Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

A charge of wikihounding**

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:MezzoMezzo, I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, or where the "pile" is - perhaps you could reveal that to us because there was no stalking. I only edited one article (Allard J2X-C) that Lukeno94 was recently involved with, and the first of the two (yes, just 2) edits I made to that article was my first edit ever, and I was not aware of Lukeno94 then. The second was the next day. I did not edit any of Lukeno94's articles after that, and was absent for a few days for personal reasons unconnected with Wikipedia. Jaggee (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Can you User:Jusdafax, point us to any evidence that unequivocally shows hounding? In the time between my first edit and the accusations being thrown here, Lukeno94 had edited umpteen articles whilst I had edited just one of them. Please explain and justify your implication. Jaggee (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Why has nothing been done about Luke's continual failure to AGF and personal attacks on a new editor - accusation of lying, socking, et al? It's not surprising that, in these circumstances, the newcomer feels attacked, doesn't respond optimally and finds it difficult to disengage. It is not the way to treat newbies. If we want to retain new editors, we need to do something when established users treat them badly. Luke should have been warned and, if he continued with his failure to AGF and personal attacks, blocked. Neljack (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• So you've not looked at the situation at all then? It doesn't take long for clear evidence of deliberate misrepresentation and flat-out lies to be found. In fact, I've directly quoted some in this very section. A newcomer does not wander into an article that is at GA on the day the review is undertaken, on a topic that is notable but relatively obscure. The chances of this legitimately are so microscopic that they are unreal. They do not then somehow magically find their way to another article that is in the middle of a DYK review - particularly when again, the subject is notable but relatively obscure. They do not stop editing altogether in a four-day period where I did, only to magically start up again on the same day that I returned from my brief break. AGF is not a suicide pact, and your comment shows a clear lack of any inspection of this case whatsoever. If we want to retain experienced editors, we need to actually have input from people who are not so lazy that they're just going to spout obviously false rubbish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, accusations of socking are not a personal attack. Accusations of lying are not a personal attack when there is evidence to be found that lying has indeed taken place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

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

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

Name calling

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

Below are quotes from the health psychology talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, it's just been postponed--but the continued personal attacks warranted administrative action, in my opinion. One way forward, a typically ANI way, is WP:ROPE--see how they act upon return (and NE Ent is perfectly correct in being optimistic). Drmies (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I note that Mrm7171 continues to speak to us via his talk page. Judging from what he wrote on his talk page, he shows little insight. I support CorporateM. Not wanting to write on Mrm's talk page, I made my judgment plain on the health psychology talk page today. Iss246 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Iss246: an article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for diff-less rebutting of a blocked user's diff-less accusations posted on an entirely different page. Please {{cot}}/{{cob}} that particular section (Talk:Health psychology#Comment on the January 21.2C 2014 claims Mrm7171 wrote on his talk page).

In the future, please ignore such posts as the new text Mrm7171 has made, until/unless it is posted to a behavioural noticeboard such as here or an uninvolved editor asks you what is actually going on. Even then, get it off any article talk pages and use {{diff}}s to direct attention to any behaviour or edits you are discussing. @Psyc12: that goes for you, also. Mrm7171 has twice now deleted the posts you have left on their talk page. They are blocked and angry at the both of you; let them cool off. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mrm is indeed still venting on their talk page, but there is longstanding consensus that users are allowed to vent in that way while blocked. What matters is whether they continue to do so and/or continue their disruptive behavior once the block has expired. I'm certainly not willing to be more punitive (OK, preventive) than I've already been. Having said that, I hasten to add that they are clearly listening; I have again pointed at my explanation for the block which, for the record, is not for bolding or whatever. See above, my post of 19:32, 16 January 2014, and see WP:ROPE for a prediction of what the future might hold--let's hope I'm proven wrong. And again I endorse NE Ent's comment and thoughts; let someone please come by and close this. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CensoredScribe overcategorizing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I know, there is no permission that controls category creation. There is a long stand problem in that any editor can create a category, populate it with one article and we have a valid populated category in 50 seconds. Now to delete that category someone has to find it, tag it and start a CfD discussion that will take a week and fall into the 2 month long open backlog to be closed and processed. So the work to cleanup takes more time and more effort. Not sure how we fix that. BTW, some of this class of categories, created by an editor that we think is not trying to follow the rules, that do survive CfD. I'm making this as a general comment to answer this question. I have not intentionally looked at the categories involved in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Maybe after his keyboard is back from the repair shop. EEng (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct of User:LazLong Sr

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to all who provided information and constructive criticism. LazLong Sr (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Cad and the Dandy - edits by Josephgallos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Josephgallos

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

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

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

You may be right, but if so that's largely due to Trident13 decimating the article in a single edit [8] with the single explanation of 'removing advert-text'.--Korruski^Talk 15:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Holdek-5

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

---

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

---

Holdek (talk · contribs) found a new entertainment. This time they start to add stub templates to a start-class article and edit-war over my removal of these templates [9]. Last time they were blocked for a month for destructive editing. I am afraid time has come for an indefinite block, given that their contribution to Wikipedia is net negative.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coda

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

• The removal of e-mail access was based on a misunderstanding, and access has been restored. Holdek hadn't been recruiting editors by email to proxy edit for him.[10] Bishonen | talk 16:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC).

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

American Academy of Financial Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, this is simply not correct, since it's too simple. There is talk page conversation right now, and whatever it is that you want is not gaining traction. Let me inform you also that this wikilawyering of yours is disruptive as well--and thus blockable. As a sidenote, it is my opinion that Beyond8 is simply a troll: their statements (especially those in regard to BMK) on the article talk page are unacceptable. Now that is a simple matter. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

In fact about 6-7% of your contribs are related to the AAFM, which is unremarkable when one considers that those are the first 500 of 600 or so, and that last 100-odd are mostly AAFM-related (and the rest are on a series of puff pieces). Pinkbeast (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I have requested the CU here to check whether User:Beyond My Ken and User:Pinkbeast are sock puppeting; the timing of their edits here and here deems to think so.EconomicTiger (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

BMK makes an edit. BMK reverts it; I revert that, restoring BMK's original edit, because I felt they had made a mistake. Why on earth would anyone use a sock puppet to disagree with themselves?

As to the timing, it's almost as if Wikipedia has a facility that emails you when a page changes, allowing quick responses, isn't it? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Could be an incredibly complicated ruse to throw suspicion off our socking by acting as little like socks as possible, kind of a variation on the good hand/bad hand strategy. BMK (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Though I may agree with your explanation on timing; your first explanation, "BMK makes an edit. BMK reverts it; I revert that....", senses me that why it can't be a drama created either without any purpose or with the purpose of justifying the BMK's initial edit. User:SummerPhD's explanation here by showing the Editor Interaction Analyzis is not convincing me why both can't be the same person. I request another editor/administrator to look into and create if possible a sockpuppetry case since I am not much familiar with it.EconomicTiger (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the link you provided, if you believe there is sockpuppetry, open a sock case. It's not that it could not be the same editor, it's that there is no reason to believe it is. I think you're wasting your time. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

They only have a handful of edits on the same pages. And they are pages that are usually edited by all active editors: noticeboards, requests to administrators, etc. This evidence would not be accepted as proof of socking. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, since you have accepted that you have edited AAFM and SummerPhD also involved with AAFM, you both should not come for the defense of other editors who too involved with AAFM. Otherwise, it will be considered you all are MeatPuppets. There are enough editors/administrators looking at this thread, let them get involved and come out with their opinion.EconomicTiger (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Much as various socks involved have failed to understand what WP:COI means (as has the AAFM), you don't seem to understand what WP:MEAT means (or WP:COI for that matter). No one invited me to this discussion. If you believe I am a meatpuppet, opening a sockpuppetry case would be appropriate. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I've tried to reason with this person on the talk pages (including my own [11] but he always pushes and turns the discussion into a pissing contest and mere squabble without any meaningful purpose other than to impose his own view. This is not the first time I've seen him do it and I am not the first person he did it to.

You can see him edit-warring and removing huge chunks of the article lead and numerous sources for no apparent explanation, discussion or reason: [12], [13], [14]. If you look at his earlier behavior on this article you will see he was involved in numerous revert-wars in which I unfortunately also took part recently as I was stupid enough to be drawn into it as opposed to just immediately report him. Just look at the explanation given on this edit: [15].

Personal attacks on talk page: Directed at User:Tzowu [16] [17], directed at me [18] [19].

The dispute on Croatia in the union with Hungary is mainly a spill off from the other article and you can see him reverting without any explanation there as well: [20], [21], [22], [23].

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

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

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

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

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

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

My "friend" it was you who came to that article, made changes without any consensus, discussion and necessary sources for the changes you made, and then you proceeded to claim your version is the consensus when there is clear disagreement to what you are doing by at least one other user beside me. It is what I have seen you do on several other occasions on several different articles. Others have pointed out to your modus operandi before, like here f.e. [25]. The fact you have been seven years on Wikipedia and have over 50,000 edits should have been more than enough for you to learn you cannot impose your views and assertions. You have deliberately deleted entire sections with almost two dozens scholarly sources and imposed a minority view which is in fact clear WP:DE and WP:FRINGE according to Wikipedia policies. Accusing me of being some bigoted nationalist is just another of your scheming methods of discrediting and reverting people from the real issues. I have provided numerous sources, tried to discuss the issue with you on talk pages despite no sign of you accepting and listening anyone but yourself. And BTW, if I am not mistaken, you are not the one who will say what one can or cannot publish on Wikipedia - [26]. Shokatz (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nyttend please go and take a look at the talk pages and the earlier versions of the articles and tell me if that is according to Wikipedia policies. I don't think he, as you say, learned his lesson, since he deleted entire sections which were heavily sourced with over a dozen sources...all from Hungarian or third party sources. His rationale was they were POV Croatian sources. He also refused consensus and discussion and wrote I will revert it no matter what anyone says and that is that. Not to mention his uncivil and condescending tone he has in his edits and talk-page, calling people nationalist, noobs, etc. This is no mere content dispute, this is DIREKTOR abusing Wikipedia policies and bullying his POV into the articles. The fact someone like you would give him credence like this, only encourages him to continue to do it. Shokatz (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he just gets too riled up. Quoting from [27]: "Your Croatian-nationalist POV will be reverted every time without fail (until you present sources that discuss the dispute and indicate a consensus or prevalence of the view you peddle)." (Emphasis in original.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Accept that Wikipedia will always be full of crap and you'll sleep a lot better. In fact this is the standard approach at AE now: let POV pushers duke it out with each other and hope NPOV articles result. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

...all I'm tryiing to do is to have that article over there be a place where people can read the hard sourced facts - does that includes deleting entire paragraphs with over a dozen sources, mainly English or Hungarian, and then saying they are Croatian POV sources? Does that includes edit-warring to enforce a minority view? Does that includes condescending to people on talk pages and making ad hominem remarks about them? Does that includes refusing consensus and saying you will revert whatever someone posts that does not suit your own view, no matter how well sourced? If f.e. I did all what you did on that article, I suspect my account would have been banned immediately on the spot. But no, you have 50k edits, you are on Wikipedia for seven years and you are obviously well connected so I guess this all counts for nothing. Shokatz (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My point exactly. If the majority of sources display the heights of supermodels in cm, then I agree we should use cm on articles about supermodels. My issue here - as I will repeat in the hope that Gibson Flying V understands my concerns - is that he is introducing cm to articles on soccerball players, even though the vast majority of sources use m. GiantSnowman 16:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet everyone keeps saying if the cm parameter is introduced at {{Height}}... I have stopped editing height in articles and meanwhile the RfC is in its 5th day with no bites. User:GiantSnowman, common sense and policy dictate that sources are not compared merely by weight of numbers alone:1 + 1 ≠ 1 + 1 (note other differences such as date formatting). Anyway, this thread is already too long. It's going nowhere. There are plenty more appropriate forums for this discussion. I'm out.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V's comment that "I have stopped editing height in articles" does not seem truthful with this edit to change m to cm today. Then there is this edit at Talk:Tiger Woods to start a new non-neutral discussion on the use of cm instead of just inviting editors to a larger discussion at the RFC.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I trust you haven't neglected to compare the timestamp on my comment with that of the diff you provided. Further elaboration on what is "non-neutral" about the Tiger Woods discussion would be helpful too.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get into WP:Wikilawyering about whether it was your responsibility or mine to preface that you stopped editing height a few hours ago. Simply agreeing to my recommendation below (22:59, 22 January 2014) would be a good faith attempt to avoid any appearance of impropriety.—Bagumba (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you'll have no problem retracting Gibson Flying V's comment that "I have stopped editing height in articles" does not seem truthful then. And your recommendation is a couple of hours too late--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that I made the suggestion 4 days ago that you stop editing heights while discussion was ongoing, the skepticism was warranted. Your continued edits were the main reason this ANI thread was even started.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Another administrator with apparent good faith issues. I hope this is not going unnoticed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: To me, the essential problem here is summarised by this sentence, quoted from Gibson Flying V above: As far as I can tell there is a direct correlation with a source's quality and its likelihood to use centimetres for displaying people's height. SamBC(talk) 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I first saw this cm v. m debate at Template_talk:Infobox_basketball_biography#Height_parameter, a thread started by Gibson Flying V. At best, a weak consensus to add cm support for basketball players, but no mandate that cm was preferred in all (if even many) cases. There may be more, but GFV has also started parallel threads at Template_talk:Height#Human_height_is_more_commonly_expressed_in_centimetres_than_metres and Talk:Human_height#Why_is_height_being_expressed_in_metres.3F, all the while switching multiple BLPs to use {{convert}} instead of {{height}}, a template which does not support cm. It's disingenuous to continue to make changes when ongoing discussions—which GFV started— to achieve a larger consensus are ongoing. Also, it's more effective to direct editors/WikiProjects to one centralized discussion, instead of starting multiple discussions, and each time failing to mention counter arguments from other pages.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Recommendation Whie the RFC is ongoing, I would suggest Gibson Flying V voluntarily refrain from any edits to change m to cm, or having discussions on height outside of the existing RFC. Inviting others to join the RFC without WP:CANVASSING is fine.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting to see Gibson replacing a widely-used, reliable source (which shows height in ft and inches) with another source (which shows height in his preferred format of cm)... GiantSnowman 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• The edit you cite is three days old. It has been suggested and he has since agreed to wait for the outcome of the RFC, which I think is a good sign that he is acting in good faith. --Laser brain (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocks of MrX and Sportfan5000 on Duck Dynasty

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously, BK, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't change my comments[28]. Not consulting me before running off to ANI and labeling my action as "ridiculous" was bad, assuming bad faith on my part is worse but you really need to not change my words. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

(ec)I disagree and trust that no admin will wheel war on the block. In addition to Sportfan5000, there is also the multiple "Phil Robertson" articles where they also act in concert with User:Ronjohn who did the interesting edit at [29] comparable to Sportfan's edit at [30]. Yes there are problems -- but the blocks were proper IMO. The main problem is POV warriors who do not wish to abide by WP:BLP however. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × many)Clearly bogus blocks, and Toddst1's warning yesterday was not consistent with policy. Despite Toddst's suggestion to change it today [31] -- reading the whole policy -- specifically WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, which says "Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; (emphasis mine) makes it clear it's not generally accepted a single revert is edit warring. (Mr. X did fail to heed the entire advice of the section in that they did not use the talk page).NE Ent 00:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Bad block-Unblock - It's very bad precedent to block long time editors who have not violated 3RR when they are undoing SPA edits by banned Sock puppets. Not to jump on Todd's reasoning too much, but if the other editors should have noted in their edit summaries the user was a banned sock, perhaps you should have investigated a bit more before blocking too. I mean, if you expect more from editors, should you not expect at least as much from yourself? Dave Dial (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Bad block and fails WP:ADMINACCT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Nothing wrong with block, but I'll expect unblock to be wise MrX was kind enough to express his partial understanding of edit-warring just a few days ago, and it was clarified to him quite clearly that he needs to read the entire policy before acting. As such, he know what is edit warring, and has therefore been appropriately warned. However, I believe that MrX is quite aware now that we're serious about that policy, and that the policy must be interpreted in toto - he's typically a good content creator, even if he misunderstands policies - misunderstanding is not an permanent offense, I hope. Indeed, I hope MrX in the long term realizes that a lot of people do try to help him to correct his misunderstandings ES&L 09:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unblock per Black Kite - the unbalanced nature of the action taken is concerning, not to mention the response to criticism. Neljack (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You were right, I was wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't the first time I've seen this administrator drive away an editor. See User talk:Carobu#January 2014 - after Carobu made good faith edits ([32] [33] [34]) to update the numbers of an infobox based on the information within the article, Toddst1 proceeded to warn the user on their talk page using template messages which suggested Carobu could/should be blocked for their edits, as if they were some kind of malicious or bad-faith edits. He made no effort to apologize or even talk to the user. I'm noticing a theme with this administrator's hasty actions and unwillingness to discuss anything before they take such actions. Gloss • talk 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some people are just hotheads, can't change everyone's bad judgment. :) - Hopefully, MrX returns; he was a valuable contributor. Teammm ^talk
_email 17:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, the lynch mob is out. A shitty post on Mr. X's talk page by Epipelagic, calling for Todd's head, and a ringing endorsement for that message from an editor with 446 article edits. For the record, I think Todd (his name is not Todd, but I like calling him that) is a fine admin. Mr. X., as far as I know, is a fine editor. Epipelagic is a fine editor. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• What shitty post? The only post I made there was to support a hurting content builder. Where did I call for Todd's head? If anything, I pointed out his head wouldn't roll. Why is okay to say and do nasty things to content builders, and not okay for content builders to talk back, or even talk among themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think Drmies is referring to the words "In a just world it would be Toddst1 that is retiring." StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes he is; thank you. Part of the shittiness of the comment is the false dichotomy it sets up: admins versus content builders. You may have missed this, but Todd has also created a bit of content. Again, I'm not saying that Toddst1's block was advisable, but sheesh, take it easy. In a just world, sure--in a just world MrX wouldn't be retiring after one short block (some of us know how it feels), so one wonders if there is a more general malaise, which happens to many of us here. At any rate, this ANI dumpfest is not doing anything to improve anything, and less is more. And look at me contribute to the more which makes it less--but I think that Toddst1 is being unfairly chastised in addition to being justly scrutinized and perhaps criticized. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Amen. Will somebody please close this? MrX was unblocked, and the block on Sportfan5000 is expired. Nothing left to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I also think that protection would have been better--but the warnings for edit warring the previous day make Mr. X. look like a bit of an edit warrior, at least from Todd's point of view, and that explains why one side was blocked and the other wasn't. That doesn't justify it, but it does explain it. And I support Dougweller's comment, above. So, not great, but we shouldn't have to call for heads or leave the project. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Strange business

Strange business going on at Postcentral gyrus

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

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

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

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

Jwratner1 was engaged in multiple copyvio edits on multiple pages, some going back a while in their revision history or even scattered a bit in time and location in the articles. I explicitly checked many on multiple pages over time and every substantive one was a hit from various textbooks and related materials, but did not check every one. Obviously copyvio is completely prohibited and must be cleared promptly when found. Given the pattern of the problem, I was not able to easily undo or remove each occurrence easily, so I took a blunter approach to solve the problem. No prejudice against others redoing their own or others' edits that were lost as a side effect (and I apologize to those who may feel trampled-upon for good edits, or good-faith edits to copyvio original text) that got lost. No prejudice either against others independently verifying that content is actually original prose and re-adding it, thereby taking ownership of it themselves (which leads to the SPI, which seems pretty WP:DUCK-). DMacks (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that we're here at ANI, I'd be happy to respond to any comments/concerns that someone raises here, rather than at my talkpage, as it is now a discussion involving more than just "me and someone who asked me directly". DMacks (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DMacks, I agree that a centralised forum is better. I am unhappy because (1) the revert was broad and not specifically targeted at a particular edit (2) the user was 'presumed' to have infringed copyright but not proven and (3) there was no link provided on the user's talk page, article talk page, or edit summary pointing to a place where I could get more information about why the edit had been made in that way. A link to a copyright investigation in one of those three places would have been very useful to help understand the issue at hand. At any rate, I just wanted to flag this to you, but because of the possible concurrent sockpuppetry by user at hand I felt it better to raise this issue in a central place.--LT910001 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

See here.

And here.

And another.

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

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

And here we have "a minority of POV pushers"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I have, there is no grounds for that around other users, however user HiLo48 as well as other users are impossibly uncivil on a consistent basis towards any editors that even attempt to present a view that does not support their agenda. There is a clear boomerang going on here, and HiLo48 perhaps should have thought a bit more seriously before bringing this up at AN/I. I do not want to be on AN/I but unfortunately HiLo48 has taken it to this, I would not be the first user that HiLo48 has been uncivil towards however and I probably won't be the last. It really is difficult to go about editing in articles that HiLo48 patrols without running into his incivility. Unfortunately, while I know it's wrong I have a propensity to return it towards those who are uncivil. I don't actually mind if I end up getting called up for this myself, it's probably deserved, in fact I know I have been uncivil. However, it has become impossible on soccer related pages in Australia for any editor that disagrees with HiLo48 to have a civil discussion, HiLo48 edits his own talk pages to tell anyone who contacts him to "piss off" and uses other such language, and four letter words when other users seek to discuss anything in an appropriate place of discussion. I am just trying to put forward a position so as editors of soccer related articles can edit in peace. I am simply trying to intervene in a matter that HiLo48 is making more controversial than it needs to be, perhaps my actions may be seen as inappropriate, the full ramifications of this AN/I are yet to play out, unfortunately whichever way this goes it's the way the cards have fallen. I cannot do anything about the evidence that is out there, I can only say that it's much more than a one sided story presented by HiLo48. --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really? Hilo complaining about personal attacks? Seriously? Come on. Address your own behavior first, then come here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the above, I have tried to suggest to HiLo48 in various ways that this wasn't a good idea to bring this to AN/I. I do not simply have to "give up the fight" and AN/I is simply not the place to resolve "the fight" that is related to the contents of the article soccer in australia which i think is what HiLo48 is trying to resolve. I have had all kinds of things thrown at me including "who the do you think you are" from certain users, which is nothing more than a direct threat on my person over an article on Wikipedia. I do not understand this? In none of my editing have I directly introduced anything that actually goes against consensus so HiLo48 begins to seem even more irrational about dealing with this matter in such a way. While I haven't had perfect behaviour, this would represent the kind of irrationality and the type of behaviour that leads to this. Unlike others, I simply will not leave under HiLo48's duress which has caused HiLo48 to raise this issue at AN/I. I have stated I am not a saint in this regard, and am willing to let the cards fall where they may if it means resolving this issue, as I said on Talk:Soccer in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Less that a month ago, HiLo48 called me a "fool" and later added that they are proud of this behavior and regret I am not yet blocked. I am still waiting when they start calling users fucking assholes and claim this is not a personal attack. If they have such low standards of civility in their own behavior, they should not really expect much of others. Especially given they already have been blocked previously. WP:BOOMERANG would certainly be in order here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Here I am being called a moron for simply asking HiLo48 to cite a source on the Barassi Line on a wiki page that will be viewed by the whole world where people would be unfamiliar with the term, as well as having four letter words thrown at me. There also seems to be an ongoing case of circular referencing to an article that has very few references to any articles on soccer and which also contain little content on soccer. In fact I tried to add a section on soccer at one point but was reverted. The barassi line concept represents the type of ongoing irrationality that user HiLo48 is continuing to promote which has led this whole matter to AN/I. IF I wanted to be cynical I could say that HiLo48 and other users were maintaining articles such as the barassi line article to filibuster any discussion of soccer in Australia and to promote the AFL needlessly in articles which are of no consequence to the AFL.

Now then filibustering IS a matter which can be raised at AN/I, I haven't yet because I suspect as a result of my last post on Talk:Soccer in Australia that HiLo48 raised this AN/I in retaliation, but that is simply yet more evidence of continued irrational behaviour and incivility when I have tried to warn HiLo48 that nothing good will come for either of us from the sort of AN/I issue HiLo48 raised here. I digress a little, the comment above about WP:BOOMERANG is definitely on the mark.--Orestes1984 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't call for boomerangs unless your own hands are free of curved throwing implements. Your own behaviour is atrocious - so much so that blocks for the both of you make the most sense in order to protect this project from further BS ES&L 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, forget the whole thing. This thread perfectly demonstrates why I hate AN/I. It doesn't work. I really was hoping for a calm, rational discussion. And, if I did stuff up some of those diffs, my apologies. I don't find it easy to get them right. It's frustrating that one has to use such a complicated procedure to point out when someone is doing something wrong. Unfortunately too, Orestes1984 tends to edit his own posts multiple times, so it's difficult to get the precise diff that properly shows the problem. So, sorry for using up everyone's time. Bye for now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says, you do not have to edit in one effort, there is nothing wrong with any of this directly above. I have suggested calmly in the past that you look at you your own actions that lead to this, others here have repeated those thoughts, I'd suggest you actually heed that advice before shooting yourself in the foot. Nothing good will come from AN/I and I simply will not go away under duress of your comments, or the use of this process for any means which would attempt to make me go away by your actions. I have a right to edit here as do you until such time as an administrator states otherwise. Please take heed of your own actions before it gets you in any more trouble, or this unnecessarily goes any further than what it has. As I have also previously tried to tell you calmly, perhaps occasionally you should also step away from the consensus koolaid and furthermore, that sometimes you do not have to agree. You are the only user I have ever had this much difficulty with, if you look at some of the above posts, you will see that I am not alone. It would pay well to look at why this is the case, and why you cannot simply have your way by talking over the top of someone. As I have said previously, if you would like to continue to revert my edits unnecessarily then we can come back here on the grounds of filibustering, but I do not like AN/I and nor should you. Have a little respect for all of this and just edit with others in peace... --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

• While not perfect (who is?), HiLo has in my view been admirably restrained in extremely trying circumstances - ones in which I, and I imagine many Wikipedians, would struggle to keep their cool. Orestes1984 seems to have been accusing HiLo of everything that they are in fact guilty of themselves - POV-pushing, battleground behaviour, failure to AGF, personal attacks. This is a classic example: "Your insularity and incompetence astounds me, furthermore it was only ever called soccer as a form of appeasement to the people like yourself that can't understand why the game is called football."[35] When I commented opposing Orestes's position, they responded by accusing HiLo of meatpuppetry[36] (interestingly, he was apparently also guilty of both incivility and civil POV-pushing, which seems a bit contradictory) and referring to "drive by commentary from your fellow AFL editors in New Zealand"[37] (which I found rather amusing, since I certainly don't follow Aussie Rules, which I've hardly ever seen since it isn't popular in New Zealand, while I do follow soccer). That ridiculous assumption of bad faith with no evidence to support it demonstrates just how unable Orestes is to approach this in a proper manner. I believe they need to be banned from the topic of the proper name of soccer/football/association football. Neljack (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing problem

Orestes1984 (talk · contribs) has just posted another attack targeting HiLo48 (talk · contribs) with heading "All of this nonsense can be attributed to HiLo48's inability to edit in a civil manner"—see User talk:Skyring (diff).

The attack is minor as far as attacks go, but it would be very helpful if an uninvolved admin were to point out that such inflammatory commentary has no place on a user talk page (particularly when that user has an interaction ban with HiLo48). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously... This is nothing more than a straight forward apology for the nonsense behaviour that is going on here. Is this worthy of an AN/I? I am merely attempting to defuse the situation calmly in a way that is understandable. Bringing up interaction bans I am unaware of as more of a reason why I should be sanctioned for this is not helpful either. I simply cannot be expected to be across all fronts here and particularly in a case where the user has a history of being confrontational and inflammatory.

Meanwhile in response to the above, while being harsh at times with my opinion, I have been no more so harsh than HiLo48 has been with other users and myself on soccer related pages. Furthermore I have not gone to great lengths to direct abusive four letter word commentary at HiLo48, while instead, repeatedly I have had four letter words thrown at me as well as having my integrity as a person and intelligence questioned repeatedly. In such trying conditions, most people would at least respond at some level or another.

With regards to the comments that I made regarding a certain user and AFL, I do believe the user I referenced was also a member of project AFL User:Jenks24 see the difs here. This debate was closed, I'm sorry that my efforts in trying to calm the situation have led us to another excursion to AN/I. I would note that any interaction ban between HiLo48 and any other user is merely going to be a bandaid on this problem until the next confrontation, I'd strongly suggest a topic ban for user HiL048 while for myself as I have said, if there is anything going on here, I am willing to let the cards fall where they may and am more than happy to have a holiday particularly if it means other editors can edit in peace.

In reference to the claims of meat puppetry, I have noted above that you cannot use talk pages to solicit a response from other users with regards to the contents of another page, this was and still clearly remains an open case of meat puppetry. The section I noted above here is meat puppetry. IF I wanted to continue with my claims of meat puppetry I would flag a number of other users, but I haven't had a chance yet as the AN/Is against me are flying thick and fast.

Finally, What I stated was not meant as a personal attack, but merely as a summary of how I thought the situation was panning out at the time I made the comments, to who I thought was an onlooker, as I stated I had no idea about the interaction ban, nor did I intend to cause any issues involving anything to do with said interaction ban. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for an independent admin to provide some strong advice to the effect that continuing to use user or article talk pages to discuss claimed deficiences in another editor must stop. No problem about your being unaware of the interaction ban, but you are aware of it now (and can confirm it at WP:RESTRICT). As there has been no reply to your comment at User talk:Skyring, why not remove it and confirm that similar comments will not be repeated? Wikipedia is a complex place, but a lot of the standard procedures can be understood upon considering what might result from alternatives. It is clear that there are strong views about how WP:COMMONNAME applies—should the game with a round ball be called "soccer" or "football" (with the latter apparently being the now-preferred official title)? Consider what might result from a situation where every editor concerned visited various talk pages and added commentary about how their opponent was responsible for nonsense and, by implication from the wording in the comment, is an idiot. How could that work? The person with the most perseverance and witty insults wins? Please just stop. Even if, in your opinion, it is all the other person's fault, if the community remains unconvinced after noticeboard discussion, editors must stop badgering each other and focus on the issue (WP:COMMONNAME). Obviously referring to another editor as an idiot will not "defuse the situation". Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I will remove what was merely a comment, and not a personal attack, as to the other claims, claiming innocence of user HiLo48 is beyond incomprehensible, you only have to look at his interaction history. As for the ongoing campaign to have all discussions curtailed and enforcing purely WP:COMMONNAME. I simply cannot agree. Wikipedia is an open space where wide ranging opinions should be accepted as the norm. There is no need for personal attacks, of which I have had a number of directed at me, most recently noted above being called a "moron." I think, if you care, you should have a word with HiLo48 about his own actions, and his resistance to discussing these and other issues. I think you will find I am a reasonable person, where as I have not found that to be the case with HiLo48. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments say nothing about the innocence or otherwise of HiLo48. If you think otherwise, you are reading too quickly and not taking the time to comprehend what was written. Other editors may react badly if that occurred repeatedly. Please re-read this discussion tomorrow and consider whether the "when you argue with idiots..." comment is compatible with "merely a comment, and not a personal attack". Thank you for removing the post. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments were a general statement as I noted, I'm a bit hot headed right now particularly after being brought here twice. I don't like AN/I and I don't like using AN/I. I need to step back and think about where to go next. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I would very much prefer not to be stalked, Johnuniq. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

stalking would appear to be something that is common here, and I'm about sick of it as well. My edits should not be needlessly patrolled for ulterior reasons, certain users such as Afterwriting would do well not to track every single edit I make on Wikipedia. The full and most recent unpleasantries and baseless claims can be found here --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Orestes1984 constantly makes these kinds of extremely reactionary and false accusations against myself and any other editors who dare to challenge his frequently factually incorrect opinions. He goes on the attack against other editors without provocation and then blames them in a highly self-pitying manner when they respond critically to his offensive behaviour. His comments above are simply another addition to his expanding litany of self-pitying comments and blame deflection. Enough really is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

More dramitisation going on here as well as exaggeration and lack of factual substance. If anything recently I have spent a fair amount of time cleaning up the misinformation that has been floating around here. I am being vilified here by user Afterwriting purely on the basis of his own agenda that does not reflect any realities. There is no self pity going on here, only an editor that is some what annoyed that I will not accept a consensus, and as I have repeated numerous times, I simply do not have to fall in line with the agenda that is being created by a certain group of users here. Afterwriting should be reminded that I am allowed to maintain a view that differs substantially from his own, and should refrain from the ongoing attempts of what amounts to nothing more than baseless character assassination. See here for the above users ongoing tirade against an administrator that disagrees with the users behaviour.--Orestes1984 (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The comment by Orestes1984 above that he is "being vilified here by user Afterwriting purely on the basis of his own agenda that does not reflect any realities" is yet another example of his frequent extreme and false accusations against other editors. It should also be noted that he failed to notify me on my talk page, as required, that he was making comments about me on here. Afterwriting (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

you were warned to disengage from this kind of behaviour here and yet you have continued, can I have my personal space back now please? The comment "Your highly inadequate and inconsistent behaviour as an administrator has only helped to fuel matters" directed towards an administrator does not help your case. Your inability to disengage from this kind of dramitisation of the facts is simply a matter of reality. The embellishments going on here are astounding. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a silly joke? You were directly asked to disengage and stop making provocative comments by an administrator on your talk page. Your assurances that you would lasted next to no time at all. All you ever seem to want to do is attack other editors. We should not have to tolerate your unprovoked attacks. And my criticism of the administrator's inconsistent behaviour was warranted in the circumstances. Administrators are not exempt from criticism by other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The directive to disengage was directed at everyone including yourself, and you have failed to comply, you have unnecessarily added derogative comments to my talk page, and you cannot seem to stop for a second not to embelish the facts to suit your own agenda. That is the reality of what is going on here --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the general request on the article talk page for editors to disengage, the same administrator made a personal request on your talk page for you to disengage and to stop making provocative comments. The comments that I made on your talk page were about your lack of competence. If you want to intrepret this as being "derogative" then so be it. You provoke and provoke and provoke and then complain with self-pity when those you've provoked respond as might be expected. Afterwriting (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense and further to the point I approached said administrator to discuss the matters. You cannot stop embellishing the facts to suit your own agenda, you fail to acknowledge your contribution to this mess and you fail to acknowledge both your own and HiLo48s behaviour. HiLo48 as noted above is far from a saint, you are not innocent I am not the provocateur you make me out to be, please stop this behaviour of going around and embellishing the facts to suit your own agenda simply because I disagree with you about what has been going on Talk:soccer in Australia Your own behaviour is a disgrace and you will not acknowledge that it simply has a whole hell of a lot to do with your own actions --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you believe that denial is a river in Egypt. You also seem to have failed to notice that a number of other editors have also commented on your lack of competence as well as your habitual incivility (see above for example). I am now ending my part in this "discussion". You will want to have the last word as usual. I won't be bothering to read any more of your denials and self-pitying accusations so anything you have to say will only be a waste of your own time. Afterwriting (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Stalking seems to be too common in Wikipedia these days, it is done by certain admins as well. But so is acting like a drama queen and complaining here about every trivial grievance. I guess ANI *is* the new drama queen hangout of Wikipedia. Let's close this section, as there is nothing that requires admin interference. jni (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You're an admin and you make comments like that? ES&L 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

May I just point out that it is utterly hypocritical for HiLo48 to complain about incivility. I see absolutely nothing objectionable from Orestes here. Move on.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Anonoumous user keeps adding unsourced information

Original archiving message: Page is semi-protected for a week. For future reference, the appropriate place to make a request like this is WP:RFPP. --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I'm unarchiving for the purpose of adding something, sorry Laser. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

• It's hard for an inexperienced user to find just the right noticeboard. Borek 9 should primarily be thanked for reporting, over and above getting told what they ought to have done instead or in addition. All the IPs (I count ten of them) are obviously one person edit-warring, and it would be quite a business to try to discuss with or alert any or all of them on their talkpages, especially since they've probably moved on to an eleventh or fifteenth IP by now. Thanks for your help, User:Borek 9. The article is semiprotected now, but if you should see disruption and edit warring from similar IPs, on that article or another, please report again, here or on my page. The range happens to be quite small, so it can be blocked if necessary. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC).

Gaming of the system by Ryulong

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryulong is guilty of trying to Refract talk page comment.

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

Ryulong has also have done mass reverts to a single editor

• Here.
• and here.

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

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

Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations

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

• Please see: [38][39][40].

Astynax defends his behavior by claiming that, based on the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBARG, the arguments brought up in the "evidence phase" of the case are valid to be attributed to the Arbitration Committee's voice & final decision.
Nonetheless, this perspective has been disputed both by arbitrator Salvio (see [41]) & administrator ES&L (see [42][43][44]). In fact, both ended up recommending that I take any further aspersion casting to AN/I:

• Salvio ([45]): "Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread."
• ES&L ([46]): "Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error."

Moreover, not only have I tried to resolve this issue with Astynax, requesting him quite clearly to stop his aggressions ([47][48]), but ES&L also tried to reason with him ([49][50]). Yet, Astynax declined to stop his abusive comments & literally told ES&L to stop posting on his talk page ([51]): "Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity." Basically, Astynax refuses to drop the stick.
Due to this situation, I am reporting User:Astynax at AN/I for WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND breaches.
Since the accusations made by Astynax are defamations, and he outright refuses to listen and get the point ([52][53]), I believe an indefinite block is in order until the user agrees to stop casting aspersions (per the same principle mentioned by the Arbitration Committee) towards me and other editors involved in the arbitration case.
However, please consider my recommendation as nothing more than a suggestion.
Thanks in advance! Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a very bad situation. I agree with the assertion that MarshalN20 was never sanctioned for POV-pushing or fringe editing; in fact, it's telling that ArbCom explicitly stated that Cambalachero was being sanctioned for POV-pushing but MarshalN20. Based on how long this same cast of characters and topic area have been popping up in various venues, I don't know that we're ever going to have peaceful editing for these editors until there are complete, all-around interaction bans. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reply by Astynax: MarshalN20 lodged a request for clarification and amendment of his topic ban at WP:ARCA[54] on the basis of his accusation that a Signpost article had misrepresented his role in an ARBCOM case in which he was topic-banned (he has since redacted his request and dropped asking for amendment of his sanction). As the Signpost piece in question seems to accurately present the case, I commented on the request for clarification and amendment, especially as the editor who authored the piece has a "retired" banner on his/her user page (the author has since commented at ARCA). I believe my comments in defense of the piece are accurate. MarshalN20 was indefinitely topic-banned from all articles, discussions and other content dealing with the history of Latin America explicitly for tendentious editing, which specifically encompasses PoV-pushing behavior, and for battleground behavior.[55] Per the definition of tendentious editing used in the ARBCOM Final decision, "Tendentious editing: 8) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site." Further, the Final decision states, "Locus of dispute: 1) This dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America." (note that the case was raised only regarding the behavior of 2 editors: MarshalN20 and Cambalachero, as a result of which, both of whom were topic-banned from any involvement in articles, discussions or other content touching on Latin American history). Thus, it seems to my aged eyes that the Signpost article was on rock-solid ground. Topic bans are not issued for a mere 3 breaches, and I'm confident that ARBCOM took into consideration MarshalN20's behavior beyond the 3 diffs he prefers to cite in disputing the conclusion that he had engaged in tendentious editing and/or battleground behavior. Nor is there the slightest basis for his accusation that I (and others MarshalN20 has similarly accused) have been traipsing around Wikipedia spreading a "Black legend"[56][57][58] Nor am I aware of why I have been singled out here and accused of spreading the purported "Black Legend". • Astynax ^talk 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Astynax You "believe" your comments are accurate, but you have been quite clearly made aware that they are inaccurate, and are contrary to WP:NPA. What you believe is irrelevant - you might believe the Easter Bunny is blue; so what. The proof was clearly laid out for you, but you insist on putting your own spin, and making bizarre allusions to policy - instead of actually reading exactly what ArbCom found as a finding of fact. You cannot add words, change words, or ascribe different meanings. You are continuing to make unsubstantiated personal attacks against Marshal, and you continue to repeat them ad nauseum. So, the real result here is one of two things (or a combination thereof): a one-way interaction ban and/or an indefinite block until you convince the community that you're prepared to stop attacking someone (or anyone, for that fact) willy-nilly across the project - and any unblock would require you to formally withdraw and strike all of your false accusations/personal attacks from across the entire project ES&L 12:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. As I quoted above, the Arbcom final decision did explicitly define "tendentious editing" as "engaging in sustained point-of-view editing". MarshalN20 was topic-banned for "tendentious editing" under that definition. Nothing has been distorted, either in the Signpost article, which I did not participate in writing, or in my comments on the accusations MarshalN20 leveled regarding the article's content and motivations at ARCA in yet another request to amend his sanctions. Your "proof" has consisted entirely of your own say-so, based upon a strangely selective reading of the Arbcom Final decision. Your repetition of MarshalN20's false charge that I have been attacking him "willy-nilly across the project" is made without a shred of substantiation. Other than my comment on the ARCA page, this is the only place I have commented on this issue—an issue instigated by MarshalN20 both there and here, and not by me. I find your belligerent tone, both here, on my talk and at ARCA to be highly inappropriate and unconstructive. • Astynax ^talk 18:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Some responses:

1. I did not ask for an amendment to my sanction. I asked for an amendment for editors, such as Astynax, to stop throwing unjustified insults at me (i.e., drop the stick on a case that was resolved many months ago).
2. The three diffs I present are the same that Arbcom used to provide examples of the behavior I exhibited that they found problematic. None of those diffs justify Astynax's accusations.
3. The tendentious editing defined in this case has nothing to do with Astynax's repetitive accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content". In fact, Arbcom was concerned by my behavior in article talk spaces (to the point there is a principle on how talk pages should be properly used), and that is exactly what is shown in Arbcom's diffs. On the other hand, Astynax's accusations equate the matter with academic dishonesty, which is a serious WP:NPA breach.
4. Lastly, and this is where Wee Curry Monster's WP:MEAT statement should be taken into consideration, a prior WP:IBAN instituted among the parties (due to mutual "acrimonious" behavior) is directly related to the same accusations Astynax is now raising towards me. I would like to provide diffs that show how Astynax's accusations relate to the accusations that partially led to the IBAN, but that would breach my IBAN with the other party (maybe reading the prior IBAN situation might help: [59]).

Ultimately, the point here is that this matter concerns a resolved arbitration case to which Astynax was not an involved party (at least by the case's official page). There is no justification for him or others to continue casting aspersions on the parties, all of which received sanctions (some stronger than others) for their inappropriate behavior. Continuous aspersion casting, at this time, is nothing more than WP:GRUDGE and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes that should not be tolerated by anyone's standards (especially when considering WP:COMPETENCE and WP:REAL).

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, seriously? You could have simply taken this time to apologize and move on, but instead decide to continue what various editors have identified as unnecessarily harsh insults.

You really don't even have to apologize. Simply drop the stick.

But, at this point the matter has gone well-beyond the point of return for you (or so it seems by your attitude).

Given this situation, I agree with Laser_brain & Wee Curry Monster that an interaction ban between Astynax and myself is an appropriate solution. Due to the continuous WP:NPA breaches, I would also recommend a block to not only stop the personal attacks but also set precedent on others who want to continue casting aspersions on this case.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not have to block anyone. The ideal outcome is that you and Astynax can edit in peace. However, I'm curious as to whether Astynax would voluntarily agree to an interaction ban so we can put this to bed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Laser_brain. Two-way or one-way interaction bans would be fine by me. I have no need to talk about or with Astynax on anything. He is not even a party to the arbitration case, which makes his continuous involvement all the more problematic.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Laser brain: Until MarshalN20 leveled his accusations against Neotarf and the Signpost article at ARCA last Saturday, I cannot recall any interaction with MarshalN20 since his topic ban, so an interaction ban would be irrelevant unless MarshalN20 again raises similar baseless accusations. In such a case, I feel an interaction ban would unjustly prevent me from commenting or discussing with others. I have not distorted anything. I have not been incivil in commenting on and reiterating the Arbcom case and ruling at ARCA, and now here. I have not spun conspiracy theories about cabals bent on persecuting me or spreading "Black Legends". Showing at ARCA the basis for the statements in the Signpost article, which MarshalN20 considers a personal attack, does not rise to the level of NPA. MarshalN20 raised the issues and was the person who bumped up the arbcom case yet again, not me, and I am here simply because I commented on and disputed his allegations. I am completely innocent of the slanderous and unsubstantiated accusations by MarshalN20 and ES&L that I've been going around Wikipedia spreading false charges about MarshalN20. There is no factual basis in my behavior for MarshalN20's initial complaint and demand that I be banned, nor in the stuff he continues to pile on (I expect the kitchen sink to be thrown in next). I imagine this is stuff leftover from prior to his topic ban, as he has not pointed to a single incident other than my comments at ARCA, which themselves were responses to allegations he raised. A ban, even my agreeing to accept such, would be a blot on my otherwise fairly clean record. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, all you're being asked is to stop your accusations and remove them from the places you made them. The request is not unreasonable, particularly when considering your claim that you have slandered me in only a few places. In fact, professional as they would be, apologies are not even required to resolve this matter. However, by outright refusing to do these simple things and instead deciding to continue casting aspersions, you are effectively piling stuff onto yourself.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Fairly blatant meat puppetry here

Sadly as someone who has been on the periphery of this long term, I have to note there has been a long term history of meat puppetry associated with WP:BraC. I first became aware of this some time ago, when somewhat perplexed asked why the WP article on the War of the Triple Alliance (common English name) was named Paraguayan War (common name in Brazil). There I found User:Lecen recruited a number of editors from that project to vote in his favour of retaining the move he'd engendered to the fringe name. Enraged by my more than polite questions Lecen was eventually blocked for his combative behaviour and has nurtured a grudge ever since.

I have to note that User:Asyntax is often a proxy for User:Lecen (eg Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2012) and appears to be continuing the dispute between Lecen and MarshalN20 by proxy. There is already an arbcom sanctioned interaction between Lecen and Marshal, I would recommend it is extended. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And your basis for that accusation is what? You are hardly a neutral observer and have raised the Paraguayan War name change issue repeatedly since you and MarshalN20 failed to gain and rejected consensus. I am certain that uninvolved admins can and will investigate your puppetry charge, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with MarshalN20's incident report above. • Astynax ^talk 23:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

I stated it above, but seeing Astynax' response, I'm appalled - it's clear that in order to protect this project - and its editors (even in heated areas), that something needs to be done. They are clearly attempting to discredit MarshalN20, and to drive him off certain sets of articles on Wikipedia as per WP:HARASS.

• Option 1: Astynax is subject to a 1-way WP:IB with MarshalN20
• Option 2: Astynax is indefinitely blocked until they supply a WP:GAB compliant unblock request, which must include a promise to immediately cease making further comments that cast aspersion on MarshalN20, and that they will immediately retract and strike all previous instances
• Option 3: Both Option 1 and option 2 combined
• Option 4: No action against Astynax

Discussion

• Unfortunate support of option 3 added: as first choice, option 1 as second choice ES&L 21:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• A standard two-way IB between Astynax and Marshal is a much more robust solution here. The one-way IB hardly ever works out well, except in the case of harassment-only SPAs, which Astynax doesn't seem to be. If my memory of this is isn't wrong, Marshal was initially given a one-way IB with Lecen, which was then made two-way because the one-way IB didn't work out well. Let's not prolong the drama by new one-way IBs in this area... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel a two-way IB may be later misinterpreted as reflecting mutual antagonism. I don't think this is the case here. The mentioned two-way IB was implemented on August 2013. The original case did not have any interaction bans. Arbitrator T. Canens wrote, "When I drafted the PD in this case, I considered including interaction bans; I decided against that because I thought the topic bans may well be sufficient to separate the parties and prevent the acrimonious interactions. Unfortunately, the continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary" ([60]). This IBAN was later breached, not by me, and with accusations that mirror Astynax's current claims (please see [61]).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps a one-way IB is more indicative of the issue and perhaps a better solution (see my reasons in my response to Someone not using his real name). It's important to point out that Astynax writes, "I cannot recall any interaction with MarshalN20 since his topic ban" ([62]). Indeed, I have not interacted with Astynax since the arbitration case closed. This makes Astynax's sudden re-appearance and unwarranted accusations (which are eerily similar, if not exact, to the "acrimonious" accusations that partially led to the IBAN of August 2013; please see [63]) all the more indicative of a WP:MEAT situation. Taking this all into consideration, it seems to me that Option 3 is indeed the best solution.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the other user that Astynax talks about in his messages, I have the same topic ban that MarshalN20 has. I usually prefer to deny recognition when someone says bad things about me, to avoid increasing drama. Still, I don't like to be periodically mentioned from out of the blue as if I was the root of all evil, or something like that. It's specially strange coming from Astynax, as I have not interacted with him since... well, I don't remember if I ever interacted with him personally at all (I only remember his name from discussions involving several users). Yes, I'm topic banned, but Wikipedia:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors clarifies in bold font that "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor." I have moved on since the topic ban, I chose other topics of articles to continue editing, I did not interact with the editors that supported the ban any more than strictly necessary, and I'm not going around wikipedia claiming to be a victim or a martyr. I expect people like Astynax to do the same and move on as well, but if he can't do that on his own, then an interaction ban should be needed. If I do not react when he accuses me of wrongdoings, that doesn't mean that I don't care Cambalachero (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack and disruptive editing by Arildnordby

• Arildnordby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sati (practice) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Death by burning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arildnordby made some edits[64] on the page Sati (practice), referring to author-less and almost 200 years old source. Not even a single time he would bring to talk page, but sure edit war. When I brought the issue to his talk page, he would make irresponsible reply like, "you think modern historian cite these stats", which is already contradictory. Check the history of another page called Death by burning, he made the similar and more edits on this page, which contradict WP:Cherrypicking, WP:Forking, WP:SEEALSO, except that, there are on going issues with the article of Sati(seen in talk page), I removed them, as per description on edit summary, but he reverted each of my edits, calling each them "vandalism". Later on his talk page he writes "It is not surprising that vandals like you start bullying others."

Yet no better source has been presented, but claims that i vandalize[65] and I am Liar[66], after getting debunked, he claims that he provided "among best stats", despite these are the only reports in this regard. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He is quite simply lying, for example omitting from mentioning that I HAVE added modern historians citing those precise statistics. So yes, I stand by my charge of this user that he is bullying others.Arildnordby (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Historians that are debunking the statistics What's the need of the report that has been debunked already, for not only main page, but other pages. Other than that, the report are almost 200 year old, incomplete(like source suggest). Bladesmulti (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No they are not. At most, they are saying the British estimates are under-estimates of the frequency. Which is quite different from they being over-estimates. The statistics are perfectly trustworthy of actually reported cases, providing an important lower barrier for numbers of sati.Arildnordby (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Other than the source write that "not only is the pre-1815 data is scanty, but even the usable 'hard numbers' are fraught with the problems." and "the emerging colonial government simply did not possess the administrative apparatus." You have yourself admitted the allegation of this single source that they are called to be underestimate. That makes it straight. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And, again: "did not possess the administrative apparatus." will lead simply to under-estimates by truthful reporting, not to overestimates. Thus, the given reports are AMONG our "best possible estimates", and they will tend to err on the side of under-reporting. Providing trustworthy lower bounds is very important; they demolish, for example, claims that only 20 or 80 widows were burnt in Bengal for a given year.Arildnordby (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To call inclusion of such statistics of that type for "disruptive editing" is, again, just symptomatic of your own churlishness, and aim to bully others.YOU were the one disruptive, removing 6700+ from Death by Burning, for example.Arildnordby (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Because they were unconstructive edits, contradicting rules, as per described in WP:Cherrypicking, WP:Forking, WP:SEEALSO, something that you still haven't explained. And even after debunking of those unpopular stats, you should read WP:Not TRUTH. This is exactly your case. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What "debunking?? All you have managed to show is that some historians regard those figures as too low in estimating instances of sati, not that they were made up by the British. Thus, they remain trustworthy lower bounds for BengalArildnordby (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Disapproving, refuting, are some similar words, they weren't made up by british(never said it) but since they were relatively low in amount, and 'problematic' like author described, almost nothing recorded during 18th century either. Thus they haven't been used. If you use them, you should attribute them, instead of edit warring, forking, like explained above. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Refuting? Yang refutes the fantasy claim provided in the Datamation Foundation link already provided, that: " The reasons being the change in the statutory succession rights of the widows, which brought on them this inhuman brutality with the ulterior motive of depriving them from sharing the property." This nonsensical idea is what was the "link" on these issues originally, along with a kooky librarian's personal website, necrometrics. It is not my links that needs an overhaul, but those allready present. Mine are better.Arildnordby (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As for other scholars utilizing these numbers, or very close, to it, you may look at Mortimer Wheeler's The Cambridge History of India, p.137 He uses my reference for the low number of sati in 1815, and the high number in 1818, only marginal divergences for the other years. To publish therefore, as I did, precisely those numbers in 1815-1824 that historians have used, is what you call "disruptive editing". In my view, you are the disruptive one.Arildnordby (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, in 2004 Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, the numbers 442 in 1816 and 707 for 1817 are precisely those given in my original link, appearing at p.77. Which you said was "way too old". It is not, it IS among the best possible estimates we have. And that's why historians cite them.Arildnordby (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I haven’t looked into or have any opinion on the underlying content dispute. But it seems to met hat the word vandalism is misplaced in this case and should be retracted. Vandalism is a word that on Wikipedia is used for edits where people intentionally mess up Wikipedia simply in order to mess it up. I don’t think this is the case here. Otherwise, maybe the Reliable sources noticeboard might be of help for the underlying content dispute. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing 6700+ completely necessary info from Death by burning IS vandalism. A highly compressed history of sati belongs there, as well as discussion of numbers. Precisely as they belong relative to Spanish Inquisition numbers, say. As for the weird charge of content forking, it is mutually 90% NON-overlap between article Sati (practice) and Death by burning, so it doesn't stick.Arildnordby (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Lata Mani is using precisely the same numbers for 1815 and 1818 as my original source, as well as observing the fluctuation in the other years of about 500-600 (generally between. p.21 Still "way too old" numbers I inserted? Tell that to the professional research community.Arildnordby (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One liners doesn't means that they are referring to the stats to any credible level. Read WP:POINT, since you are bragging about other sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi guys, have you considered opening a WP:RFC on the talk page of the article under dispute, or perhaps filing at WP:DRN? Because this is sounding very much like a content dispute (and any behavioural issues are merely that you're both angry about the content dispute...) 82.31.206.27 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I agree; DRN is the place for this. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

ErpertAs it's obvious, that this is no issue with WP:DRN, it is issue about Personal attack, WP:Cherrypicking, WP:Forking, It is written in a book, must be true. Since this user doesn't seems to be stop calling any of my edit a "vandalism", and further claim that i am "bullying" him, I don't think he is ever able to reach to any consensus. You think he can? Probably not. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look, at the recent, and massive edit warring by Arilnordby, Main Page, Death by burning, and his allegation that "you vandalize", is similar to other known users such as Lihaas, Darkness Shines, even though he was warned hardly a few hours before, can be see here, he also allege Darkness shines to bully him, just like he alleged me here, like it can be viewed. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I caught the 3rr report and blocked Aril for 24 hours for a clear violation of 3rr. There are obviously further problems that will need to be resolved here, unfortunately. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Anon editor(s) whose IP links them to parent company deleting sections of RSA Security

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

---

Hi. Two anonymous editors have deleted sections of the article RSA Security pertaining to news reports that the company knowingly sold software containing a NSA backdoor. They were made via IP addresses belonging to EMC, the parent company of RSA:

• Edit 1 and Edit 2 by 128.221.224.61
• Edit 3 by 128.221.224.62

These edits removed well-cited material; the editor(s) left change notices but declined to explain the deletions at the article's Talk page. It appears, therefore, that someone at EMC is trying to delete text deemed unfavorable to the company.

This is my first report here; what's the next step? Blocking? PRRfan (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Conflict of Interest Noticeboard? Request page protection? ES&L 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two days. --AdmrBoltz 19:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Incivility and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by User:NE2

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

---

Primarily, this is the edit I am starting this for.[67], which I find grossly incivil and downright degrading. This forms my endcap on continued stubborness by NE2 to work with some recent changes that have otherwise garnered unanimous consensus. Several massive templates were recently converted to Lua, which completely erases a longstanding problem of page edits timing out on large articles. However, NE2 has been very stubborn about this change because of his use of one of the templates combined with manually wikicoding the rest of a table. Instead of working with the majority to fix the articles that are broken, he has been cross posting to numerous places in order to get his way. This is getting old, uncivil, and something needs to be done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the comment linked above was in reference to me, I chose to ignore the above comment, since I don't have nor ever will I have a wife, since I'm not into that, but it was rather uncivil. --AdmrBoltz 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think NE2 was just pointing out that he believed you were asking him a loaded question. You assumed he was listing articles randomly, this was a rather snarky way of saying your assumption was wrong. AniMate 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Granted, my initial response wasn't the best - but in his list of articles there is an FA and a GA... thus obviously notable. --AdmrBoltz 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

An admin might want to take care of Template talk:Jcttop/core - the template was recently changed to use HTML table code rather than wikicode, which for whatever reason doesn't allow wikicode inside for individual rows:

|- |b

a

--NE2 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the links in question, I see no evidence of basic bad behavior; as AniMate says, the "wife" bit is simply an allusion to the traditional complex question "have you stopped beating your wife?" On top of that, I see technical discussions in the links, but nothing of the sort that deserves to be called disruptive, let alone worthy of a block or other sanction. If you believe that this is a situation warranting admin intervention, you really need to supply a lot more links — the only way this kind of thing could be disruptive is if there's a long history, and you need lots of additional links/diffs to demonstrate that there's a long history of disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't this just a specialised case of edit warring over the colour of templates? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• A recent post at WT:LUA#Wikitext tables? claims that the problem has been resolved, and if a page shows a problem, it should be purged. If that does not fix it, the problem should be reported again. Re the "wife" issue: that is a completely standard reply to a loaded question, and is not incivility. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Need help on persistent IP editor

(Not really a clear 3RR vio, and I'm involved so I can't block, myself) 62.73.9.4 (talk · contribs) has been trying to insert the supposed salaries of actors at Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. The matter was discussed on the talk page, pointing out the sources originally used failed reliability tests. The user claimed to have found more, including IMDB, but considering the unreliable nature of IMDB, and the lack of explicit mention of salaries in the other articles given, this isn't sufficient to add the salaries. So when myself and others have removed these, the editor has responded by then removing other references in the article (from reliable cites like ew.com and ign.com for films), claiming them unreliable (eg [68] , [69], [70]). I have warned this editor [71] which was subsequently removed. If I wasn't involved, this would be a short term block and encouragement to use the talk page. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem is bullying me and saying IMBD sources are not reliable (even they he knows Martin Downey Jr made $15 million[72], Jude Law made $9 million[73] and Rahael McAdam made $5 million[74][75][76][77][78] on Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows), ok if they aren't I looked into the article deeper and found there were several sources that are reliable on the article as it appears. I found ew.com and ign.com for films was unreliable which Masem is doesn't explain that are vice versa. I know he wants me blocked and is not willing to consensus the salaries on the Game of Shadows film. As I said, the sources I only replied were only adding salary information on the actors, what is so hard about that? It seems like he refuses to have the salaries on there as if he is being paid by a private agency to avoid putting actor salaries on the article. Is that wrong to place salaries with sources to at least verify the budget and what the budget cost to pay the actors out of the budget? Really, it seems I am being bullied here.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But the sources you have added are either 1) fail to meet reliable source guidelines (which, btw ew.com and ign.com clearly met as they have editorial control) and 2) do not explicitly mention the salary for that film, making the addition original research, as has been explained on the talk page. Find appropriate sources that clearly state the salaries for this film, they can be added with no question, but you don't have those yet. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So your saying no salary information? Where do you think they get the information? IMBD is an actors account, they have user personal user files, you cannot log on and comment like a blog. It's a bio of their film history. I personally feel you are being paid here, not sure if it's agent of the Actors Gilled but their salaries is part of the budget, how do you think it cost $125 million[79] to make this movie? Do you think it was only location and camera's? 35% of the film went on actors salaries. IMDB is not a blog, you cannot comment on their like a blog, it states the information of what they made and what they acted in, is that so hard to ask. If there is no information, then how do you think the Los Angeles Time knows why the movie cost $125 million dollars then? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/12/box-office-sherlock-holmes-alvin-chipmunks.html There is a break down what the movie cost, bottom line.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not bullying, the editor is simply trying to make sure that incorrect information is not added to the article. This requires a verifiable, reliable source. IMDB, according to their website, gets their information from various sources, including visitors to the site, and they do not guarantee its accuracy. This is probably why MASEM (t) finds it unreliable. Try to find a news article that states the information you are trying to add. If IMDB got it from a verifiable, reliable source, you should have no trouble finding one and citing it. Don't take it so personal, so many people edit Wikipedia, that it is inevitable that someone will eventually disagree with you. Hope this clears things up, —Josh3580_talk/hist 23:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, how did you interpret "Find appropriate sources that clearly state the salaries for this film, they can be added with no question, but you don't have those yet" as "no salary information"? You don't seem to be open at all to valid and helpful guidance, and in fact are interpreting it as bullying. SeeWP:AGF. —Josh3580_talk/hist 23:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just confirming that IMDB is not a reliable source by our criteria - it gets brought up at WP:RSN from time to time and editors are told the same thing (I just noticed one editor wrote that he occasionally interviews actors and they can't understand why IMDB lists them as having been in films that they weren't actually in). Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Marriage

User:Armbrust recently closed a request for comment on whether the abbreviation "d." for died should be used in Template:Marriage. My belief is that there is clear consensus to use "d." for died. Despite this User:Technical 13 is (1) insisting that there was no consensus to use "d." for died despite clear evidence to the contrary; (2) reverting my changes to the template, template documentation and sandbox despite clear evidence that the edits follow consensus; and (3) altering the closer's summary[80]. DrKiernan (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Marriages don't "die". The end in divorce, annulment, or in one of the wedded being widowed or survived. The discussion on the talk page was whether or not the ambiguous terms of d., m., s., and w. should be replaced with less ambiguous three letter abbreviations. That discussion was closed as consensus to replace those single letter ambiguous terms with the three letter ambiguous terms of div., mar., sur., wid.. There was never any discussion of adding died to the template. I believe that DrKiernan has misread the consensus, and do not fault him... I do believe it would have been more appropriate for him to attempt to discuss it with me on the template's talk page, my talk page, or WP:DRN instead of coming directly to AN/I to discuss it, but it is what it is and I am willing to discuss it wherever. Technical 13 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The closer specified d. for died. You edited it to claim they didn't. The supportive points mostly included supporting d. for died, as well. Speaking as someone who was not involved in any way and really couldn't care less what the result of the RFC was, all things considered. SamBC(talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

    Errata - sorry, I was wrong that most specified d. for died - but most who indicated any opinion about death supported d for died, and no-one supporting overall specified "except 'd' shouldn't be for 'died'" or such. SamBC(talk) 23:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See also the somewhat WP:POINTy section beneath the linked (closed) RFC. SamBC(talk) 23:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• The closer said that that since 'd' means 'died' for some people, it shouldn't be used and 'div.' should be used instead, not that died should be added to a template about marriage in which died is not a third option past survived or widowed. Also note Sam, having a point does not make someone WP:POINTy as it clearly says in that guideline itself (read WP:NOTPOINTy). Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Marriages end in death, or in one of the wedded being dead. The discussion on the talk page was whether or not the ambiguous terms of d. and w. should be replaced with less ambiguous abbreviations. That discussion was closed as consensus to replace those single letter ambiguous terms with the unambiguous terms of d., div., and wid.. There was never any discussion of adding three letter abbreviations for married or survived to the template.

The template talk page is for discussing the template. This noticeboard is for discussing editor behavior. Your behavior has been sub-par because you are (1) claiming that there was discussion of the abbreviations for marriage and survived (there was none); (2) claiming that using "d." for died was not discussed (it was); (3) altering the comments of other editors in violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; and (4) edit-warring to maintain your version of the template against consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

DrKiernan, this noticeboard is only for discussing editor behavior once all other options have been exhausted, with the first proper step being to attempt to discuss it on the other editors talk page, which you made no attempt to do. Be careful when flinging poo in here, as I've seen WP:BOOMERANG catch a few people off guard. As for your bullet list of my indiscretions which you think warranted dragging me here;

1. The consensus was to accept the sandbox as was shown in the testcases which I had altered to gain consensus of whether people wanted to leave the template status quo, or make the changes per your request. Therefor, the consensus to adopt your version including three letter abbreviations for all terms.
2. The only discussion about d. meaning died was the back and forth discussion that you and I had before anyone else popped in and contributed to the consensus building process. Not a single one of them agreed that "died" should be added to the template.
3. I reverted part of an alteration to an already closed discussion that was seemed to confuse the issue. This is not against any "law of Wikipedia"
4. The only edit warring I have observed has been on your part in an attempt to push changes through to a template for which there was no consensus to make. I encourage you to open a new discussion if you want to add a new pre-described reason to the template. Alternatively, I encourage you drop the stick and let the template stand as consensus has prescribed.

Now, I hope that these issues that are mostly a content dispute about what belongs in the template or not will be swiftly resolved. I don't intend to say much more unless specifically asked a question and hope this will be quickly closed so I can take this page back off my watchlist. Thank you all. Technical 13 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1. I don't want three-letter abbreviations for all terms, and never said that at any point anywhere.
2. Two other editors agreed "change to d. ... I agree with DrKiernan", "change to d. ... per DrKiernan"
3. You admit then that you altered someone else's comment in "an already closed discussion".
4. I have performed 1 revert on Template:Marriage compared to your two. I have performed no reverts on Template:Marriage/testcases and Template talk:Marriage compared to your one on each. I have performed two reverts on Template:Marriage/sandbox compared to your three. DrKiernan (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(4) redux: Make that 1 revert on Template:Marriage compared to your three, and no reverts on Template talk:Marriage compared to your two. DrKiernan (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I just realised that Technical 13's so-called revert of the close message wasn't even a revert, it was edited beyond the revert; it did not return the area in question to a state it had ever been in. 'd' was mentioned in the close statement as it was first posted [81], and the so-called 'revert' was supposedly to an edit, by the closer, that added what d, div etc actually stood for [82] - but it removed the mention of 'd' entirely, and didn't remove the expansions of the others [83]. I find it hard not to see that edit as duplicitous, and editing other people's posts in talk is certainly against guidelines. SamBC(talk) 00:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Armbrust modified the closing statement to There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d. for died, div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively. -- Since there was no d. for died in the template to begin with, and there was no consensus in the discussion to add it, I made a partial revert to put it back to There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively. which reflected the original close of There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d., div. and wid. respectively. in which there was rightly no mention of "died". This revert restored the closing statement to its original tone without undoing any actual clarification that Armbrust may have intended to do. Technical 13 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Technical 13, this doesn't look proper to me at all. In this edit the closer (Armbrust) described the consensus as being for "d., div. and wid. respectively" and then in this subsequent edit the closer revised that to say " d. for died, div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively". You then, in this edit (labeled as a revert, but in fact an alteration) changed this to read " div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively". You clearly feel that this would have been the correct close, but this is not something that the closer ever wrote. When objecting to a close you may state your view, you may not rewrite the close without the closer's say-so. Particularly not without indicating that the wording is yours and not the closer's on the page. This is simply not acceptable, and you know better. DES ^(talk) 04:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I might add that you are not allowed to assume without evidence what the "actual clarification that Armbrust may have intended to do" is. The comment above that "This revert restored the closing statement to its original tone" is misleading. The change altered the close to a state it had never been in previously -- one without "d.". Now maybe there was no consensus for 'd." and the closer was in gross error, but that isn't how to deal with such a case. DES ^(talk) 04:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• DES, looking at it again, I may have misread what Armbrust wrote. I read it as "we are going from using d. to div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively". Taking into account that there is no died in the template, and no-one ever suggested adding it to the template (DrKiernan only said that since d. can be read as died, it shouldn't be used for divorced, not that he wanted to add died to the list of predefined reasons in this template), I apologize to Armbrust if that was the case, and would appreciate his clarification of the clarification on the talk page if my interpretation of that was incorrect. Technical 13 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I just... what? The close said "consensus to change the abbreviations to d., div. and wid." (emphasis mine). How is that ambiguous? And in any case, you should never, ever be editing what someone else said on a talk page, least of all a close statement. You labelled something a revert when it was not a revert at all. That's quite a significant degree of confusion. SamBC(talk) 14:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Really, so you can't see a dyslexic person reading it as "consensus to change the abbreviations d. to div. and wid." (emphasis mine). Wow. Way to AGF. Then, for the closer to introduce died into a closing for a discussion where no-one discussed died at all except that d. shouldn't be used for divorced since d. means died in an entirely different context after the fact effectively changing the close, and me reverting those words that did not clarify (show me where it says partial reverts aren't allowed and I'll show you were it says they are) and claiming it was not a revert. This is why I hate these toxic noticeboards. Anyways, I've got more important stuff to do. Technical 13 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would the existing 'd.' (meaning divorced) be changed to both div. and wid.? If I read that, I'd assume that I'd misread it and look again, carefully; I have occasional cognitive issues myself, so I have some experience of this happening :) SamBC(talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Technical 13, if you correctly understood what the closer (Armbrust) wrote, or even what he meant to write or should have written, then he ratehr badly misstated things. Putiing "d." after "to" in "There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d., div. and wid. respectively." or in the later version "There is a clear consensus to change the abbreviations to d. for died, div. for divorced and wid. for widowed respectively." pretty clearly says that the final result should include "d.". If you thought that is not what the consensus showed, a request for clarification, ("did you mean...") or a challenge to the close ("I think you mis-read the consensus because...") would have been fine, but the way you responded was not. I hope that Armbrust will weigh in to make clear exactly what he did mean, but until then the close should be restored to the way he left it. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DES, I have fully reverted the closing to what it was when it was closed. I believe it should stay that way until Armbrust (who has been pinged multiple times from this discussion as well as properly notified by DrKiernan at the onset of this discussion. When you read it as I did as "consensus to change the abbreviations d. to div. and wid." (emphasis mine) then there is no way that you can say that it is clearly stated that the final result should include "d." for died and that should be added to the template. Can anyone here show me where anyone supported or even suggested that died should be added to the template? I really don't see it.

• DrKiernan's request was: Please change the abbreviation for divorce to "div." and not "d." "d." is universally understood to mean died.

• Only asks for the abbreviation to be changed, not to add a new outcome to the template.

• TonyBallioni, Frietjes, NinjaRobotPirate, Plastikspork and Somedifferentstuff only supported changing the abbreviation to div., not to adding a new outcome of died (I used a noping there as to not be disruptive and POINTy, and I want to clarify that so I am not falsely accused of being POINTy again).

In conclusion, DrKiernan never asked for died to be added to the template; adding died would be ambiguous because it doesn't say if the topic was survived by the spouse or widowed by them (doesn't say who died, and the template already supports the "who" factor); and no-one supported adding died to the template because it was never asked for. Technical 13 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Technical 13, you wrote above "Can anyone here show me where anyone supported or even suggested that died should be added to the template?" and "DrKiernan never asked for died to be added to the template". Here are some diffs which I would read as showing that DrKiernan and two other editors did support "d." n the template for "died".

• In this edit, DrKiernan, wrote " I think now it is better to change this template so that instead of using abbreviations we've made up ourselves, we use abbreviations that are already common practice:...d for died...div for divorced...wid for widowed...These abbreviations in brackets beside the spouse's name would indicate to me that they apply to the spouse, i.e. the spouse died or was widowed in that year."
• In this edit TonyBallioni wrote: "*Support proposal to change to "d.", "div.", and "wid."" (emphasis on "to" added).
• In this edit Frietjes wrote "support proposal to change to "d.", "div.", and "w." to "wid." per TonyBallioni and Dr. Kiernan".
• Several others merely mentioned a "change to div". Perhaps this was confusion on the part of multiple editors, but three supported "to 'd.'" and no one explicitly opposed that except you, who opposed the entire change.

You might want to reconsider your remarks above. DES ^(talk) 16:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• DES, none of those show any proposal to add died to a template that already employs survived and widowed. Only to change to "d.", "div.", and "wid." We are still talking about which abbreviations to use for existing text in the template, died was not an existing text and therefor you can't change it to d. because there is nothing to change it from. Technical 13 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My reading of the closed discussion is that DrKiernan was originally just asking for the existing 'd.' for divorced to change to 'div.', but by the time support developed, had changed to saying that the existing abbreviations should be changed to 'd.' for 'died', 'div.' for 'divorced' and 'wid.' for 'widowed', and this was what was supported. Changing the existing abbreviations means adding those that are absent. SamBC(talk) 17:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• T13, There do appear to be several people saying 'd' should be for 'died' and no-one expressly opposing it except you, who was opposing the whole thing. The proposal was amended (December 22) to specify 'd' for 'died', and all the support messages were posted after that amendment. The clear sense of the consensus, to me, is that d. is included as died. The close statement explicitly includes 'd', and in the context of a proposal that it mean 'died', so I find your persistent reverting of the inclusion of 'd' in the template alarming. I'm not going to get into a revert war over it, but it is very strange. The proposal people supported specified 'd' for died. People supported it. The close specified that 'd' be included as well as the other elements of the proposal. So what exactly is the problem with acting on that consensus and including 'd' for died in the template? SamBC(talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• I feel like a broken record. Please read all of the other discussion here, there was no proposal to add the more ambiguous died to a template that already supports the more specific survived and widowed. Therefor, there was no consensus to add died as an option to the template. Those people never said "I support adding d. for died, and changing to use div. for divorced and wid. for widowed." They said that d. means died, div. means divorced, and wid. means widowed to them, not that died should be added. What I find alarming is that DrKiernan is acting against the written consensus and attempting to add something to the template. Making that template more ambiguous by adding died to it removes most of the little bit of function to the template that has had me supporting its existence and pushing for it to be kept in the multiple deletion discussions that have been had on the topic. If died is added to the template, I will see no reason for keeping the template and will support its deletion the next time that Andy or Lady Lotus or someone else nominates it for deletion. As you can see in the previous discussions, I only supported its being kept if it was properly cleaned up and doing something useful. A lot of progress has been made on this front, but I'm not going to push so hard to keep it if it goes back to being more ambiguous and becoming counter productive. So, I've little more to say. Time to move on to another project. Thank you and have a nice day. Technical 13 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If you are correct, T13, three editors mad nonsensical comments on the RfC that couldn't possibly have meant what they said. Perhaps so, but perhaps they actually meant what they said. in any case that is not an issue for this page, I merely wanted to point out that your "no one ever said 'd.' at all" comment above is not correct. It is true that none of them used the word "add". As to what they really mean, perhaps they will say themselves, on the proper page rather than you or I needing to guess. DES ^(talk) 17:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I do hope that they clarify on the template's talk page, and there are now two sections for them to do so with the option of explicitly adding a third (which is unneeded in my opinion as DrKiernan's new proposal to remove the survived parameter should cover it). Technical 13 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

First I want to point out, that at time of the closure I didn't know, that the "died" parameter isn't used in the template. I have than seen, that the addition the parameter by DrKiernan was reverted by Technical 13. Seeing that, I tried to clarify the closure, but it looks it didn't succeeded. (Sorry about that.) Therefore I'm not planning on adding it back. Part of the problem may be, that users supporting the proposed change didn't know (like me), that it isn't the template, but that's just an educated guess. As this template has more than 3500 transclusions, a little bit extra couldn't hurt. And lastly I want to point out, that the abbreviation "d." should be used for "died", therefore it probably shouldn't be used as a parameter for "divorced". Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (P.S.: You can ping me all you want, I have disabled it with a script, and only see it in AWB. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC))

I'm wondering why there needs to be letters within the template at all? (If this is previously discussed I'm sorry, I only skimmed this section so don't shoot me.) But it just seems redundant to have this template at all when regular text would suffice. There isn't a template for partners so when they do have both, it looks silly to have the whole "(m. 1990-2006)" and then "(2007-present)" beneath it. Spouse means they are married, so why repeat the fact that they are married with having the little "m" or having the redundant "d"? Isn't divorce implied if the marriage ended unless it was through an annulment or death? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question, and I don't really know myself either. The template, however, was nominated three times in 2013 and was snow kept the last time. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the template talk page it is because without the letters, there can be confusion between the dates of a marriage and birth/death dates, which are formatted similarly. This has apparently gone back and forth in discussion at least. DES ^(talk) 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Users might not have known that 'died' wasn't already in the template, but I'm not sure that alters the apparent consensus that it should be there. I, personally, would add it based on that, but start a new RFC on the question of how marriages ended by the death of one of the parties should be labelled, given the existing debate as to the virtue (and comprehensibility) of widowed/survived. SamBC(talk) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Could I please get full protection on the template and all its sub-pages. There is still editing and reverting going on despite the issue being under discussion and not concluded. DrKiernan (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mos

This is an MoS issue, not a template issue (the decision on what abbreviations to use would be the same, whether this template was used or not) and an RfC should be opened up on an appropriate MoS subpage, then advertised at relevant projects and the "centralised discussion" template. As I have explained before, the template serves no useful purpose and should be deleted, but that's irrelevant to the MoS mater. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've added policy and style to the RfC parameters, injected the text that was placed by legobot on bio into the corresponding new pages, and added a note about the discussion to {{CENT}}. I don't think there is much more to be done here. There are now more appropriate discussions on the template's talk page, so unless anyone has something to add, I am requesting this discussion be closed. Technical 13 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The content issue is moving forward in more appropriate places, yes, and, so far, in perfectly civil fashion. I'm not sure whether anything that's been said by you, Technical 13, counts as an admission of fault (on the editing of a close statement to change its meaning, specifically), but I don't see the need for any further actions if there has been an admission of fault in that regard. If the original closer is happy that the current version of the close message reflects there intent, rather than the version they left there (as you, this time cleanly, reverted their own clarifying edit to it), then it can stand as it is. I think you have acted inappropriately in blocking implementation of the conclusion of that consensus, but given that there is fresh discussion on that for additional clarity, I don't think that requires any precipitate action. That's just my opinion has someone who has only been involved in this since it was raised here. SamBC(talk) 16:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that Technical 13 thinks reverting three times in 24 hours on the same page[84][85][86] is not edit-warring[87][88].

And that s/he thinks altering another person's talk page comments [89][90] is acceptable despite being told otherwise.[91]

However, as no admission of fault is forthcoming and no action can be taken, prolonging this discussion any further is pointless. So, close this section. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the most recent comment of Technical 13 on the template talk page, I am now striking the above. Claiming that "Anne Boleyn died" is "more ambiguous" than "Henry VIII of England was widowed by Anne Boleyn"[92] is so utterly out there, it beggars belief. The attitude shown by User:Technical 13 is beyond reasonable and there is no useful purpose to be gained from having such input into the discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• DrKiernan's inability to accept that there may be perspectives other than his or her own, requesting that this discussion be closed, then pinging me back here to attack me by making a claim that my input is unreasonable and useless, on top of his or her insistence on reverting a tool that was requested by DES in a consensus building discussion feels like borderline vindictive WP:HARASSment. This user has further violated NPA in this edit claiming that I'm deliberately trying to make the template look more and more ridiculous. on a template I've been contributing and trying to improve over the last 9-12 months. DrKiernan's contributions to the template have been minimal and have all required RfC discussions to try and build a consensus, that they have then gone and made edits against that consensus. he or she has repeatedly exhibited a BATTLEGROUND mentality in these discussions as well as flat out altering the comments of another in an attempt to further their cause. I find this very disruptive and disturbing. I realize that due to these attacks, that I am perhaps overreacting a bit, and I apologize for that up front. I'm feeling very emotionally charged as a result of this constant WIKIHOUNDING and HARASSMENT at the hand of this editor and will be taking a WIKIBREAK from this topic for the rest of the day and perhaps tomorrow as well to CALM down. I realize it can be difficult to AGF, especially when you can't for the life of you see the perspective of others. It doesn't not mean they mean the project harm, and I'm fairly certain that my thanks logs, received WikiLove on my talk page (also archived), and general notes of appreciation speaks volume in of itself that I am here to improve the project. I would like to thank the administrators for their time, and apologize for this not being dealt with on my talk page like it should have in the first place. Have a nice day. Technical 13 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Valeant Pharmaceuticals IP editing articles

We appear to have the manufacturer of Cold-fX aggressively editing the article on the product. There headquarters are in Laval, Quebec a city of 400,000.[93] This IP User:66.46.223.130 geolocates there [94]

The other IP editing is from Richmond Hill, another Valeant location.[95] User:174.112.42.106 [96] There is more evidence that is obvious but cannot say it. By the way how does one state that a paid employee of Valeant Pharmaceuticals is editing the page on Cold-fX? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See {{COI}} for starters. That's for the article itself (not the Talk) and no longer applies once any resulting POV issues have been resolved. There might be something for Talk reminding editors to respect COI guidelines -- not sure -- and that would likely be only for persistent problems. No doubt you know these things sometimes become public quite suddenly so to be sure you're doing things right perhaps review WP:COI, WP:OUTING, and both the doc and the Talk for {{coi}}. EEng (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one-week, .106 has been blocked for EW. --AdmrBoltz 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting at Amanda Lindhout

Tedious editing at this article, first as I.P User:94.190.228.50 then as current user name after the page was protected by Mark Arsten, rehashing the same points on the article's talk page and on several user's talk pages including here, and continues to make changes to the article without consensus. SPA with a clear axe to grind. is now just vandalising the page as retaliation for failure to gain consensus. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The writing may have been tedious, but I suspect you meant tendentious? --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently both. EEng (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well both. wp:tedious redirects to Tendentious editing. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am doing my best to improve this article, using a wide range of reliable sources. Please explain what is wrong - specifically - with this brief paragraph which you reverted:

"However, the book and Lindhout's initial decision to go to Somalia did receive criticism from a number of journalists. Some accounts of events in the book were contradicted by the version of events given by her co-captive Nigel Brennan, as found in his own book, published in 2011. The two no longer speak."

InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong, is that you have failed to gain consensus for the change at the article's talk page, then made the change anyway and commenced edit warring when you didn't get your way. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even mention this on the talk page. I made the change, you reverted it, and brought it here. "Edit-warring" - the page history will clearly show that Jeremey reverted SEVEN of my edits, before I made ONE single revert. One. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Several established editors have reached a consensus that these edits are against BLP policy. We've each spent time on it, trying to see the POV of the user being addressed here, however it does not appear to be a way of conveying the spirit and rules of Wikipedia to said individual. Discussions have been held on multiple user talk pages and the page talk page, all resulting in the same thing. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why you reverted me eight times. Btw, you didn't spend any time at all on content. You didn't edit the page, you didn't find any sources. I did all that. And you reverted. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing a reviewers rejection of pending changes with reverts. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I advised ITIOOR to review the proposed material at WP:BLPN before making any more changes. I also note that earlier edits as an IP were far wider-ranging [97] and were of a nature requiring much more than a single second-hand account. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I smell WP:OWB #72 coming into play. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wise in 2006, and still wise in 2014, The Bushranger. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The edits of this editor, asnd the acknowledged IP edits, are very reminiscent of earlier edits by Twafotfs, who was blocked as a sock of indefinitely blocked serial puppeteer Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RolandR (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for 72 hours to stop the edit war. Hopefully in that time some consensus will emerge. Some comments of mine:

• User:InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting and User:Jeremy112233 - you've both edit warred and I could have quite easily blocked you both except it wasn't the best way to stop this situation given that there is discussion ongoing and other people are involved. If that behaviour returns when the page is unprotected blocks will likely follow. I don't think it's an obvious enough BLP violation to invoke the 3RR exception - it's sourced and there is an arguement for it being balancing.
• User:Jeremy112233 - It's not sock puppetry when an IP user creates an account and admits they're the same user. There was no deliberate attempt to mislead and creating an account having edited as an IP is a perfectly valid action.
• I can see no consensus yet for the content not being included unless it's somewhere other than the talk page / BLP notice board. Two editors saying no to one yes is not really a consensus. Dpmuk (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not break the 3RR barrier at any point, nor has anybody if you actually look at the edits. If you actually look at the page there are a series of different edits, each dealt with differently. You will also see that some more appropriate edits by the editor were not reverted. There is no edit war here if you look at the actual content of the edits, but rather a contentious argument between several editors over a range of edits. You also put the page on full protect the day after there had been a relaxing of edit tensions and a move to discuss on the talk page, which is quite odd and likely an overreaction. Please take a closer look at this situations before making false accusations. On January 21st there were only two reverts from myself, which led to the user addressing the situation more piecemeal. The user then made four edits piecemeal, only one was reverted due to its removal of sourced material. That reversion was not contested. Next there were two reversions of the same material made by me, and in this instance the material being removed by the user was well sourced. Again, this was about them removing sourced content, not adding balancing material. Note that this reversion was then uncontested. This followed with a different section of material the user tried to remove, also sourced, which I reverted to keep in. There was then only one other reversion made by myself, which also went uncontested. This was the only attempt to add information, and said information has been seen by more than two editors as not appropriate. No breaking of 3RR on either side, including by "In The Interest of". I would appreciate you trying not to inflame the situation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you go and familiarise yourself with our edit warring policy as you seem to have misunderstood it. To quote from the 3RR section: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period (my emphasis). I count 5 reverts by you between 00:46 and 02:55 on 23rd January (1,2, 3, 4 and 5), which is clear breach of 3RR and there's a further two reverts on 21st January. That to me is clear edit warring. InTheInterestofObjectiveReporting may not have broken 3RR as they often introduced slightly different material but continuing to introduce material that you know is likely to be reverted is still edit warring.

I protected it slightly over 12 hours after the last edit by any of the parties involved in the disagreement. Given that people have to sleep, have a daily routine etc it's not clear to me that a 12 hour break is an actual calming down of the situation or just people being unable to edit. Given that today's actions seem to be a continuation of what started a couple of days ago I felt it likely that this would flair up again once people got back to editing, hence the protection. Hopefully the page protection will give you all time to sort that out on the talk page. I'll be happy to unprotect once there's clear consensus on the talk page as to how to move forward. If you strongly disagree with my protection I'm happy for you to seek a secondopinion from another uninvolved admin and I won't object to whatever they decide. Dpmuk (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is stretching it a bit I think ;) I'm not sure many pages out there in Wikipedia wouldn't qualify as edit warzones under that definition. That said, it really wasn't the same material, as I've pointed out, and there were several other editors making similar reverts. Your evidence is simply to put down five reverts and say they must be the same because they involved the same editors. Removal of different sections and then adding stuff like "cocktail waitress" to a journalist and author's occupation are clearly not the same items when it comes to 3RR. You also miss that the page was put on review mode, so edits needed to be reviewed before approved. I approved more than I declined and was thoughtful in my edit summaries of each decision (though it appears Wikipedia cuts those off sometimes). If you look at the editing pattern, it was simply that I was there first, as other editors were reviewing in the same manner. I guess we will just agree to disagree that protecting BLPs from personal vendettas is more important that second-guessing whether or not there is some policy out there that provides a loophole for such material to integrate itself into said pages. In terms of full protection, I couldn't care less when it is up, and could care even less if an admin does something rash. I was just pointing out that it was not likely necessary. Besides, I'm the sort that backs off an article once an admin starts to bluster, as that part of Wikipedia is far too time-consuming and irrational to spend time out of my day on :) Best left to you better sirs with more patience and insistence than I. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock / whack-a-mole image vandalism

Throwaway account and IPs adding shock images to TFA / main page talk / other pages today:

• Barrara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.55.139.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.129.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.67.21.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.67.85.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.95.110.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.177.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.183.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.40.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.176.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.55.160.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Anyone care to look into rangeblocks? Bencherlite^Talk 13:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding:

• 178.55.182.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Bencherlite^Talk 13:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done To balance the protection of the project with limiting collateral damage, I have issued three short rangeblocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bencherlite^Talk 14:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User bringing real world legal dispute onto project

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

---

Last week, we were informed about the article Mobonix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mauricelwhite (talk · contribs), Iammobonix (talk · contribs), and Markwinters1 (talk · contribs) all claim to be a Mr. Maurice L. White who is allegedly a DJ who uses the name "Mobonix" on stage or a Mr. Mark Winters who owns a record label that has signed Mr. White as "Mobonix" who has been in a legal battle over trademarking with a Mr. Mohammed Kabir who is also a DJ who uses the name "Mobonix" on stage. This dispute over the article originally authored by Illxchild (talk · contribs) goes back to 2009 and has been simmering ever since the article was created it seems (there are multiple IP address edits to the article to instate the Mr. White version of the page in place of the Mr. Kabir version).

Mauricelwhite/Iammobonix/Markwinters1 has been disrupting Wikipedia in bringing his personal legal troubles with Mr. Kabir. The article was fully protected a week ago, but as soon as the protection expired, Mauricelwhite reinstated his version of the article on Mr. White, despite multiple messages sent to him that this action was inappropriate. He is clearly not here to improve the project and simply wishes to use Wikipedia as yet another venue to lay claim to the Mobonix trademark, even though AFD will very likely show that neither artist who calls himself "Mobonix" passes the notability criteria.

I am proposing that the Mauricelwhite, Iammobonix, and Markwinters1 accounts be blocked from the project for this level of disruption and clear disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines all to further his (or their) real world legal battle. After the AFD runs its course, we should very likely salt the page to prevent any further disruption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I went ahead and blocked Markwinters1, as I see at least one of his edit summaries of crossing the line of NLT. I'll take a look at the rest. Of course, I suspect autoblock will mean they won't be able to log in anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I bopped the rest too. Too close to NLT, and obviously not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment), might it not also be reasonable to delete the page in question, put up a notice on the page that says something to the nature of "due to an ongoing legal battle over the trademark of this name, this title has been locked until said battle has concluded." and full protect the page, semi-protect the talk page to prevent spamming of anon edit requests as surely once the dispute is over it will be notable enough for someone with an account in good standing to notice and notify someone that the dispute is over. It could even be noted on the talk page that evidence of the dispute being over will need to be sent to Wikimedia OTRS and make protecting the page be an office action or something. I'm not sure of the process on how to go about that, but surely someone here does. Technical 13 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipeia has no obligation (to my knowlage) to have the page listed be about the trademark owner and therefore has no reason to care about the external legal battle. There is no reason to delete the page for that reason. It is looking like the page will be deleted and WP:SALTed for notability reasons. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Self Reporting for WP:CIVIL issues

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

---

In a Talk page discussion I "turned to personal attacks" and was unable to "communicate civilly" per Kahastok. Since the topic in question is inherently volatile, and in the interest of keeping that discussion on-track and avoiding it being derailed into accusations about my behavior, I am preemptively reporting myself here for sanction. I have also taken the step of independently shutting down a RfC I posted in that thread to solicit input so the reviewing admin can more easily digest the history of my behavior. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Diffs, please, of any offensive edits? Drmies (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Except to my comment that I would self-report myself, I stopped all edits once Kahastok notified me I had "turned to personal attacks" so the above-linked version should reflect the totality of the exchange. Without making excuses, I would just say in possible mitigation of my punishment, that English is not my first language and it's possible I meant to communicate something other than the personal attacks I made against Kahastok. As I have never been blocked before I would like to respectfully request my block be limited to 3-7 days. BlueSalix (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to disappoint you, but "I respect your right to respond in monologue format" and "I need you to dial-it down just a little, please" aren't really blockable (I'm skipping the erroneous hyphen in "dial-it", which also isn't really blockable), in my opinion. Per WP:INVERSEBOOMERANG I looked at your opponent's comments also, and found nothing there that requires any intervention. I invite a second and third opinion, of course, from other admins. Thank you and, again, sorry, but I can't block you for any of this. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Nothing to be done here. The fact you identified things were going down a bad path and you stopped when you realizes says good things. At this point any block seems like it would be punitive not preventative. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to say beyond, "Take a break. Do something else. de-stress." Dlohcierekim 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Bad deletions, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and Personal attacks by admin Jni

A couple days back, while reviewing articles submitted for translation, I came across Yosorejo, written in Indonesian, which I had to delete as a copyvio. Once the deletion log came up, I saw that Jni had deleted another version of the article (also in Indonesian, though not a copyvio) just a day previously as "patent nonsense" under the CSD criteria. As G1 specifically excludes foreign-language text, I found this improper, and thus I posted on Jni's talk page and asked him/her to reread WP:CSD. The reply started with "You don't have a clue" and went downhill from there, and in his/her closing sentence Jni said that CSD A1 had been meant (which does not explicitly mention foreign languages in that section, though there is a disclaimer elsewhere on the page).

Assuming good faith, I went to WT:CSD to see if the people who frequent that page thought that making foreign language pages explicitly exempt from A1, in the section about that criteria, would be beneficial. Several users expressed the opinion that Jni's deletion was out of policy, and posted as such to his/her talk page. Jni's responses include "Stop being a whiny bitch", and claims that people expressing concern over his/her deletions are "crazy" and that those who write in foreign languages on the English Wikipedia are "stupid" (with expressing concerns over Jni's deletions "a waste of time").

Jni has also fallen back on the number of deletions he/she has made, starting with "I could not have done 23000+ deletions without your expert advice", and continuing with "Suggest you guys do 10000 deletions each, instead of whining on my talk page, and then lets compare if you get your erroneous deletion percentage smaller than mine." (also note the edit summary there; concerns over Jni's performance are apparently "this trite") and positioning the number of deletions as a requirement for commenting on deletion policy. This seems very exclusivist, almost as bad as "who are you mere mortals to question me?". Though Jni's commitment to patrolling the CSD backlog should be commended, I think that he/she does not realize that - should his/her judgement be questioned - such a large number of deletions (and thus, possible errors) means a lot more work for the community to go through.

I quickly went through the most recent thousand deletions by Jni (efforts which Jni likened to "collecting your own urine into bottles, and then sorting the bottles by color") and found several further deletions (Petra Gregov, Croatian article also deleted as "patent nonsense"; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shirawhite/sandbox, deleted as a test page; Paramjit singh (Honey mavi), deleted as a test page; and angerism, deleted as vandalism) which were given the wrong rationale. DESiegel found several further improper deletions, including Columbusplein (deleted as "clearly made up", despite several sources pointing to such a thing existing, AFD would have been better), Matt shultz (an attempt to make a redirect which failed, and was deleted instead of being fixed), and Nonghanvadara (deleted as not having enough context, despite the context being perfectly clear).

This suggests that there is a pattern of poor deletions here, and as shown Jni is not taking constructive criticism well. Thus, is it possible to topic ban Jni from speedy deletions, or at the very least make him/her recognize that some of his/her deletions were improper? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't examined the relevant arguments here regarding deletion policy issues in depth, but my first impression is that the stuff Jni was deleting is largely junk that's not worth arguing about. Obviously, conversations get heated and degenerate, and unpleasant things get said, and sometimes that's okay and forgivable. But "You don't have a clue." is almost never an appropriate way to start a conversation. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone's argued that most of these should have been kept, just that they should not have been speedy deleted (under those criteria or otherwise). Angerism (a neologism with some online currency) and Nonghanvadara (apparently a family name) in particular should certainly have been brought to AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• My more detailed review of deletion log entries is at User:DESiegel/Review of selected deletions by User:Jni. DES ^(talk) 00:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• I found this comment already linked above, to be grossly uncivil and far out of proportion to the tone and content of the comments made to Jni. DES ^(talk) 00:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• One comment, just one: I happened upon the discussion related to Columbusplein, and opined on Jni's talk page. I agree that A11 is not the best rationale, but G11 certainly applies. One could argue that A11 (which was added by Jni--the nominator offered only G11) is in reference to the content, much of which was in fact sort of made up: a bunch of boloney about a micronation in De Baarsjes, a neighborhood in Amsterdam-West, for which some kind of reference was included (hence my "sort of made up"--it sort of is and it sort of isn't). So Columbusplein as a place (it's a real square) certainly exists, but the micronation "Columbusplein", and the article written to promote it, is a bunch of crap. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Another troubling comment that I've just spotted in the edit linked to by DES above is "Sometimes the logged reason is wrong simply because [the deleting admin] trusted the tagging user too much.". Regardless of who placed the AfD tag it is the responsibility of the deleting admin to ensure that the page meets the CSD criteria it was tagged for in every single case without exception. If it does not meet the tagged criteria, for any reason, the deleting admin may not speedy delete it under that criterion. They may optionally speedy delete it under a different criterion if it meets those requirements.
  As I commented in the thread at WT:CSD, an admin is not expected to be right 100% of the time, but they are required to respond to good faith concerns that people have with their actions and modify their behaviour to line up with community expectations. It is the combination of speedy deletions that are explicitly against the CSD policy, repeated deletions with wrong criteria and refusal to engage with the community that make me believe Jni should not be speedy deleting anything. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

<<ec>>

• • User:Thryduulf, if the "wrong tagging by user arriving to deletion log" is such a problem, I can start just writing free-form entries to the deletion log. That way the problematic, to some users, classification A1 vs A11 vs G14 problem never appears. Also, what feedback I have failed to listen? The one that is actually incorrect w/ deletion policies? I believe I have by now addressed every single "wrongly deleted" article that has been pointed to me on my talk or elsewhere in related discussions, can you please point me to any that I have failed to reply to? My talk page habits are indeed pushy and brusque, developed so after years of dealing with trolls, sockpuppeteer and vandals, and I should tone down some of my comments, I agree with that part. jni (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• User:Gamaliel, you summarized this best. Indeed everything I have deleted is just junk. You could overturn some of my deletions because of technicalities, but why bother if not just want to stir more drama and heated discussions? Thanks for your feeback! jni (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Would anyone care to notify Jni of this discussion? I see no notice on his talk page. Dlohcierekim 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have told Jni that I think they are suffering from burnout and recommended a Wikibreak. They seemed receptive to that suggestion. I think that will probably suffice. Dlohcierekim 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jni was notified of this discussion by Crisco 1492 at 23:56 [98]. This was placed at the end of the relevant discussion section and not in it's own new section though which is possibly why you didn't spot it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was just about to point that out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hopefully this won't be necessary, but the prior consensus is that the community can't topic ban admins from what is an essential admin function. So the only solution for that is voluntary resignation or desysop by ArbCom if the troubles continue. Frankly, the borderline bad deletions are less worrisome than the "conduct unbecoming". This is unfortunately very similar to the Kafziel case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, wait a minute - Couldn't we topic-ban from speedy deletes but still permit deletes elsewhere, such as deletion discussions? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Ego's suggestion is rather what I had in mind. It's been done before. After passing my RFA I had to voluntarily avoid CSDs for a bit to better understand the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
      • There was a longer but otherwise similar discussion on AN this past autumn about imposing a similar sanction on another admin. The consensus was that only ArbCom can do something like that. [99]. You can't community-restrict how an admin would user their tools as that's a partial desysop. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no intention to "resign" over some technicalities concerning my deletion log summaries and classification of speedy deletion categories therein. I might take a Wikibreak indeed, I was considering it before Dlohcierekim suggested it as well as part of his helpful and kind feedback to me. user:Crisco 1492 wants to stir drama for some reason but I have no intention to continue any communications with him, other than minimally necessary for routine administration and editing the encyclopedia. His unsolicitated "constructive criticism" is largely factually incorrect and does not demonstrate any great understanding of deletion policies, i.e., he has been complaining about things like me deleting some newbie editing experiments consisting of less than 20 bytes of broken wiki-text, that every admin should know are speedily deletable. I do happen to believe that admins who have less than 10000 deletion entries in the log are inexperienced in that area of Wikipedia maintenance. This is my personal opinion that I'm entitled to have, even if said inexperienced admins don't like it and start causing drama and whining about my "wrong" beliefs. The accusation that I have failed to respond good-faith feedback about my deletions is bizarre; everyone reviewing my talk page can see that I handle restoration requests from regular editors promptly when there was some error or when the article is otherwise salvageable. Finally, I want to remind everyone that to best of my knowledge, exactly zero of my 24000+ deletions in Wikipedia has been overturned in WP:DRV. Obviously you can find actual errors, given the voluminous number of deletions, if you seek long enough, but doing so would be just making a POINT. jni (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for proving my point with that ABF (seriously? I have better things than to cause drama, especially with an editor whom I've never met) and strange inclination that I, quoting the CSD criteria as currently written, am less in touch with current deletion policy than yourself (despite several regular editors and admins telling you otherwise). There are two editors with serious concerns over your deletions, and even more concerned over your replies to these concerns. If you've read our posts, you'll note that not all concerns are regarding the rationale you've used, but rather the fact that these articles were (speedy) deleted at all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
      • If you've read our posts, you'll note that not all concerns are regarding the rationale you've used, but rather the fact that these articles were (speedy) deleted at all. And if you have read my replies, I have repeatedly answered to exactly that point. If the two editors continue to have concerns with me deleting articles that contain single internal link, or single external link, or article like UnKnoWn??, then we should worry about their judgemental errors, not mine. jni (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
        • My main deletion concern, and one that is not justified by the current criteria, is the Indonesian village. You have yet to admit that you were wrong in that instance, which is concerning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Can I just remind folks that the fundamental question here is not so much the deletions (which maybe arguable) but the total incivility demonstrated by J. from the start, which is inarguable. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The fundamental question seems to be different for different editors here. I lost track already, what charges I just reply to really, given the large number of totally bogus allegations concerning speedy deletion and classification of deleted content. As I have pointed out before, I have no intent communicating with that one certain editor, either civilly or incivilly, who has been threatening to drag this case through the drama court system of Wikipedia, and has started to do so already. jni (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I asked you to redact your incivility. You did not. You instead ignored my post and went on editing and deleting. I already gave you a warning, as did others. Now reap the rewards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
      • So you admit that you started this ANI thread as a retaliation, including your bogus allegations of "bad deletions" along with your other grudge? I read your warning and ignored it because I don't want to have any dealings with you at all. jni (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
        • What retaliation? I gave you several chances to recognise your errors, but you have not, nor have you taken back your personal attacks. Instead, you are making new ones. "Process wonks" indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
          • If "process wonk" is incivility, then so be it. The talk-page editing gang of that page is the problem here, as user User:DESiegel invited them on this ANI drama of yours as well. The gang is shocked that not all editors agree with their pompous rules regarding mandatory and rigid CSD-category classification in deletion log entries. I have not made any incivil comments towards you since your edits to my talk page. Also, I'm not going to discuss trivial matters like editing history of Yosorejo article with you, as we both know what is the story there, so there is nothing to explain to anyone. You are not a new user complaining about bad admin doing naughty things (because they don't understand why some admin action happened), but instead are just wasting everyone's time with your own battlefield attitude and frivolous "bad deletions" reporting here. jni (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
            • "process wonk" is not exactly friendly, but pretty mild IMO. "You must be crazy" and comparing serious concerns (even if you think they are ill-advised) about following deletion policy to creating and sorting a urine collection is uncivil, in my view. I wouldn't have started this ANI thread at this time. But once it was started, I thought that those who had commented, in any direction, in the WT:CSD thread should be neutrally notified of the existence of this discussion. I don't think that the letter of the CSDs are "pompous rules". They are one of the few areas of Wikipedia policy that is prescriptive rather than descriptive. People doing CAT:CSD patrol, especially a lot of CAT:CSD work, as you do, Jni, ought to know and respect that, in my view. Admins ought to respond civilly even to fairly foolish inquiries about their admin actions. Admins ought to welcome additional information that might illuminate an action that they took without such info. Probably none of that rises to the level where I would expect Arbcom to take note of it, (although a current case suggests that if carried to an extreme they might) but I hope that you will consider the genuine and serious reasons behind these concerns. DES ^(talk) 16:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jni:<<ec>> In the kindest way possible, I'd like to say "please do stop". You are digging yourself in deeper and then burying yourself. Agree, the CSD's are arguable. The rationale need not be strictly correct as long as the thing was speediable. The problem is Jni's behavior is increasingly fraught. I agree that this AN/I thread posting was a bit reactive, but we are here now. I can only say, perhaps louder. J'ni needs to take some sort of break. J'ni, please do stop trying to argue with people. It's only making this worse. J'ni agrees a break is desirable, let's try that as a remedy for now. Dlohcierekim 13:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but if I take a wikibreak, then the next charge against me might be the "admin is failing to respond and explain his actions" tactic that is often used by vexatious litigants in the Wikipedia drama court system. Also, I am seriously worried that key deletion policy pages are edited by admins who fail to see why UnKnoWn?? was a valid speedy deletion. Then the same gang starts to review admin actions of other admins, we are in mess soon. jni (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of your deletions seem fine. There is absolutely no need to submit a page like UnKnoWn?? to a process more complicated than the delete button. However, poor deletion summaries are not good. They should give a good answer to the question "why was this page deleted?", and citing the wrong CSD gives people the wrong clue. Better to just state your reason in plain words (even if it isn't a WP:CSD). As deletion hides pages from non-admins, the summaries should be good for transparency reasons. A couple of errors in a thousand deletions are not a big deal, but you should try to improve that if you can. —Kusma (t·c) 14:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jni, please can you explain comments like this? The comment "we have plenty of idiots as admins" was not appropriate at all, but especially not at another, wholly uninvolved user's RFA. Poor form. GiantSnowman 13:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh no, editor expresses obnoxious and wrong opinion, let's call in the firing squad! The meaning of course is whimsical way of saying that the candidate would be no worse than the current lot of admins. I did check his editing history first of course, and it is typical for me to support candidates in RfA, sometimes even marginal candidates who are almost certain not to pass. I very seldomly oppose anyone there. jni (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You do realize that that was not the best rationale you could have given, considering how highly visible you are right now. Right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that jni has responded with such a lack of civility, has failed to recognise any fault in speedies that are contrary to explicit policy (treating anything not in English as A1), and has dismissed the views of anyone without a huge deletion log. The principles of openness here mean that even non-admins are welcome to contribute views, AIUI. I'd like to see action, preferably voluntary and with minimum drama, that addresses these points. There's a wide range of such action available, of course. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is going from bad to worse, "worse" being all kinds of snarky commentary and outright insults, and rhetorical slipperiness about what precisely the charge is (there is no doubt, there are two, at least). That "taking a break" would be seen as "being unresponsive" is silly, but before any breaks are taken there needs to be a. some serious consideration of the CSD rationale complaints (history proves that admins are expected to be able to explain, just ask Fastily) and b. a realization that admins are expected to behave with at least a modicum of decorum--I can't even smell the faint scent of ancient decorum in Jni's comments here. Jni was warned to stop digging: that was sound advice. Keep digging and you won't find China; you'll find a desysop procedure of one kind or another. Remember, we're supposed to be a blue wall of invincible admins. Wait, no--but this is true: when a whole bunch of admins suggest you're doing something wrong, perhaps you're doing something wrong. Now, I'm sorry, but I gotta go and check my collection of urine bottles, to see if it's anything but piss and vinegar, and I suggest you do the same. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can't say I've ever run into this admin until this thread ... but let me just say, he makes me look like a saint. Perhaps we need a bluelink at Saint Panda ES&L 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexually Explicit comment - In Page History

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

---

I have already reported here about usage of sexually abusive terms (vandalism) there in the pages Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel and Edu-Clubs. Although the edits were more or less reverted immediately by some bots and users, the very same terms remain there in the edit summary section which is there for public view for days. Some administrators had hidden the same from the Edu-Clubs page but the edit history of the Wikipedia Club Excel still show that explicit comment over there for the last 20 days.

Another similar case happened a couple of times 1 2 in the Excel Central School page yesterday by persumably the same user, but with different temporary IP. Here again both the edits were immediately reverted by some users, but the history page still displays the abusive terms for public for the last 24 hours.

All these acts of vandalism are done in the pages related to the institutions and initiatives of Excel Group of Schools. Since the Annual celebrations of the institutions is nearing, the web traffic for those pages are expected to go high comparatively in the following days. It may spoil the reputation of both the Excel Group of Schools and that of Wikipedia. So I seek some administrative actions immediately.

IMHO semi-protection is the ideal move for the following pages

• Excel Central School
• Excel Global School
• Edu-Clubs
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel

Three of the above mentioned pages four pages were vandalized more than once in the last 20 days; The edit summaries (in the page history) still display abusive terms. So I request some administrators to immediately intervene and do the needful. I also request some administrators to maintain the pages in the watch-list for some time. Thanks - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Two instances of vandalism in a month-ish time frame is generally not a rate of vandalism that would call for page protection - we prefer to keep the rate of protected pages as low as we reasonably can, since this is intended to be an open project. It's unclear to me exactly what the problem is here...is is the use of the word "sex"? If so, yeah, that happens sometimes. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" is often "the encyclopedia kids like to type 'sex' and 'poo' into", and if we nuked every edit that did that we'd never have time to do anything else. If there's something else going on here (is the vandalism degrading particular people? I don't have any familiarity with Indian words/names, so the only meaning I'm able to get from the vandalism is "it says 'sex'"), then those individual edits can be revision deleted, but again, if it's only happened once or twice, it's unlikely the page needs to be protected, as opposed to just a revdelete and maybe the offending IPs being blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) How is the lone word "sex" a sexually explicit comment? It is surely inappropriate, but doesn't need revdelete yet, unless there's a hidden meaning that I'm missing. Epicgenius (talk)

Perhaps, there are implications here that violate cultural taboos that our (predominately) western sensibilities are not sensitive too. I assume that the edits is questions are supposed to mean of "X had sex with B", which, owing to the fact that this is Wikiproject with real, young people involved, might be deletable. Note: I Have No Idea What I'm Talking About™. -- John Reaves 03:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I googled one of the names and it is a person involved with the school, so I rev deleted the vandalism. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The People mentioned there were [redacted]. The edit summary from the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel had been removed but still the edit history of Excel Central School show the same comment. Please remove it too immediately. I'll detail my view which leads to seek page protection afterwards. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to be too specific about the targets of the vandalism. I've redacted your comment accordingly and I will remove the vandalism. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting those terms.

The reason for which i requested semi-protection immediately are

1. The edits came several times with in a span of 22 days across three of the four Excel Institutions pages in Wikipedia.

2. The annual celebrations of the institutions are nearing and the web-traffic is likely to go many-fold higher in the comming days.

3. All those edits does not came from one single IP; but from many temporary IPs. (i.e) every time you log in you will get different temporary IP. So blocking the IP won't help.

4. The people whose names mentioned in the edits were the higher most officials of those institutions.

5. Foremost the usage of the term 'SEX' (i.e) X had sex with Y is far more offensive in this part of the world than in the west. So, say the vast majority of the people, of this locality those who log onto the pages related to a person or institution here in Wikipedia and finds (at the time the vandalized edit is being shown) such explicit (though culturally subjective) comments they have an unconscious mental framework of relating the content in the edit directly to the reputation of the subject, totally unaware of the vulnerability of free-editable contents on web to rude and irresponsible individual behaviors. The kind of impact, the mere usage of the term 'SEX' with connecting reputed personnel, create in the western community vs it create here are poles apart.

So IMHO semi-protection is the only and inevitable move which suits the situation. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I just moved that club to the proper title, Excel Wikipedia Club, which must have been what the creator intended, if only for administrative purposes. Someone could nominate that for A7 speedy deletion, rather than start an MfD. Just a thought. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... and I've gone ahead and A7ed it, seeing as how there's nothing there indicating any sort of importance (just a verbose summary of the club's history/organization and a link to the Tamil Wikipedia). Nothing more to see here. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm wierd bug/I messed up

I tried to nominate Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Club_Excel for deletion, but it seems to be messed up. I think someone made it in a wierd namespace. Can someone with more experence take a look? Sorry if I messed up. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's handled now--see above. No worries. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Wikipedia Club Excel: Please revert the deletion of the Project Page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel. The Club already had a Project page in Tamil Wikipedia and it was from there it was translated to English in English Wikipedia. And this was cited from leading newspapers from India. If asked I'll explain- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever another wiki has is not really relevant here. I moved the completely misplaced article (ironic that that article would be so incorrectly placed) to Excel Wikipedia Club, and Kinu deleted it under WP:A7, which I agree with completely: see above. Drmies (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Project Page of India's First Student Collaboration Initiative Speedy Deleted

I request the users/administrators to read the follow details carefully and patiently. My language may not be good.

I was editing Wikipedia since 2005. I am also Working in Excel Group of Schools, Thiruvattar. I, upon request from a senior Wikimedia Chapter Member, participated in the Wiki-Kanya, a wikipedia workshop conducted in Nagercoil, by the district administration to promote Wikipedia among College Students. Some 10 Wikipedia Volunteers ( including administrators and Wikimedia India Chapter members)participated in the event. Mean-while, there in our school we were planning to initiate a group of clubs from the academic year 2013-14 onwards. Inspired by the event, Web-Kanya, I expressed the idea with the delegating of starting a Wikipedia Club in Excel Group of Schools. Part of the Delegation (including chapter members) who took part in Wiki-Kanya also visited our school and discussed about the feasibility of starting a club there. Following the discussions we went ahead with the move to start a Wikipedia Club in our school named "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel (deleted few hours before, hence the red-link)" as a student collaboration initiative. This was the first of its kind in India and probably in the world. This student Club was inagurated by Theni. M. Subramani, a Tamil Wikipedia Administrator on 10 August 2013. It includes 70 School Students from 3 schools under Excel Group of Schools. The objective of the Club is to promote Wikipedia Editing among School Students. We made weekly schedules and started making students aware of Wikipedia from September 2013.

In November 2014, I participated in the 10th Anniversary of the Tamil Wikipedia held in Anna University, Chennai. There I discussed about our Club with the Wikimedia Chapter Members, Administrators etc. They requested the District administration of Kanyakumari District to help/assist our initiative in all possible means. Since the district administration as well as the District Collector are well aware of potentialities of Wikipedia ( quiet unusual here in this part of the world), they contacted me and enquired about the how abouts of our club. I explained our mission this year to work upon the improvement of three Wikipedia articles Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari and Nagercoil to promote at least one of them to a FA class article before this June 2014. They made available the accessibility for us to the District Gazeteer, one among the highly reserved and the most reliable information resource (which includes more than 1200 pages) about the district.

The paper works are under progress regarding the source material before adding information directly to Wikipedia since we need to educate all the dimensions of Wikipedia before allowing them to click the edit & save buttons. We also conducted a Photo-tour for the students of Wikipedia Club around the district and made them to take photo-graphs on their own, which is to be uploaded to Commons shortly. Almost 90 % of the photo-graphs are ready to be uploaded and 90 % source material in case of the Kanyakumari District and 60 % in case of the Kanyakumari & Nagercoil articles which is to be refered before begining the online edits are already verified and categorised. Infact the titles for all those articles, (which were all very-much in comprehensive) were also finalized for all the 3 articles.

And it was at this time, this morning, the Project Page of the Wikipedia Club was listed for speedy deleted and was deleted before i anticipate to letting the administrators know about the project. If notability is the problem, Dinamani, one of the leading Tamil News paper in Tamil already included a feature about the Wikipedia Club Excel as the first student Wikipedia Club in India. Iam not sure about the availability of the edition online. I'll scan the page if required. A leading Tamil Magazine Tamil Computer also reported about the Clubs inaguration. The Club also have a project page in Tamil Wikipedia. We had also uploaded photographs of the inaguration and all subsequent events frequently. Again the inaugural event is again reported as news article in another daily Tamil News Paper Dinamalar

The other problem is with the Edu-Clubs page. Wikipedia Club is one among the 11 Edu-Clubs in the 3 schools. So Wikipedia Club has a Project page seperately here in Wikipedia (which was speedy deleted this morning) and The Edu-Clubs has a Article with the name Edu-Clubs. The Edu-Clubs page is being voted for deletion citing the notability though almost all of the information currently available in the page is from a leading Tamil News Paper, Dinamalar from Tamil Nadu. Anyway that is rather different.

But that is not the case with the project page of Wikipedia. This initiative is aimed to promote Wikipedia among School Students and it is first of its kind in the nation. That itself is reported by leading Newspapers in terms of Circulation and Reputation. The Wikipedia Administrators, Chapter Members etc are directly involved in the progress of the Club. But the process of this "Speedy Deletion" irritated me this morning sinceit gives me too little time to make even the administrators aware of all those things before somebody nominating it for deletion and somebody else doing the rest in the immediately following minutes. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) First off, that is a very long complaint; but more importantly, if you are disputing the deletion of an article you created, the best place to do that is at deletion review. Also, I didn't see the article before it was deleted, but if it proves to be notable after all, it can be re-created, but...it would be a good idea if someone other than you did so, as your being affiliated with it constitutes a conflict of interest. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• (also non-admin comment/question) What was the page intended for? It did read like an actual article, which is why it was speedy-deleted. Its placement in project namespace was also problematic, as that is generally not for things like this. Perhaps you should ask the folks over at WP:Education noticeboard on how best to proceed with your club. Good luck. Ansh666 09:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel until 24 January, then moved to Excel Wikipedia Club (not by any of the page authors) and deleted under WP:CSD#A7. This isn't a particularly fair way to treat this page, which at least deserves a WP:MFD. While written like an article, it isn't clear that it was intended for anything other than project space. —Kusma (t·c) 11:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested to Kinu (the deleting admin) to undelete the page and have a discussion at MFD if necessary. —Kusma (t·c) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored the contents to WP Project space Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel. If necessary, have a discussion at MFD. IMHO, such initiatives should be encouraged. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason why you didn't restore the page history? 128.243.59.55 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the edit-summaries in the history are what was problematic? ES&L 13:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought only one of the edit summaries had to be revdeleted, not all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it was more like 1/3 of the total edits to the page. Ansh666 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's best to reduce the use of speedy deletion for such cases given that it is not in the article namespace and because these hurt outreach programs in critically under-represented areas. Not to say that deletions or merges should be moderated, but just the speedy part, please. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the article is written like an article not a project page, but is in project namespace so people are very confused. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed treated like a WP:FAKEARTICLE (albeit not in userspace). @Vaikunda Raja: could you explain exactly what this page is intended for? Ansh666 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I echo this sentiment: this is nothing more than a very detailed page about the history, etc., of the club itself that reads like an article, rather than being what a hub for collaborative editing would ideally look like in the Wikipedia namespace. Frankly, it was wholly inappropriate in the Article namespace, hence why I found deleting it when it was moved there a reasonable course of action; likewise, its appropriateness in the Wikipedia namespace, as currently written, is questionable. Restoring the content seems like a good idea at the moment, pending discussion, and I do not oppose the reversion of my deletion, but some information from the OP on what the goals, purpose, etc., of this page are would be helpful in determining the best course of action and figuring out where, if anywhere, this page belongs. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Revdel and cleanup please

[100], and related. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fucking classic. The geezer's on drugs man. PMSL. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, and oversight requested just in case there aren't any oversighters watching this. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly was he selling?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Other people's credit card details. It might be worth alerting the WMF legal team about this one. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I've now done so. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Blimey. Yes good move! Hopefully they can still get hold of the deleted post as evidence? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course they can. WP:REVDEL makes it invisible to normal editors, WP:OVERSIGHT makes it invisible to everyone but a very small subset of people, including WMF legal ES&L 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, Andy Dingley, please don't post revdel/oversight requests like this on one of the most-watched pages on the site. For that, we have WP:RFO and #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Last time I went near there I was told to fuck off because I wasn't an admin and I should get a grown up to help me first. Today I'm told that I'm on drugs. Way to go guys, I just hope they're your credit cards. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As far as the "drugs" comment, I think Fortuna was referring to the user you reported, not you. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Went near where, Andy? That's not a response that should ever have from the oversight team in response to an oversight request, and I rather doubt that it's what you were actually told. The only case I can think of that you would have been told something to the effect of "go away" is if you had been sitting in #wikipedia-en-revdel with no request, just to observe - only admins are allowed to idle in there, to preserve confidentiality of revdeleted edits as much as possible. But anyway, to be clear: if you (or anyone else) finds private/personal/legally damaging information that needs to be hidden, you absolutely should contact the oversight team (or, in a pinch to get it dealt with quickly, the -revdel IRC channel), as your first step. Noticeboards won't get a quick response, but they will get the problematic content viewed many, many more times than it should. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

For someone who does not use IRC, what would be the best place to report such? an email address? which one, if so? DES ^(talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

When you open an edit window in ANI or AN, a big pink bar is visible at the top which reads

Emergencies If you are reporting a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please also email emergency@wikimedia.org with the relevant diffs.

Oversight & Revision Deletion If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally via this form or to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. Revision deletion may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel connect

Blackmane (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Persistent plagiarism by User:Der Spion

• Der Spion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eben Alexander (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:COPYVIO source: [101]
• Plagiarized content:
  • Exact phrase: there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact
  • Exact phrase except change of "but" to "yet":
    • Source: Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call “consciousness.”
    • WP article: only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, yet no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call “consciousness”
  • Questionable use of the same phrases "made sure" and "flooded my[his] brain":
    • Source: The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that.
    • WP article: This was made sure by the E. coli bacteria that flooded his brain.
• User inserts this plagiarized material at least four times: [102][103][104][105]
• My copyvio warnings to stop plagiarizing: [106][107][108][109][110]

I don't understand why this person continues to plagiarize. vzaak 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, is there a better way in your eyes to express all relevant aspects of these two (!) sentences without maundering around endlessly or changing their message? I think, nobody is hurt if you leave the status quo as it is. In addition: You need to put both criticism and response in a context that allows the reader to receive a good and complete overview of the whole discussion. But, for sure, you won't achive that by amputating the line of argumentation on either side. So please try to relax and think in a more constructive way than constantly accusing with a wagging finger "don't do this" and "don't do that". I don't understand why this person keeps bothering me and complaining about my trials to improve the article instead of making a constructive contribution for once.--Der Spion (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "leaving the status quo as it is" hurts Wikipedia as it puts the Foundation in legal jeopardy. This is a copyright violation and must be removed straight away. This is a policy and there is no if's or but's. This is one policy that when you are told "don't do this" you have no choice but to comply. Failure to do so has led to many accounts being indefinitely blocked in the past. The burden is on you as the editor who wants to insert the relevant detail, with appropriate sourcing, to present the text in a way that does not place the Foundation at legal risk. Blackmane (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

two "new editors" at Georgism

Two people have just made their "first and only" edits at Talk:Georgism; User:Divadyendis and User:NielsCharlier. I am AGF to a fault, but is there any reason why this article attracts such? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

:Remember, let them know they're being discussed here._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The first editor's contribution makes it look like they're deeply unfamiliar with the conventions of discussion. Maybe that could have been discussed with the editor directly or on the article talk page? The second one could be vote sockpuppetry but I don't know what anyone can do here beyond noting the possibility as you've already done. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The first editor's comment should be reverted or additions removed in some way, of course, as they are adding words within other people's comments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet, this happens to be the first edit. Actually, I have done many edits on wikipedia but never under an account. NielsCharlier (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

The user intentionally created senseless reverts to my edits which by all means were legitimate. He furthermore created an edit way with what I believe to be different personas. He then continues for several days now to follow me around and do the exact opposite of what I say or do. He has stalked, threatened and harassed me. Also recently I left a message with another admin and he responded instead which to me meant he was one and the same person. So I would like to suggest that this juvenile who has along history of poor administration work and who has also earned a rogue like reputation, be barred from further administration work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm totally sure that will happen. But perhaps you could sully your hands with something as sordid as evidence regarding your case? Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to provide some WP:DIFFs that show these supposed actions - otherwise a) nothing can be acted upon and b) it's actually considered to be a personal attack ES&L 20:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Look out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Ansh666 20:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ephestion, stop plastering your accusations all over Wikipedia. Seriously, it's disruptive and is the last thing you should be doing following the expiry of your block. Now one is stalking or harassing you, let along using multiple accounts to do so, and if you can't find a way to raise concerns without attacking other editors then it's time for you to log off and find something constructive to do before you find yourself blocked again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am new and don't know how to link to my contributions. Everything I have typed has been personally attacked, reverted and voted against by him. I don't know how to link but for instance: I was asking Bbb23 how to give fair use of this image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png of which I own. For the Article Stavros Damianides which Future Perfect at Sunrise decided to vote against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stavros_Damianides which is an article that has been part of Wiki for 10 years and is about Australia's best bouzouki player. The concrete evidence is in the newspaper articles of The Western Australian and Daily news. (pre internet era and Greek minority in Australia, like Robert Johnson was in USA). Not only this but he claims on my Web page that any further edits will be punished:

"You have basically made no constructive encyclopedic article contributions, ever.

So, let me make this entirely clear: I really don't know why you weren't permanently blocked a long time ago, but I guarantee that if I see you making any further edit trying to pass off your own opinion as encyclopedic facts, on any article whatsoever, I will see to it that you are blocked swiftly and permanently. This is your very last warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)"

This is just in a 3 or so day time span. Oh and if you look at my contributions in the last few days you will notice every article I have edited, he has reverted. I don't know how to link reverts but I will try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ephestion nope i failed so here is my contrib list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ephestion: To link to your contribs, it is recommended that you write out the Wikipedia code, Special:Contribs/Ephestion, instead of the actual web address, for internal Wikipedia links. Anyway, do you have any diffs of the reverts? Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• [111], [112],

[113]. There are many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I looked at those diffs. I do not think that Ephestion is a very large net positive to the project, and this complaint (and the AfD, for instance) is indicative of an unwillingness to learn. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll be less tactful. Best case, Ephestion is aggresively incompetent. Worst case ... --Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Help on who decides "fair use" and the "no equivalent" policy for pictures on Wikipedia?

A couple of users working in tandem are deleting media with tenacity, arbitrarily deciding what is the policy:

User1 contrib: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nigel_Ish

User2 contrib: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Werieth

The question is, are they allowed to do this?

Thank you. --99.244.158.43 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The reporting IP has been blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fairly clear violation of WP:NFCC. Usage of non-free flags in {{Flag icon}} isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, and we all are required to remove non-free images from articles for which there is no fair use rationale. Please see also our non-free content criteria that have been set by the Wikimedia Foundation. In short: All images that have not been released under a free licence must have a rationale for each article wherein they are used to explain why the particular article would benefit from displaying the image. This excludes spefically the use of non-free images in galleries of for simple illustrations where the reader can be informed by a descriptive text alone. And the removal of non-free images from articles without a fair use rationale is totally valid to avoid copyright infringements. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well in the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png where I own the image I am trying to upload it to help validate the Article of Stavros Damianides. The admins who have seen the article have tried to delete the article and the picture. Yet I am the owner and I am saying it's ok to use it as in a fair use way for the article. I am not releasing it to the public or giving it away. But for sake of making the article valid and proving the popularity of the musician in question the image was important. But the admins have chosen to delete the picture. I am not sure if the original owner of the article is around, but the article had a lot more content than it does now because it seems to be picked on for deletion by some bad seed admins. So in that sense how does that apply to what you just said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If as uploader you have the copyright to it, we cannot accept it under a non-free license. If you wish to contribute it, please release it under a free license. Werieth (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are the photographer/copyright owner of the file, you're welcome to upload it, but we need to have it uploaded as a free image (under a CC-BY or GFDL-type license which still gives you attribution and other copyright controls but not as strong as normal copyright licensing). If you are not able to do that as a contributor to WP, then we cannot accept the image, even under fair use. We expect all content provided by WP editors to be freely licensed (as outlined by our Terms of Use). As the performer is deceases there is likely other media out there (probably non-free but usable under fair use) that can be included. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that Ephestion owns the copyright to the image. As for the subject performer, I don't think there are many images of him on the web as he isn't sufficiently notable to have many (his article is currently at AfD). I found one at Find A Grave (assuming it's real, when he was young) and one at a Fox website (when he was old). I can't tell if it's the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I take it that the plaintiff means "working in tandem" in a bad way. I like to think that sometimes we get it right, this collaborative editing stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:190.163.253.147

The anonymous user User:190.163.253.147 may need a little encouragement to provide less antagonistic edit summaries. I am increasingly uncomfortable with this tone, despite me bringing this to the user's attention. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:NinaGreen/Shakespeare authorship

I have been very hesitant to bring this issue here, because I am far from sure it is the right venue. However, I am convinced that seeking a third opinion or even dispute resolution with be ineffective. I am currently engaged in an edit war with NinaGreen at Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit, an article about a pamphlet that refers to Shakespeare. Nina keeps adding a sentence attributed to a reliable source, which claims that the pamphlet quotes a line that may come from either an "anonymous" play or Shakespeare's Henry VI. The trouble is that this misrepresents standard scholarship which states that they are the same play. I've tried to explain this on the talk page, but have got nowhere trying to communicate with Nina. Nina is, as far as I know, still topic-banned from "Shakespeare authorship" topics (that is, not articles about Shakespeare's writings as such, but articles about the claim that someone else secretly wrote the plays under his name). This is an area covered by discretionary sanctions. Whether this article comes under that ban or not is debatable. It is not directly about it, but Nina's edit is, IMO, clearly an attempt to introduce authorship doubt by stealth and by systematic misuse of a reliable source. I have genuinely tried to discuss this to work out an acceptable form of words, but Nina has a tendency to "blank" attempts to make connections (You will see what I mean if you read Talk:Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit). Since this involves user conduct, possible topic-ban violation as well as edit-warring, I have brought it here. The actual discussion about the source seems, I would argue, more complex than it is. We should not be creating confusion in readers where none exists. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, my understanding is that NinaGreen is still topic-banned from Shakespeare as a whole, as per WP:ARBSAQ#NinaGreen banned. She appealed that topic ban in late 2012, (see here), but that request was declined. Last time this came up was on her talkpage in August 2013, when I had to remind her that her topic ban was still in force, having found that she had been routinely ignoring or at least skirting it. I found her rather reticent back then. The dispute you describe is certainly close enough to the topic to count as a topic ban violation, and seeing that she's quite extensively edit-warring (6R in two days if I counted right?), in a discussion where at least the other side is clearly implying that the issue is actually related to the authorship question – this is definitely not looking good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I shouldn't be topic-banned. Considering the enormous contributions I've made to Wikipedia, for any topic ban to continue is absurd, and the arbitrators should lift it forthwith, and I hope you will request them to do that. Secondly, my earlier request to have the topic ban lifted was not 'declined', as I mentioned to you earlier on my Talk page (and which can be checked in the record of the appeal). Instead, despite unanimous support from the community, and despite the fact that support from the community was still coming in, my appeal was abruptly shut down without explanation by the arbitrators, as the record shows. But more to the point, to include the current discussion in a topic ban would be bizarre. It merely concerns whether or not a particular line in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit occurs in two plays, and whether orthodox scholars are united in their assessment of the relationship between those two plays. I've cited four eminently reliable sources (and could find many more) which state that it's factually correct (1) that the line occurs in both plays, and (2) that four eminently reliable sources state that the relationship between the two plays is unclear. Paul Barlow has chosen, for reasons which are unclear, to contest both the factual statements and the four reliable sources cited in support without adding anything to the article of his own. He has merely repeatedly deleted the factual statements and the four reliable sources cited in support. NinaGreen (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said last August, you are of course free to consider the topic ban absurd, but the fact remains that it is still in force, and it is unreasonable of you to demand that it ought to simply go away on its own when you are not even willing to take the relevant steps to make another request for it yourself. As for the present topic, while the nominal topic of the article as a whole is not directly related to Shakespeare, the passage you were edit-warring over clearly was; add to that that the topic of the Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit is also often cited and discussed in S.A.Q.-related discussions; that makes it fall squarely within the bounds of your topic-ban. Seeing that my gentle reminder of last August seems to have gone unheeded, I'm afraid I'll have to put it more bluntly: you need to keep away from these topics, or the next time you're found doing anything contentious in them will result in a lengthy block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)