that the "reasoning" for BRD is that it is "to be used on these very types of articles by experienced editors when the talk page has become bogged down". I had a quick look at your (i.e. Jeppiz's) sources (not all of them) and what I don't see is support for the opener "most scholars agree...". The rest (on, as I say, a quick look) seems to be actually supported. The issue looks to be around WP:UNDUE therefore rather than OR. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You can find a plethora of sources saying "most scholars agree..." here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but as I said, I did not file this report for any content dispute. Even if Mark Miller would be right, he still would be disruptive when he inserts the same version four times, tries to have it protected, rants against several other users, declares he's above consensus and even talk pages, and continue to insist on his bold version despite a consensus to the contrary. It's not about right or wrong, it's about disruptive behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're right there is a problem. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually having just taken a look at this talk page thread, Mark Miller seems to be on a bit of a POV rant (and I'm a strident atheist!) DeCausa (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa, just as you said, Mark Miller is ranting aggressively (not just against me). Contrary to what he says, a number of users on the talk page have told him that they don't agree and he is the lone voice edit warring for his version. It's not here because of any content dispute, but because of the combination of edit warring, refusal to even discuss, abusing page-protection and insisting that he doesn't need to care about consensus because he's above boggled down talk pages. That combination, to me, shows a user who clearly is not here to contribute and work with others.Jeppiz (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there's zero proof that Mark Miller "clearly is not here to contribute and work with others". Inflammatory rhetoric doesn't help resolve issues the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But when you look at the talk page of that article, then look at the sources and then look at his multiple reverts and the reasons given for them, Mark Miller's actions aren't making much sense to me. DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said these edits made sense - I simply said it's not proof that he's overall WP:NOTHERE in the grand scheme of things the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why I said "Agreed". DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing "inflammatory" in Jeppiz's statements. They are fairly accurate as regards MM's involvement in this article. His activities elsewhere are not under discussion. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Have article restored to its version before the edit spats began & keep it protected. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete and salt the article. While Mark certainly was edit-warring, the circle of editors protecting that article have ensured that it will be impossible to have a neutral article about the topic. Most scholars have never issued any kind of opinion about the historicity of Jesus at all. Scholars that are neither Christian nor Islamic are essentially silent on the topic, and those groups have a bias towards arguing for his historic existence.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I know this is off topic, but frankly these comments are typical of the sophistry that smears the talk page. "Most scholars have never issued any kind of opinion about the historicity of Jesus at all". Of course that's literally true. 'Most scholars' in general haven't "issued" an opinion about global warming, natural selection or the sphericity of the earth either. That's not an argument. Most scholars, means most experts on the topic, of course. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so. But that's a different question with a different process needed. i don't think that gives MM a free pass to do what he's doing. DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't campaigning for an unblock. The pattern of disruption around this article makes me classify it as irreparable, however.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Someone should just close this now. Mark Miller has been blocked for edit-warring for 48hrs so he's unlikely to continue where he left off when he comes out of the block. If the article should be AfD'd no doubt someone will do that. Nothing left here.DeCausa (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Killing an 11-year-old article just because a few editors can't get along??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I've not looked at the deletion policy all to recently but I don't recall the presence of (shall we say) disruptive editors or a content dispute being a cause for deletion. Perhaps any conduct issues can brought to a place like ANI and any content issues can be taken to the proper dispute resolution. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Block requested for IP 41.13.120.135 Personal attacks/ possible sock

This editor User:41.13.120.135 seems to be an SPA here only to make personal attacks.

• here
• here
• here
• and here

This IP seems to be related to this one: 41.13.86.167 who is also making disruptive comments on the related articles

• [92]
• [93]
• [94]

SW3 5DL (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I am requesting other users' input on the merge discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Distressed_securities#Merger_proposal. An uninvolved admin should take a look at the merge discussion and decide whether or not it should be closed. I'd like to see other users give their two sense on the merge, but if activity remains stagnant, an uninvolved admin should close the discussion. Thank you Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~}` — Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Political edit-warring

Victor Ponta is a candidate for president of Romania, and Ilie Sârbu is his father-in-law. EddyVadim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit-warring at both. At the Sârbu article, he's been modifying the text, unsourced, to boost Ponta. At the Ponta article, he's eliminating a sourced phrase and again replacing it with one promoting Ponta. As a three-year editor, he really should know better. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits of the edits, but it's pretty clear EddyVadim has breached 3RR at Victor Ponta. I'm also concerned at the lack of discussion prior to coming to ANI; while I could understand a 3RRN report on the reverting, discussion is a central part of reaching a consensus. I see no indication that EddyVadim's edits are so inappropriate as to constitute vandalism, or otherwise not meriting any discussion. BRD, while it does mean that the person seeking to reintroduce the reverted content should start discussion, should that editor fail to do so, it is a good idea for the reverting party to try to start a discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I think the issue is pretty clear. Αs a speaker of Romanian, I can confirm that the source in the article Victor Ponta doesn't mention any polls. (Thus leaving aside the issue that polls might predict election outcomes, but don't necessarily do so.) I have also reported him for breach of R3R here. --Mihai (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. It's just concerning to see an ANI report without any notes left on relevant talk or user talk pages (except of course the required ANI notice). Not saying there should be a pre-ANI discussion requirement, or that such discussion must proceed to a deadlock. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I also favor dialogue, but not with somebody who knowingly manipulates text. And the less so when this concerns the biography of a politician in the wake of elections. That's always a waste of time.--Mihai (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks by EdJohnston per the AN3 report. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick history merge

User:WikiOriginal-9/Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer) and Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer) needs their history merged. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Elvey attempting to squash an RfC

Elvey attempted to close an RfC that I had originated less than 24 hours earlier. They seem to think that I was wrong to revert, but I see no justification for his closing an RfC without any prior discussion with me or anyone else. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Listing alphabetically:

• Elvey attempted an inappropriate snow close of a < 24 hour 8-3 RFC with a snarky close statement that was as much about Rationalobserver as the content discussion [95], and twice templated rationalobserver [96][97]
• Rationalobserver is reverting the talk page message (which is fine, of course), with taunting edit summaries [98][99] which isn't so fine.

There's also this interchange on the Plagiarism talk page. I recommend both editors learn to engage each other (and the rest of Wikipedia) in a more positive and less confrontational manner. NE Ent 02:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Understood. When someone isn't listening, I shouldn't raise my voice to try and make myself heard. And if I misapplied what seemed to be the relevant clause from Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs: "However, if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.", I'm sorry. It seems I did; I misread the !votes as 5-0 (without Viriditas's or the OP's !vote) - a SNOW. In my defense, I acted after Flyer22 said, "Having two WP:RfCs going on regarding this matter is not productive, in my opinion, and is rather disruptive, especially since Rationalobserver does not seem to be truly considering anyone's viewpoint but his own".--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 06:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think the last part of this edit is a canvass attempt to get editors to come here and boomerang me. I think this is highly inappropriate and ironically, boomerang worthy. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I see two calls for the boomerang. "Be careful what you asks for", comes to mind. I kind of feel like if there's a reason for a boomerang effect it should go after both of you. But then I notice above that NE ENT offers some wonderful advice. So I wonder if the Boomerang should be secured in it's case?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NE Ent, and I pledge to make an effort in that regard, but canvassing editors to an AN/I discussion with the hope that they will facilitate a boomerang is inappropriate under any circumstances. Elvey was obviously wrong to close the RfC, so I fail to see why complaining about it here justifies a boomerang to me. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I miss where it has been determined that Elvey was obviously wrong in closing the RFC. Yes you determined that but aren't you here to see if others concur? Seeing NE Ent's comments above I see this canvassing as just another escalation in a fight that was escalating. Do we ban them because there escalation was worse than yours? I think perhaps we could just point out that Elvey's canvass was wrong, ask them not to do it again, make them aware of said policy, drop this stick, and perhaps y'all can attempt talking thru your dispute. But then I also notice that in the hatted comment on the topic page your issue was that they as an involved editor closed it. I'm not an involved editor and if there is no objection I could go in and do a snowball's clause close.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's no objection to your offer to do a snowball's clause close.

As for the WP:CANVAS guideline: I have removed my expression of my own views from the Notification (which is

1. on a talk page on which my views are already expressed and
2. in an already-collapsed section of that page besides and
3. a single posting and
4. to a neutral, and relevant, not partisan or targeted, audience)

even though it seems quite academic given the context in which it appears; it seems to have upset Rationalobserver.

As to your question, "what exactly would justify a boomerang to me?", several editors have indicated you need to DROP THE STICK, and yet even today, you are swinging it (diff - beating the same dead horse over at WT:FAC) and (diff). As a result, though User:Moonriddengirl has the patience of a saint, it seems she's fed up (diff). And you opened this discussion, yet just claimed to know nothing about dispute resolution (diff). Makes me wonder about several things.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the crux of the matter can be seen in this comment by Rationalobserver at FAC: (diff) "If you are using the same creative words as the cited authors, then these words need to be in quotes, or else you are stealing their creativity" in the context, it's accusing User:Dan56 of stealing, even though there's a citation and(!) an in-text attribution. User:Elvey/sandbox-temp 89 kilobytes are spent at FAC in exhaustive discussion, before bringing it to multiple other fora (Village pump, plus notices on several popular policy talk pages). It's so dead God's own cat couldn't survive it™ I was only aware of the discussion at WP:Plagiarism when I suggested the stick needed to be dropped, but now that I am aware of the other fora, I think I should mention it. I think AN/I is the place to address such an issue. I hope I've spent enough time on the matter, to elucidate the need for some action to be taken; I'm done. I'll be avoiding further interaction like the plague. I sincerely urge Rationalobserver to consider the pros and cons of dropping the stick given the consensus on the matter. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: It was suggested by another editor at VPP that a talkpage RFC be opened [100], so it's not reasonable to accuse Rationalobserver of forum shopping. To avoid duplicate discussion, I've closed the VPP discussion with link to the current WT:Plagiarism talk page. My recommendation is to let the Rfc run the suggested 30 days or until a passing responder -- i.e. someone not involved in prior discussions, including this ANI thread -- calls it as closeable based on clear consensus. NE Ent 02:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism, BLP violation, and long-term POV pushing by User:The Discoverer

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

---

User:The Discoverer has been persistently adding non-neutral claims to articles related to the Sino-Indian border dispute, for well over a year. More recently, he repeatedly added criticism to the BLP article Neville Maxwell, the authoritative expert on the subject, by misquoting and misrepresenting Roderick MacFarquhar, another renowned scholar. During the process, he likely resorted to IP sockpuppetry and canvassing, and was caught plagiarizing a blogger, mistaking the blogger's comment as MacFarquhar's work and using it to add criticism to Maxwell's article.

Summary of the previous ANI complaint (Sept. 2013)

I first came into contact with The Discoverer last year, when I noticed he added false information to several articles, citing sources that are often diametrically opposed to what he claims. He also created Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War, adding articles such as Khurnak Fort and Lanak La to the category, even though all sources, including Indian ones, say that they were under Chinese control before the war. I repeatedly reminded him of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, all to no avail, and he reverted all my attempts to remove Khurnak Fort, Lanak La, and other articles from the incorrect category. In September 2013, I filed an ANI complaint regarding his behaviour. Administrator Jreferee generally agreed with my points, removed Khurnak Fort from the offending category, and closed the discussion. In his closing, Jreferee remarked that The Discoverer's personal opinion was getting in the way of editing neutrally, but said his behaviour was not yet disruptive. See this link for detailed evidence and arguments regarding the last ANI.

Sockpuppet investigation (Oct. 2013)

After the closing of the ANI, I removed the offending category from Lanak La, following the step taken by Jreferee, which was quickly reverted by The Discoverer. A few days later, a suspicious IP (an open proxy) reverted Jreferee's removal of the offending category from Khurnak Fort. Another IP, with intimate knowledge of the ANI complaint and all related articles, canvassed on the India noticeboard for support. After noticing the similarity of the canvassing IP (117.195.122.22) with two other IP's that had repeatedly removed warning messages from The Discoverer's talk page (117.195.99.85 and 117.195.96.62), I filed a sockpuppet investigation. Partly because of Wikipedia's policy against identifying users with IPs [101], the SPI ended inconclusively, although the closing admin agreed that it's unlikely that the canvassing IP was unrelated to the ones removing warning messages from The Discoverer's talk page. See sockpuppet investigation archive for details.

Extensive POV edits (since 2013)

Having escaped serious consequences from the ANI and SPI, The Discoverer became further emboldened. He flooded Lanak La and Kongka Pass with Indian and 19th-century British-Indian sources [102] [103], drowning out authoritative scholarly sources such as Neville Maxwell and Larry Wortzel, claiming a need to present "both POVs", even though both POVs are already described by scholarly sources. I raised the neutrality issue on Talk:Lanak La, but he insisted that I need to "prove" that the Indian sources are non-neutral, while asserting that the renowned US Army scholar and Congressional Commissioner Larry Wortzel is biased [104]. He went on to claim that "There are no sources which contradict the Indian sources; this indicates that the Indian sources are stating objective facts" [105], despite the fact that they're clearly contradicted by authoritative scholars including Neville Maxwell and Larry Wortzel. He added unsubstantiated Indian claims to Sino-Indian border dispute, misrepresenting them as undisputed facts [106], and refused to acknowledge the difference between claims and facts. See Talk:Sino-Indian border dispute.

BLP violation and plagiarism (Oct. 2014)

In September 2014, The Discoverer started a campaign to disparage Neville Maxwell, the authority on the Sino-Indian War. In the past, he had cited (and misrepresented) Maxwell in his edits [107], before I pointed out that Maxwell (as well as other sources he misrepresented) did not support the POV text he added [108]. The Discoverer added criticism to Neville Maxwell, citing a book by the renowned scholar Roderick MacFarquhar, an addition to other decidedly non-neutral sources [109]. Having previously read the section of MacFarquhar's book he cited, I knew immediately the source was misrepresented, and pointed out to him on the talk page. [110] In the meantime User:CWH got involved, removing some of the unfounded criticism that The Discoverer added [111], and explained his edit on the talk page. [112] After I proved that MacFarquhar did not criticize Maxwell, The Discoverer apologized for his mistake, but at the same time added a new excerpt, purportedly from a different section of MacFarquhar's book, to "prove" that he criticized Maxwell [113], and added a modified version to the article, with the quote "The counter-attack on the external front (against India) was the other side of the one on the internal front". He also added similar text to the related article Sino-Indian War [114]. Again, I could not find the quote in MacFarquhar's book. After some research, I found out that his whole "analysis" of MacFarquhar was plagiarized from someone's blog [115], and while copying from the blog, he mistook the blogger's comment as a quote from Roderick MacFarquhar's book, and added the false claim, together with the false quote, to the BLP article. [116] Faced with the indisputable evidence, he admitted copying the analysis from the blog, and again apologized for the "serious error", but claiming it was unintentional [117]. However, in May 2012, The Discoverer was brought to ANI on an unrelated matter, in which he also admitted to "unintentional" copyvio, apologized, and promised he would not do it again [118]. Details about the discussion above can be found at Talk:Neville Maxwell#Edits on Influence section.

I've been reverting both pro-Chinese and pro-Indian POV-pushers on articles related to the Sino-Indian border dispute for years [119] [120], but have never seen anyone as insidiously dishonest as The Discoverer. His edits always appear to be well-cited (often with links to subscription websites), easily fooling people unfamiliar with the subject, and requiring extraordinary effort to prove wrong. It was only by chance, for example, that I happened to be familiar with MacFarquhar's work, and stumbled upon the blog post that he plagiarized from, that I was able to prove his dishonesty, which apparently has been going on since at least May 2012. He frequently resorts to underhanded tactics such as canvassing, sockpuppetry, and plagiarism. He has been brought to the ANI and SPI at least three times, but escaped serious consequences every time because the community always tried to Assume Good Faith. After two and a half years, I say enough is enough, and request that The Discoverer be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, or at the minimum, topic-banned from the Sino-Indian border dispute. -Zanhe (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Zanhe it will be helpful if you can also tell about Discover infringing the copyrights. [121] had to do more with the copyright infringement than the misunderstanding of source, because big part of this edit was copied and pasted from the website of BBC. I have warned Discoverer and I think that he can be topic banned from all China-India articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Seen his older conversations. Discoverer was warned and notified about copyright violations before.[122] - [123] - [124] - [125] He is still infringing.[126] It's too simple to say that he has violated CR for already 6 years now. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong (in a sense) with canvassing, sockpuppetry, or advocacy of one position; if we wanted to, nobody could prevent us. This is a major difference from copyright infringement, which is non-negotiable and makes us liable to be shut down by governments, so it has the top priority. For that reason, I'll be giving him a this-is-it warning on copyright issues in just a moment. Now, back to the canvassing etc: you present solid evidence that he's been deceptively introducing non-neutral positions into these articles in a way that's inexcusable. I'll therefore be giving him a de-facto topic ban, basically "edit any more in this field and I'll block you if I notice". I strongly encourage anyone to let me know if you see him edit at all in India-Pakistan or India-China dispute topics (e.g. Kashmir, Sino-Indian War, Indo-Pakistani relations), while of course reminding that I'll be willing to try to help him one-on-one if desired. I'm taking this approach because an eight-year editor ought not be indef-blocked without a specific warning that the indef is coming (aside from the worst cases, e.g. Epeefleche, who outed someone), but this is bad enough that it mustn't continue at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Update — I had the wrong name, and I'm really sorry. I meant Ecoleetage, who was indef-blocked per this incident. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How about indef block until he informs that he is not going to infringe copyrights? He is violating copyrights for 6 years, he was warned by many, including Moonriddengirl before. As we are talking about other cases, I know that Dougweller had indeffed Cryx88 for violating CR, he had warned him once. There is no level of warning when user is violating CR. First warning is the last warning. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to say "I'll not infringe", and something like that is easily forgotten. There's nothing harmful as long as he edits properly, and continued copyright infringement will result in an indefinite block; how would anyone be better off if I had blocked him without warning? Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for giving him a final warning, covers up everything. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

IP blocking

Special:Contributions/115.250.255.94 is blanking pages. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In the future, report this to WP:AIV. Someone has blocked the IP in question already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

...AIV, where the admin will either say the report is "stale" or that the vandal has been "insufficiently warned". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lonepine17, 98.243.93.206 and edit warring over "affluent" on suburban Detroit settlement articles

Last week, Lonepine17 (talk · contribs) was blocked 24 hours from ANEW for edit warring the term "affluent" into West Bloomfield Township, Michigan. That is the sole content of his contributions and he hasn't edited since the block. Viewing the edit summaries should be enough info for anyone to understand the WP:IDHT problem. Well, today, 98.243.93.206 (talk · contribs) comes along and begins inserting "affluent" into several suburban Detroit settlement articles using some of the same edit summaries as Lonepine. Appears very clearly WP:DUCK. See the IP's contributions for the cities and the summaries. I'd ask please if possible for a checkuser to see if they are indeed the same editor and if so, an indefinite IP block for Lonepine. It was simply irritating to myself and several other editors when he was confining it to one article. Now, it is a bit too much to keep up on and the editor is obviously WP:NOTHERE. P.S. Most of my editing of late is from the phone platform, so if anything requires my attention here, please include a ping so I can access the diff from notifications. It is the only way for me to access this page from my phone. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: first, you probably want WP:SPI; second, WP:Checkuser can't be used to connect an IP address to an account, so it would be useless here. ansh666 04:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Subjective attitude of User:Borsoka

In the pages of Origins of Romanians there is a phrase about the dispute between historians from Romania and Hungary:

"Political and ideological considerations, including the dispute between Hungary and Romania over Transylvania, have also colored these scholarly discussions".(with reference/Schramm)

I included the same phrase in the pages: "The Conquest of Carpathian basin" but user Borsoka erased it. I explained him it is a subjective attitude But according him, this kind of problems must appear only in Romanian pages. It appears as actions of a double dealer. Eurocentral (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you, please, cite verbatim the context of the two sentences? Would you cite verbatim what Schramm (the scholar who is referred to) writes? Eurocentral, please stop making pseudo-edits and false accusations and also stop abusing historians' name in order to promote your own OR. Please also comment my above message about your cooperation with a banned user. Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE: Eurocentral

According to my experiences during the last couple of months, Eurocentral is not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she treats editing as a battleground—he/she does not stop edit warring, even after an RfC had been initiated, and all other editors were willing to seek a consensual lead: [127], [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] (and this is only one of the examples of his/her edit wars). He/she has no interest in working collaboratively: he cannot make a compromise even after other editors reached a consensus: [137] [138] [139]. He/she seems to be dishonest: a banned user, Iaaasi, admitted that he gave instructions to Eurocentral; he/she obviously cooperated with this banned user in order to avoid WP:3RR ([140], [141], [142]). I asked him/her to make comments on my concerns (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEurocentral&diff=628651895&oldid=619249608), instead he/she took me in an ANI ([143]) for the second time in a week (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABorsoka&diff=628449447&oldid=628436969), proving again that he/she treats editing as a battleground. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, his disruptive editing doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Eurocentral constantly tries to push his own POV, his editing lacks of neutrality. (e.g. [144], [145]) Beside his battleground mentality, itemized above by Borsoka, he is unable accept the consensus of editors (e.g. here). Now it is obvious that he is wikihounding with a banned user, Iaaasi. Iaaasi (?accidentally?) admitted that he gave instructions to Eurocentral.[146]. Moreover we know that Iaaasi's sockpuppets (like Vi3cu7) have always been helping Eurocentral's editing.(e.g. [147]) Other Wikipedia editors continuously struggle to fix his edits. His lack of tolerance and his unwillingness to cooperate with others are against the community of Wikipedia contributors. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Generic legal threat on a userpage

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

---

}}

Raising here per WP:LEGAL: an editor calling themselves User:Agentdunhamfbi has updated their user page to inform other Wikipedia users that "If you say any false statements about me, my work, or the articles I edit/created, you may (may not, depending on a timely fashion) will be prosecuted in court and/or online.", apparently after disagreeing with other editors about whether it was okay to upload copyvio images. --McGeddon (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty clearly an attempt to introduce a chilling effect, which is just about the main reason we have WP:NLT... Blockhammer descending now. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Pretty obvious, pretty ridiculous, and pretty indeffed the panda ₯’ 13:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Yeah, that's not good. A legal threat is a legal threat regardless of how poorly phrased or unfounded it may be. The obvious intent of something like that is to chill participation in discussions with that user. I'd also like to comment that the username probably merits review (I doubt this person is an FBI agent). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as a lawyer, that looks like a fairly obvious "legal threat" to me, at least generically speaking, because there is no specifically intended recipient of the message who is identified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Yik Yak and Qjndakdnakdnad

• Qjndakdnakdnad (talk · contribs)

This user is singularly-focused (the entirety of their edit summary bears this out on inserting a mention of an app similar to Yik Yak called "Masquerade" into the article. At first it was in the body, then it was in the "See also" [148] section (it doesn't actuallty have its own article, thus running contrary to WP:SEEALSO. User is now now engaging in a scorched-earth "if mine can't be their then yours can't either" [149], in removing link to Erodr that actually is notable and simioar to Yik Yak. Discussion at the talk page, Talk:Yik Yak, seemed promising at first, but the user subsequently tried to remove that section of the talk page, then went back to the old behavior. We're clearly in I Didn't Hear That territory. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but simply to promote a product. If they cannot make edits for any other helpful purpose, perhaps a block is in order.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Best 2012

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

---

Hi, can we get talk page access revoked, and his last 4 edits rev-del'd please.Amortias (T)(C) 17:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Or his talk page deleted as it seems they wont drop the stick.Amortias (T)(C) 17:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sure. Rev-del and talk page block. At your service, Drmies (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Welcome messages to user pages

A user with the humble name Six feet nine inches full of muscles started his Wiki career by welcoming himself and then he went on a short welcome tagging spree, including creating user pages with welcome messages. I guess those user pages should be deleted. Iselilja (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspicions raised when one of his first edits was this to this very page... GiantSnowman 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Was just about to note that. I'll guess not a new user, but pretending to be one? I feel like I've seen this before, but don't remember who. ansh666 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins, see deleted contribs of Cebhfvaqfviue (talk · contribs) - same guy? GiantSnowman 19:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, user notified about this discussion... GiantSnowman 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dastardly Duo

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

---

Hi,

Usrpage claims that the account is shared between two people and their aim is to screw with wikipedia. I know were not a fan of preemptive blocks but im fairly sure we dont allow shared accounts. Amortias (T)(C) 19:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's blockable based on username alone. And then there's this and this. WP:NOTHERE? (I always see that as "NO THERE"...) ansh666 19:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Yet another Evlekis sock

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

---

Hi,

Looks like Evlekis is back at my user page, identical very simple abuse as follows - Jaxmax2 Go sniff Yvette Fielding Aacceess13 and 1a2b3c4d5ea. Amortias (T)(C) 21:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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