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

Pigsonthewing and BLP

I am concerned with Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) and his view of BLP. He has been creating a whole heap of unreferenced BLPs, examples include Csaba Sógor, Franck Proust and María Muñiz de Urquiza. All three articles are now referenced - but the references have been added by other users. Pigsonthewing seems to be on some kind of mission to churn out as many of these poor, BLP-violating articles as possible, and I view his editing pattern in this regard as disruptive as he seems to be expecting others to clean up after him. Despite me raising the matter at his talk page 48 hours ago, he continues, with the latest, on Salvatore Caronna, containing one 'reference' so poor that it is basically unreferenced. As a minor issue, you will also note many of the articles containing basic formatting errors, further evidencing that Pigsonthewing shows little care for the articles he is creating. My request for him to add a basic reference (something as simple as a bare URL link to an online biography) to the article before clicking 'save' does not seem onerous. GiantSnowman 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• For such an experienced Wikipedian, these actions are very troubling. I think the creations are linked to a message on his userpage; "I am working on the European Parliament project over the next five days and shall have limited opportunity to edit here." My guess is that he is just churning these out and intending to come and fix them later, but that doesn't sit well with BLP at all. I've read his comments in his talk page discussion, and this is incredibly concerning; it's an atrocious response to a genuine concern, and shows a tremendous lack of interest in following policy. I wonder if Pigsonthewing has ever read WP:BLP? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have a tremendously low opinion of unsourced articles (I am in favor of deleting them immediately, regardless of subject matter), and an even lower opinion of people that create unsourced articles (with the caveat that if the creator has only been here for a week, they might not know better). Now that he is aware that users consider this a problem, and now that we know that he doesn't intend on handling the issue constructively, I recommend that Pigsonthewing be blocked for disruption if he creates another unsourced BLP article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I wouldn't create something like this but to call it a BLP violation is putting it a bit strongly; the first two Google hits confirm. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • While not a "violation violation", the fact is that all new BLP articles are required to be sourced, full stop; while in that particular article's case you could say it's technically sourced, the other three linked in the OP don't even have that and would be instantly - and justifiably - {{Blpprod}}ded. While I can understand Andy's desire to have all European MPs bluelinked - and we should - creating substubs like that is...inexplicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's an important requirement they be sourced and concerning her is not taking the time to do so. Looking through it's probably best to merge these all into a list, as most don't appear to have anything else worth saying (i.e. a biography) and parroting a self-written bio is probably not a good idea. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• The project is Wiki Loves Parliaments / European Parliament:

"We now have the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February and perform a photography and editing project for the 764 MEPs there. In particular as the next elections for the European Parliament are upcoming in May, these new articles and photos are under a strong focus of the public."

If these articles are going to be "a strong focus of the public", the public isn't going to get much information from these sub-stubs. But maybe the MEPs who are up for re-election (or their aides) will nip in and fill them out? The prospect of getting their own articles in Wikipedia before the elections may have helped spur the MEPs to grant access for this project. Nothing wrong with that per se, but surely the requirement isn't to create an article literally within 30 minutes of taking the MEP's picture as was the case here? I don't understand the rush. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this post is actionable. Certainly you can't be calling for administrative sanctions against someone for creating stub BLPs? If you see one floating out there without references, prod it and it will be deleted per policy. My impression is that these are being created with high likelihood that they will be fleshed out in the short term. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is utterly inappropriate to create a whole host of unreferenced super-stub BLPs. This is not a complaint about "stub BLPs" (these are one-liners), and there are far more than just one being created without references. For such an experienced Wikipedian (one with 110k edits at least), this is completely inexcusable, as his response to the case has been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• From an established user creating articles in this type of condition is unacceptable. They are fully aware of our policies and a view to come back to them simply isn't good enough, should be left until they have the time to do it properly. And the part of the reply by him saying Your alternative is to not be a dick is entirely uncalled for and certainly doesn't address the clear issues here.Blethering Scot 20:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah well. Those stubs are really not good and very disappointing--but it can be argued that we're better off with them (I'm not saying I subscribe to that argument). The initial question about them was fair, and then stuff goes downhill, with a bit of support from "helpers" on both sides. Andy calls Snowman a dick, Snowman goes to ANI. But try as I might I cannot find where our BLP policy forbids a BLP without sources from being created in the first place. (That a sourceless BLP can be prodded doesn't mean a sourceless BLP cannot stay.) So no measure will be taken against Andy, and unfortunately his stub creations and the subsequent overreaction (this very thread--sorry, GS) is just one more unpleasant experience for all involved. Best thing to do for all involved editors is to turn some of those articles into DYKs; that's the only thing that will make you feel better. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but to say this is a "overreaction" is unfair, numerous editors seem to share my concern about this editor's lack of regard for BLP. GiantSnowman 11:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Giant Snowman and count me as another concerned editor. If you create a series of unreferenced BLP's and you have 110k edits, you are way out of line. I don't care what policy or lack of it says, common sense in my view says it is just selfish, and the name calling by Pigsonthewing compounds the attitude problem. As far as editor and admin action on this issue, since it appears to be ongoing, I'd be willing to look at a ban on new BLP's for Pigsonthewing as a remedial step. I further find it troubling that there has been no response here. I'd call it gaming the system. This all approaches a protective block, as I see it. Jusdafax 12:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would support an indefinite topic ban on the creation of all new BLPs, to remain in place until such time as Pigsonthewing can understand they fully understand the policy and the problem. GiantSnowman 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While it's not quite the "Paris is the capital of France" quintessential wiki-example, saying in The Age of Google "María Muñiz de Urquiza is a member of the European parliament" (EP) is pretty darn close. Has Andy falsely accused anyone not a member of EP as being one? I'll quote part of WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." (emphasis original). Is Muñiz de Urquiza's membership in EP actually being challenged? NE Ent 12:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• However that ignores the fact that all BLP articles must have one reliable source, it also ignores his questionable reaction to being brought up on it. Someone with his longstanding should clearly know better on both counts. Their is no need or urgency to create these articles in this state.Blethering Scot 12:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "all BLP articles must have one reliable source" -- wp:blp says that where, exactly? NE Ent 13:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with NE Ent at 12:46. Cut Andy some slack here. He's a very busy, highly experienced contributor, who generates very solid material -- as well as launching initiatives like WP:WikiVIP, which really caught the media imagination.

Currently he's trying to get a lot of stuff done in the European Parliament, as well as give a good impression of WP to some important opinion makers. Can we please therefore show a bit of trust in an editor with a long and excellent track record, and leave him to get on with what he's doing. If there are still problems in a week, then by all means we can come back to it. There's a lot he will be aiming to do in a very short period of time with this EU Parliament outreach, in a foreign country with contacts he needs to make and build as he goes along. So let's get out of his way. However stubby these articles may be in their initial transient state, there is every reason to be confident they are likely to evolve rapidly, and long-term issues are unlikely. Jheald (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that Snowman's objection to Salvatore Caronna was paricularly absurd. The guy is an MEP, so clearly notable; and, while the article was only a micro-stub, its content was sourced by the reference given. If you're introducing Wiki to a group of people, a stub like this can be exactly what you need as a baseline, to then show the article growth process (as well as giving a basic active URL that's then in place for any automated or semi-automated tools you may be then using).

Again, Pigsonthewing is a very experienced editor, doing (yet again) important outreach work. So let's give him some trust, and the chance to get on with it. Jheald (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but to even remotely compare the widespreadness of the knowledge of an MEP's name/role to Paris being the capital of France is utterly absurd. Almost everyone knows that Paris is the capital of France. Many people, myself included, have absolutely no idea who these people are, and there is absolutely no excuse for creating an unreferenced BLP, because it takes 10 seconds to dump in an unformatted reference, thus negating the problem. If you don't have enough time to reference a BLP, then either create it in userspace, or do not create it at all. I cannot fathom how any of you are defending these actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• He's is an experienced editor thats the point. There is no reason whatsoever that an experienced editor should be creating articles in this state, time is no excuse. We have userspace and afc for a reason nor is the European Parliament project an excuse that these should be rushed into article space. Personally i would support a topic ban as he clearly has no sense of wrong about creating articles of a living person in this state and is intent on ignoring that policy. His reply to GS and further ones on his talk page were also highly uncalled for.Blethering Scot 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• If ya'll want to make up a rule that no unsourced BLP articles can be created, start an RFC. But as of today, there is no such rule. NE Ent 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has no rules, and you know that full well, Ent. You also know that it is inappropriate for any user to create an unreferenced BLP; that's the whole reason BLPPROD exists, after all. It is excusable for a newbie who doesn't have any grasp of policy. It is categorically inexcusable for an editor of 110k edits, let alone one whose initial response is "Your alternative is to not be a dick". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing has dismissed our concerns as nonsense. GiantSnowman 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Uuuuuuuuurgh. Guys, there's a significant difference between random drive-by editors creating single-line articles on Brazilians who may or may not have played professional football (watching those BLPs is a hell of a task, and one which those responsible should be thanked for) and project ambassadors (with years of experience) creating them as part of a hands-on attempt to get more editors involved in the project. This isn't some sort of breaching experiment designed to break down our rules on BLPs: quite the opposite. Nonetheless, Andy is (as one of our most public editors) someone who should be setting an example, and it would be unfortunate if those very editors he's attempting to encourage ended up getting rapidly batted for creating their own unsourced BLPs. I'll have a word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Which he has since removed without a response. GiantSnowman 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you helping? Is this helping? Is it making your proposed topic ban more likely? If I didn't know all the actors involved here my eyes would certainly have rolled out of their sockets already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Pigsonthewing's refusal to deal with the matter in a constructive way helping? No, it's making it worse if anything as it appears that he doesn't give a damn. Also what topic ban? Another editor mentioned one, I said I would support it - that's it. There has been no formal proposal. GiantSnowman 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that he cares rather more about the root of the matter (improving our biographies) than the (quite bafflingly, in this case) naive onlooker might assume. I do think you're correct that he has no interest at all in being chided by random admins for small-scale pseudo-infractions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Chris, your position is incredibly confusing. You chide Pigsonthewing for creating unsourced BLPs in your first comment, and then seem to be suggesting it is all OK in that one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And I told someone else off for asking him not to, and then did it myself. The inconsistency is truly baffling, so long as one completely ignores the provided rationale. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The creation of new unreferenced BLPs is not a "psuedo-infraction". Creating articles that will be instantly and rightfully PRODded, per policy is not improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well, sure, but we also heard in this thread that we have no rules. For once (ha!) I'm in perfect agreement with Thumperward: sure, Andy should do a better job; even pasting in a bare URL is something already. At the same time, the ones I looked at didn't take more than a second to verify, so they're not controversial or whatever, even if they're not on Paris. Good old Dr. Blofeld used to get this kind of criticism leveled at him, and I think they've taken that to heart. Andy could do that too (@Pigsonthewing:), but taking administrative action is going too far, IMO. Andy, do these guys a favor and just dump in a link or two, OK? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is this past its sell by date thread still going on? Look, here's an Andy creation from yesterday, complete with a URL in the very first edit. WP:BLP doesn't require a reference from uncontroversial boilerplate, and WP:BLPPROD give editors seven days to source the articles, and kind of says if you prod instead of finding obvious sources you're being a bit of a dweeb. If we want the policy to be "source the article on creation rule" make the policy proposal via the civil channels rather than harangue Andy into submission route. NE Ent 04:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Because Andy has failed, and consistently failed, to even acknowledge that there is a problem. If he had done so immediately, rather than calling GiantSnowman a dick, then it wouldn't have ended up here in the first place. If you're acting as an ambassador for Wikipedia, then there is no excuse for creating unreferenced BLPs. None whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets take the facts. Pigsonthewing said on 2/6/14: "I will be working at the European parliament for the next five days and will have limited editing privileges." It is now 2/17/14, has he changed and/or improved any of his articles? Yes, only a couple, but yes. So the idea that he wanted to create articles that he would improve later would not be so far fetched. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend closure as cooperating: Recent edits show sources added 14 Feb 2014 (see: dif-125), so I would close this report as "cooperating" and consider the slow response as an issue of "too busy" or overwhelmed by work with the "764" members of the European Parliament 2014. Watch user contribs and perhaps contact users to help update any overlooked pages of a busy user, as prior pages have improved. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure as cooperating per User:Wikid77. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting review

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

---

Requesting a review of a block on user User:NinaGreen. This editor was indeffed by User:Jehochman for "spam". There is a discussion at Jehochman's talk page. I don't see a policy basis for this block, or where there was any warning given. —Neotarf (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam isn't the right term. Disruption is though and that's a policy reason to block. I wouldn't have done it indef, myself. But the user needs to back off. They are too invested in the discussion and are disrupting progress.--v/r - TP 03:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not spam in the Spam (electronic) sense: it's spam in the Spam (gaming) sense. Jehochman is saying that stuff like this, repeated on lots of users' talk pages, is disruptive and reasonably close to chat spamming. Note that the block message says Your account is blocked until you...Please take a break, regain perspective, then make a request to be unblocked Clearly Jehochman's not assuming that this will be an interminable block; he's saying "You're blocked until things improve, and then you should ask to be unblocked". Spam (electronic) should be reverted/removed from pages because advertisements for offwiki things are never appropriate, but Spam (gaming), when done like this, is basically a kind of improper canvassing. We don't remove messages just because they were left in a canvassed manner. Finally, everything I'm saying assumes that Jehochman is correct/justified in this decision. Not having investigated, I'm not convinced either way; I'm just trying to ensure that Jehochman's words aren't misinterpreted or misapplied. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• The action of NinaGreen is unacceptable and I was going to leave her a message myself until I saw that they had not only been blocked, but this ANI case had been opened. However, IMO the block is impetuous and punitive. The user should have been engaged in discussion first and accorded an opportunity to respond. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• The block is justified for disruptive conduct. Looking at the contributions of NinaGreen, it is clear that they are filling pages after pages with their idiosyncratic views about the arbitration process, thereby disrupting and preventing discussion of these issues by others, including after arbitrators asked them to stop. This is an adequate warning, which in any case is not necessary for ordinary blocks. I assume that Jehochman will lift the block as soon as NinaGreen confirms convincingly that they will no longer disrupt discussions.  Sandstein  08:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Sandstein, providing additional background. Perhaps the block is justified after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest I was at the point of making this same call (indef block for pointy and disruptive edits after warning) myself. Frankly I have grave problems with editors using that page (or this one) to rehash their personal dislike of ArbCom, its decisions, or AE actions. It is unacceptable and the fact that single purpose throw-away *** accounts[1] are now being used to disrupt that page does not help Nina's case one bit--Cailil ^talk 10:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I find it rather worrying that Neotarf, who was also told to back away from this review for the same sort of problematic contributions, has raised this review. In any case, I agree with the comments above that this block is well-founded (and probably overdue). AGK [•] 11:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Incredibly obviously a valid, reasonable block ES&L 12:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good block, unfortunately. The actual incident mentioned in the block rationale is only the last straw as regards NinaGreen's recent disruption. Indeed I see signs that she's moving towards the levels of her historical disruption, which was nuclear and as of today never acknowledged by herself. One such sign is this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

• Is it time for a community ban? Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nina has done excellent work developing articles, and I don't think a ban is needed. However, there are clearly areas where she has a blind spot and something is needed so the next outbreak can be handled more quickly. A weakness in procedures is that there is no way of issuing a light-weight and flexible topic ban, but that is what is needed—a mini-discretionary-sanction regime where admins could warn and prevent posts of undue size or frequency or repetition. That's too hard to organize so I would suggest leaving a remedy for a later time, if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Such a sanction could be imposed & enforced via the community with Nina--Cailil ^talk 12:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see any need for a community ban at this point. Nina is indefinitely blocked, and iff she's able to convince an admin that she'll edit constructively going forward, she'll be unblocked; isn't that a perfectly good situation? Always assuming that the hypothetical unblocking admin makes themselves master of the background re what Johnuniq calls her blind-spot areas first, but that I will assume. Also, having a community ban discussion when the user is blocked and can't take part isn't a very attractive proposition. (Unblocking her for the purpose of taking part, now that she's wound up, is frankly not attractive either, and I don't think it would be doing her any favor.) Bishonen | talk 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

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

User:Zero0000 reported by User:PLNR (Result: )

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

---

Page: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

@Zero0000, has reverted[2] my edit[3] on the specious pretext that it is "editing against consensus".

The article is part of an arbitration case. The content of this edit has been "discussed" extensively on talk page (most recently here), On numerous occasions I have requested that WP:RS would be provided to support the assertion that providing specific details of this tangentially related subject, are WP:DUE in the context of THIS article\subsection. No WP:RS have been provided to support it, only claims that it is and Synth through WP:RS showing that it is relevant to the the tangentially related subject, the Peel Plan, which is obvious and where it is covered.(additionally, introduction of cherry picked details here introduce issues of WP:NPOV)

Since no policy based arguments were provided, productive discussion didn't took place and the editors supporting those details has very long editing history within the scope of this arbitration case, I have requested DRN[4] for un-involved supervision. Again no WP:RS and no participation.

User:Zero0000, revert under the pretext of "consensus" of involved editors, is misleading (there is no consensus), and is nothing but POV pushing and coatrack decoration, ignoring long process of attempt to resolve this, that resulted in no policy based argument i support of inclusion or any compromise. This process of "jerking off"(sorry for the bluntness, but it is, its more than 50K of the same thing) is not conductive toward normal editorial process and only promote editing warring.

I request that either Zero0000 be warned or the issue of policy vs "consensus" be addressed, thanks. --PLNR (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

This is a content dispute that does not belong on this board. However, now that it is here, I'll describe the situation.

A commission in 1937 proposed a partition of Palestine. The earlier text (for quite a while) said there were "provisions for the relocation of both Arab and Jewish populations to areas outside the borders of the new states". This was a severe violation of NPOV, since the proposed population movement was almost entirely (over 99.4%) in one direction. However, PLNR has single-mindedly refused to allow this distortion to be corrected. The discussion starts at Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#1937 Peel Commission transfer and keeps coming back in later sections due to PLNR's obsession. First he claimed the primary source doesn't have the numbers (it does), then that there were no secondary sources (two were provided and one added to the article), then that the detail wasn't important (who can imagine). It can be seen that although a few people thought the population movement should be completely removed, nobody supported PLNR's desire to present it in a grossly misleading fashion. I have no time for this sort of wilful misleading of readers. Zero^talk 10:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by PLNR.

This not a content dispute, this about policy and POV pushing. Unless Zero can produce WP:RS that will show that those details are WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan.(not Peel Plan)

I already covered the context and notability of the issue at hand in the DRN summary [5]. As for what Zero linked, it is the prelude or the beginning of the game of sources. First he added[6] cherry picked sentence from a primary source to "clarify" the plan, with something that in his words "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention"(which is correct, i never seen those details mention in the context of UN plan, however, they are covered in the Peel plan analysis) my argument that question of "balance" should be addressed in the context of the full Peel report, and not implied through a direct quote, from primary source, of a select clause, of one of the recommendations and without proper context(which introduce POV issue), while going into the Peel plan details is undue. It was ignored by claiming the holly grail of WP:RS.

I tried to compromise [7] by providing a more concise overview of all the Peel Plan recommendations, without undue details which had no impact on the UN plan and introduce POV issues. However, the specific numbers were reintroduced, this time claiming the disproportion of the plan has to be mentioned( I requested WP:RS that sate that conclusion about the plan to avoid WP:SYN), claiming that "exchange" in "it proposed that land and population "exchanges" should be carried out ..." implies 'roughly equal exchange' and thus must be explained(I suggested replacing it with a synonymous term like "transfer") and because he preferred "more precise" account(I argued WP:UNDUE, requesting anything to support that inclusion of Peel Plan details is in the context of the UN plan), no they wanted the full quote per WP:RS.

Finally, after I moved to remove due lack of WP:RS supporting the SYN, a WP:RS was dug up which provided the conclusion that was thought out from the start, to present why the Arab rejected the plan. Which is fine, however, instead of simply concise version of it, they insisted to include a full quote and exposition presenting the Arab POV in full details (which is exactly what happened before with another paragraph, in which WP:RS was dug up of undue event to push a point of view inside direct quotes.

I tried to reach a comprise, I tried DRN, and I am tired of this charade and tendentious editing. I wish a simple policy based issue be addressed here. The validity of the inclusion of those details Zero added, without WP:RS which would show that they are DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section.--PLNR (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

PLNR's response is exceedingly deceptive. The fact, I'll state again, is that in 1937 a massive (220,000) forced transfer of Arabs was proposed together with a tiny (1,200) transfer of Jews. Writing the text as if the transfer was balanced is a lie. All of PLNR's energy expended on this, including this "report", is because PLNR wants Wikipedia to tell that lie. You can see this is a fact by looking at the edit he claims (above) is a "compromise": Proposing that land and population exchanges be carried out to overcome demarcation problems. As you can see, the essential nature of the "exchange" is completely hidden.

Above we see him trying to deceive this board as well. On the talk page I wrote "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention that a tiny fraction (0.55%) of the transferred persons would be Jews and describe it just as a transfer of Arabs." Above he quotes just "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention" in order to trick people here into thinking I said that the massive imbalance of the "exchange" is often not mentioned. Apparently PLNR thinks that telling the truth is UNDUE.

Note that we are talking about two paragraphs of background in a long article (75K). The paragraphs are about the rise and fall of the most prominent previous partition proposal (the only other one which had a chance of being implemented). The relevance of the essential features of the proposal is blindingly obvious and PLNR can pick up practically any book on the Arab-Israeli conflict and see them discussed in this context. I mentioned two such books early in the discussion.

As Dlv999 wrote on the talk page after PLNR had kept on about it for almost a week, "PLNR, you seem to be in a minority of one on this issue." Normal editors would have moved on, but not PLNR. He also tried DRN, with no success. Now he is trying to get rid of the opposition by making false claims about them. A topic ban is in order. Zero^talk 01:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case someone might like to accuse me of edit-warring over this topic: after the first edit on Jan 25 I have only edited the article 3 times, twice to add new sourced content, and only once to revert PLNR's revert. Zero^talk 03:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by PLNR.

What I want( and policy demand) is simple, instead of assertion about consensus or what is blindingly obvious to you, that you WP:RS that show that those details are WP:DUE in context of the UN plan\background, not for the Peel Plan, nor for your damn conflict. ( Also I have tried DRN, to get uninvolved editor supervision and direction, not sure how it is a con on my part. But speaking of topic bans, I have edit on this article and all related commissions and several events in chronological order, addressing all aspects of it that as I read, you however, stuck on inserting single point of view, addressing what you refer to as "lies")--PLNR (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

Regarding the clause I struck out above: I just realised that it was PLNR who introduced the problem in the first place, by changing "Arab population" to "both Arab and Jewish populations", claiming to be following Peel Commission. But even though other article has those words, in the same section it clarifies that the "exchange" was almost all in one direction. So PLNR did not correctly report what the other article said but only imported a misleading fraction of it. I'm happy to believe this was an honest editing error, but the problems started when PLNR refused to admit there was a problem and refused to accept a second sentence from the other article to correct the problem.

There is no rule that a reliable source state must explicitly state that some detail is relevant as background to the topic of the article. It is enough that a reliable source treats the detail as relevant background for the topic. But that is not the issue here anyway. Either we omit the Peel plan from the article or we present it accurately. There is no third option. Zero^talk 09:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have edited the posts above to remove excessive HTML, formatting, and section headers. AGK [•] 11:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• It seems like this would be best raised at WP:AE as a request for enforcement of WP:ARBPIA. AGK [•] 11:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the Html, I wrote the post in the edit warring noticeboard, but then I noticed it was narrowly defined as WP:1RR or WP:3RR. Also I didn't use WP:AE because I had no idea what clause I need to cite there.--PLNR (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course you haven't, because there has been absolutely no breach (by Zero, at least) of any ARBPIA clauses. This is a simple content dispute, requiring no admin involvement and certainly no AE action. RolandR (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, however, I believe that tendentious editing is in the preview of this board. Since we have several editors with long history on this arbitration case, whose contribution are focused on promoting a single point of view, which I find to gives undue weight to sources and or positions, through tangentially related subjects, usually by dumping full sentences/quotes/detail (no summaries or regard to the section coverage as a whole)

I request that the question of whether this is POV-pushing should be addressed here. Either by Zero providing WP:RS that will show that those full details from the tangentially related subject, are WP:DUE in the context of THIS article\subsection or remove it. Otherwise, you set the stage for WP:COATRACK, driving away responsible editors who so far have been trying to make a concise neutral summary of the events, into same edit practice as above. I doubt that multiplying the size of the background section with recycled meaningless details would improve it. --PLNR (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I just noticed that you are not an admin, and from your talk page it doesn't seem as if you are uninvolved.--PLNR (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• If it is decided that this issue can't be addressed here, I'd appreciate advice as to where this issue can be addressed.--PLNR (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, this case gained some meat, and might seem too much or undesirable to address within this framework, I'd like to emphasize my request in the previous paragraph, that it all comes down to policy based argument to show if those details are WP:DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section or not.--PLNR (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest, as per User:AGK that an AE report be made against PLNR. While sttrictly speaking this is a content dispute, the evidence on the talk page shows a strong consensus against PLNR, an obstinacy in insisting against most editors he is right, and the result now is an attempt to admonish one of the several editors in that consensus. No argument given here by PLNR makes sense, in policy, or even in terms of RS (I could supply half a dozen further sources linking the Peel Commission's suggestion to Zionist deliberations throughout the 40s to the 1947 Partition Plan and its aftermath. It is therefore a behavioural problem (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) (WP:CONSENSUS) and WP:AGF (Zero is 'jerking off', per above) that has become vexatious and taken on the form of a needless harassment.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right Zero was the straw that broke the the camel back, after a long process, which culminated in a DRN. On the constructive side, if you can provide "half a dozen" sources, please do, it what I asked for above (i.e. provide a policy base argument that those details are WP:DUE or remove them). But please no rehash of strawmen arguments, the notability of that select clause in the context of the Peel Plan is known and never been questioned(which is where it is covered with the rest of the clauses). So no mining for Peel WP:RS, please show that those details are notable\DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section. Show me a source that in a couple page concise summary of the UN plan background during the Mandate period, that mentioned those details in full, especially when the next sentence already summarize them as "unequal population exchange", when they have no impact and overall this point of view covered in far more detail than every detail which is mention in every single plan summary.

Which is reason I setup the DRN, so we can get some input from people who aren't heavily involved in "your" case, to address this issue i.e. if it is WP:COATRACK decorating, with sole goal of furthering one point of view in as much detail and color as they can. So we can finally work on providing a concise summary of the topic as whole, providing the read with links to WP:RS and specific topics which cover those subjects in full (WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE) --PLNR (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, persistence in not understanding. There is no policy dictating the specifics of what is or is not due. The policy is interpreted and applied according to consensus, and the consensus there finds no objection to the specific figures, which are in any case a corrective to your desire to cancel out precisely what was at stake in the population transfer. No one except you seems to object to that edit, and therefore persisting in forumshopping to have your way against a consensus is patent obstructionism of the kind that warrants administrative attention. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment @PLNR: it seems that you have decided that all contributors editing the articles of the I-P conflict are pov-pushers and you are in conflict with all of us. Maybe I am an exception but I am not even sure. You should really cool down and practice WP:AGF. The main issue from my point of view is that you seem not to have read a lot on the topic. You use sources that you can find on the internet; most often primary ones and that makes you write or support mistakes or partial facts. My mind is that if you improve both these problem, you could become an interesting contributors because I have the feeling that you are clearly "neutral" on the topic, which it is not often the case. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PLNR is not alone. Zero0000 (and Pluto2012[8]) has indeed unjustifiably deleted content from articles and engaged in edit wars countless times while violating many of Wikipedia's policies, as he systematically deleted and reverted artcle versions he didn't want to be seen. I can easily provide many examples of diffs to demonstrate this, but instead I want to point out something much more serious:

Zero0000 has already been warned it the past about 3RR and edit warring violations, as found in his talk page history here User talk:Zero0000#Edit warring warning, and here at User talk:Zero0000#3RR Warning for Deir Yassin massacre. I'm sure there are other similar warnings he removed which I just wasn't able to find, but these are clearly more than enough to make a case against Zero0000 and demand that he be blocked for at least a certain period of time, after being revoked of his administrator status of course, which I just cannot understand how is still has. -Yambaram (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a joke. The best Yambaram can find on me is an accidental 3RR violation in 2006 (for which I blocked myself for 24 hours) and a completely farcical "warning" from a NoCal100 sock in 2009. For the record, I also accidentally violated 3RR once in 2009. Given that I edit continuously in the most war-prone part of Wikipedia, almost 5 years with no violations at all is unusually good. Zero^talk 15:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Zero0000 is being modest. He's been a contributor for almost 12 years & if you haven't heard of him before this, it's because he's managed to be a useful contributor without being a problem. Not a bad record. -- llywrch (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So what we have is a case of a user creating a problem, which he did also disclose, and refusing to accept why that wording is not acceptable. That settles the thing. Furthermore, the fact that he misrepresented what Zero0000 wrote about the authors mention is troubling too. But I am not surprised by this. In a discussion for some days ago, PLNR said that I "ignored his main question". In that same reply, he had simultaneously bolded what he saw as his "main question" to make it look to others that this claim was true. To the next time, I hope you disclose everything and be honest with what others have written. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have some distrust in the correctness of anything User:PLNR says since at Talk:Subdistricts_of_Mandatory_Palestine#Redundant.3F, he said "Yes I see that you and the other guy who voted, recently went on create stubs rampage", which is, as IRISZOOM pointed out a false claim ("Check the facts before making false claims. They were created for several years ago."). I am in some disagreement with User:IRISZOOM and User:Zero0000 too, but I have no single problem with anything what correctness of their claims concerns. Androoox (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Sock (or meat) puppetry and a COI agenda on a suite of articles

• Creative factor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Corporate cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Nutshell: I'm looking at what seems transparently a major COI issue from what is either a pair of meatpuppets or a sock group. I need help determining the best steps forward.

User:Creative factor is a new account pursuing an old agenda - removing negative content from JS Group (stuff like this). (We've dealt for years with either a series of obvious corporate employees or one persistent one.) When that failed, he narrowed his focus to a specific section on the company's CEO (see Talk:JS_Group#Deletion). Accordingly, with reasonable concerns, the content on the controversy was moved to a new article on said CEO. Immediately, User:Corporate cat appeared to try to have it removed - first through requesting deletion and then through targeted excision, removing not only the controversy but also reference to the subject's sister, whom he says the subject has disowned. He also immediately began working on articles related to a JS Group rival (seriously), copy-pasting content from the company's own publications to shoehorn in allegations about its CEO (the same issue which Creative factor had objected to at JS Group). Today, Creative factor visited the article Jahangir Siddiqui which Corporate cat has been whitewashing and pulled the same content - not only the material related to the lawsuit, but reference to Siddiqui's sister. He also uploaded a (now deleted) copyvio image for the article Aqeel Karim Dhedhi, which Creative factor has been working and recreated today after its deletion earlier. (History has now been restored.) He used the picture Creative factor uploaded.

Given the timing of edits, this may be more meat puppetry than sockpuppetry, but I am not as experienced in evaluating SPIs as I am copyright issues. Regardless of SPI, I note, the COI is massive and transparent. There is a tandem goal to clean up after one company and slur its rival - the goal is not "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" but to advance the interests of his/their employer - perhaps in retaliation for the alleged behavior I linked above? (link again)

I've just blocked User:Creative factor temporarily for persisting in blanking content, but I think a more workable solution needs to be reached. I'm not sure what that would be - perhaps block the newer account (Corporate cat) and impose a topic ban on Creative factor limiting him to the talk pages of articles related to JS Group and its rival? Whatever we do, it is entirely reasonable to expect that new accounts will block up to continue this agenda. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to block each and every account that's involved in this, as Moonriddengirl says, they're not here to build a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, even if they're managing, just, to skirt around policies that would actually get them blocked quickly. It might be useful for the community to agree to discretionary sanctions for these articles, so that users coming to the project in future can be informed of the sanctions, warned if they engage in such behaviour and then blocked if they continue. Just a bit easier that coming here time and time again, as I've a feeling this is going to run and run no matter what happens here today. Nick (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And do it begins. :/ [9]. The first blatant sock trying to force its way. Nick, I agree with you - this is going to keep happening. Discretionary sanctions might be the best way forward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM has already authorized Discretionary Sanctions for all articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I guess this one also comes under that scope. -- SMS ^Talk 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, since it's not nationalism, racism or religious preference being pushed here. This is plain and simple corporate rivalry. :/ However, I have now blocked User:Corporate cat as I found that he has since I filed this reuploaded several files that User:Creative factor had, including one "self-made" picture of JS Group's primary rival as "self made" with a source of "the news". As far as I'm concerned, this is the nail in the coffin for sock puppetry. Another sock was also blocked (User:Violent cat). I've tried to neutralized the articles involved and semi-protected those related to the rival company AKD Group - I created the most basic of stubs there as a target for redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Creative factor blocked only 60 hours? I thought that abusive sockpuppetry warranted a longer or an indefinite block. Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does, Epicgenius. :) I had blocked him for 60 hours for disruption before I realized the scale of what was happening here, and since he was blocked for 5 2.5 days figured there was time to arrive at some approach in discussion here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Moonriddengirl. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Single-purpose account

Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. The only article this user has been editing is Hayazn, where he is constantly making changes without discussion. By the way, I'm also worried that the username is innapropriate. It says "Armen MAH". Mah means "death" in Armenian and as long as I know, one of the leading members of this organization is named Armen Mkrtchyan.[10] There might be a connection here. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: Thanks for addressing. The editor seems to be enforcing. He has got like 4 reverts. Suspicious indeed. OccultZone (Talk) 16:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yerevantsi, perhaps you can make that user name point more explicit, and report it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The username per se is not my prime concern. I just think there might be a connection, because this user is clearly registered for trashing that one article. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just registered an account over at Armenian wikipedia and I'm mainly editing there, so I'm sorry if I don't seem more involved here, although my intention is to stick around and edit some of the Armenian articles. If my username seems inappropriate, I will change it, although MAH is part of my initials and any resemblance to members of Hayazn is purely coincidental.

Regarding the article. Hayazn is an organization that claims to be a party but is not registered as such. Hayazn is also a very controversial entity, they are constantly in the news because their members beat-up LGBT activists, or members of some other opposition groups and that is how they got my attention in the first place.

Yerevantsi, who has been in contact from one of the leaders of Hayaznand has been editing on his behalf (I'm not sure about privacy rules here, can I link to a social network accounts with the same username?) has assumed ownership of the article and won't let me make any changes to it. He deletes any negative information from the article and refuses to compromise. I have been very open to discussion in the articles discussion page and you are all welcome to read it yourselves and see how he stonewalls the discussion.

Here is my added sourced information compared to the one Yerevanci keeps reverting to. I have added the same information to the Armenian version of this article and the regulars there were nothing short of welcoming it. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To address the username issue quickly, WP:IU is the part of the username policy that advises that you should avoid usernames that are offensive or disruptive. Even if you didn't intend such disruption, if your username could be misinterpreted in such a way that it can cause disruption you should give serious consideration to changing it. This is for your own good; consider that if your username implies something negative about you, that could color the opinion of other editors in such a way that they may automatically assume ill-intent when you don't mean any. If you want to voluntarily change your name, it's a fairly easy process, just visit WP:CHU/S and make a request. -- Atama頭 18:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like the user name is problematic, at least not to English speakers who don't speak Armenian. Is it problematic in Armenian? Epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It can mean "death". But as I said it's purely coincidental, it's actually part of my initials and I will change it if it's a problem. I would like to take this opportunity and bring your attention to the article in question, Hayazn. The users who reported me, removed all of my additions, reported me to you and are now ignoring the discussion page. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User:IPadPerson

IPadPerson has a history of using foul language and screaming through edit summaries. I've previously warned him/her that edit summaries like this and this are inappropriate (see here). However, his/her strong temper has persisted and since that warning, we've seem edit summaries such as "Stop changing shit without a reason why", "What the hell was that there for", "How many got damn times have you been told about the SAME DAMN THING!?"

Additionally, he/she refers to good faith edits like this as "disruptive editing" and although referring to this as a good faith edit, proceeded to warn the user on their talk page with not even a general warning, but an "only warning."

It seems the efforts so far to control his/her temper haven't worked, so perhaps a temporary block will. Gloss • talk 16:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While still a bit bristly, the recent edit summaries have calmed down a lot relative to the ones pre-warning. I'd give the editor a bit more time - perhaps they'd like to weigh in here, as well. m.o.p 17:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been going on for awhile, i.e. this one from Feb 1st. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was before the user received a warning. m.o.p 22:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad world we live in where one has to be told that that sort of thing is unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least they are not personal attacks.… (and I am doubtful about even that) Epicgenius (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User has quite a disruptive history. They reported me to AIV as a "vandalism only account" for this revert. I have also seen them frequently abuse Twinkle and give multiple users either "final" or "only" warnings, just for reverting them. STATic message me! 16:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Also note these edits summaries from his IP address. Although before the warnings, this serves as a further example of the user's unhealthy temper, lashing out through edit summaries. [11] Gloss • talk 20:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I am not very experienced but I think this user just needs to learn more about civil behavior and assuming good faith, maybe a little time and a warning will work, but if it does not, maybe a block.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Warnings don't seem to be working. The user ignores all warnings. And the edit summaries have continued, with a personal attacks this time. "You ain't smart enough to know that it don't belong nowhere in the article" Still not a problem? Gloss • talk 17:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that even their user page reflects their temper. It comes across as very hostile and uncivil in my opinion. Kap 7 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any input here. This doesn't seem like a safe situation to let slip into the archives of ANI. Gloss • talk 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a civility warning should be in order. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Another warning? They've had multiple editors warn them before, if you take a look at their talk page. And after the recent personal attack, (linked a few comments above), I don't see how a block isn't in order here. Gloss • talk 20:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to the editor, the latest remark was after reverting a disruptive IP multiple times. It's not quite an unwarranted attack. I can leave them a message, but this isn't something worth blocking over. m.o.p 21:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've looked into the actual edits made by the IP but the edits were not in any way disruptive. They all seemed to be in good faith and well-intended. Another editor even questioned IPadPerson's warning on the IP's page here. Gloss • talk 00:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

IP User user_talk:94.10.214.103 and User user_talk:Ellisa2000

Both a user at the IP address user_talk:94.10.214.103 and the user user_talk:Ellisa2000 have been making consistent unsourced edits to religion articles. Both have received repeated warnings.

In particular, IP User_talk:94.10.214.103 changed the membership numbers without updating the listed source on the Catholic Church article three times, once after being warned on his talk page:

• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 13 Feb 2014: [[12]]
• Warning on talk page on 2 Feb 2014: [[13]]
• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 01 Feb 2014: [[14]]
• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 01 Feb 2014: [[15]]

The user has made several other unsourced edits on other pages about religion that are documented on his talk page.

Additionally, user user_talk:Ellisa2000 has made very similar edits to the membership on numbers on the Catholic Church page and to several similar pages to pages on religion. I don't know if they are linked or not.

• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 11 Feb 2014: [[16]]

I only have first hand knowledge regarding the edits to the Catholic Church article. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left warning notices on both talk pages and have had to check back over old edits by the IP user in order to manually revert changes to content unobserved by later contributors.

IP user 94.10.214.103 began playing around with statistics 9 January 2014, while Ellisa2000 began and ended 11 February 2014. While both appear to have tinkered with random pages, there distinct overlaps in the pages and remarkably similar types of changes made on Religion in India, Religion in Serbia, Religion in Montenegro, Religion in Spain, Religion in Bulgaria and Religion in Seychelles. Currently, the IP user has been blocked for 48 hours by HJ Mitchell, while user Ellisa2000 appears to have stopped 'contributing' (for the moment, at least). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Another block needed. Please note that, since the 48 hour block on 94.10.214.103 was lifted, the user has resumed their activities. I'm not certain as to whether I should post this directly to the vandalism board in view of the fact that the IP and registered user have been reported here as possibly being one and the same person. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC) EDIT Yup, I've been a nincompoop. That's what happens when you chase down notifications that are a couple of days old. Apologies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ellisa2000 is definitely back to the same tricks. I've just rolled back a few entries. Could someone please block this user? There's no point in a pageful of threats to block without affirmative action. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• If they are the same user, why is the IP user blocked, but the named account isn't? Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. I didn't actually submit this report. I assume that Zfish118 suspected they were socks? This isn't how I would have chosen to report the incidents, but this is how they ended up being reported. I haven't had any feedback from anyone, so I don't know who chose to block one and not the other, or whether it's being investigated as a sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. --Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe it is a sock puppet per se, but perhaps an inexperienced editor who is sometimes logged in, sometimes not. The two accounts are making nearly identical disruptive edits to the same group of articles. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As a P.S. - I don't know why this was considered as being ANI material (a bit of an overreaction). Both the registered user and the IP are irritating vandals who happen to have chosen religious stats as an easy target. Whether they're the same person, a tag team or just coincidentally merging on a few pages, neither have made a peep. Short term blocks and keeping an eye on their activities after the blocks seems sufficient. If they start acting up again, it should just go through the same process until they're permanently blocked (if it comes to that). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a less intense place to report such vandalism? --Zfish118 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Both 94.10.214.103 and Ellisa2000 are making dozens of disruptive edits as of 15 Feb 2014. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In answer to your first comment, Zfish118, I would have chosen to take them to WP:AIV. That being said, they are back to their old tricks and none of the administrators here seemed to have followed up on a complaint lodged 3 days ago.

Thanks! I edited the vandalism policy page to add link to WP:AIV, as it only said to report persistent vandalism to the Admins, but not where... --Zfish118 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, can someone block them as both Zfish118 and I have been spending unnecessary time tracking and reverting their edits - which never met the most basic of AGF criteria - and leaving warning after warning on their talk pages. Do we take this to AIV, or is someone going to respond to us here? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please close this AN/I. Have taken it to AIV as should have been done in the first instance. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If They will not stop and apologize, then I think it is time to Propose a Ban (Time Limit Negotiable) for disruptive behavior and teach them that their disruptive editing WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.They have been given plenty of warnings and pleanty of chanses to turn their behavior around. All of you are trying to peacefully solve this (Which is good), but now I think it has crossed a line into a point where we need to impose some kind of action to block their disruptive editing. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sopher99

This user has repeatedly [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] added towns to the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map without giving a single source, as it is required (and he knows it, as he had been editing that map for months). When he has been asked to either remove them or give sources to back its inclusion on the map, he refused, reverting the removal of that towns [23], with the excuse that another user (User:Barcaxx1980, who is a newcomer to WP) has also added towns without sources, as if someone doing something wrong gives green light to the rest of users to follow that path. For that reason, and due to the long history of breaking the WP edit policy and disruptive conduct by this user, I request a new block on him. I think its one of the first times I fill one of these reports, so sorry if I make any error. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your signature is REQUIRED to point to either your talkpage or userpage, which it currently does not. Could you please fix that before making any further edits on the project DP 10:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything I have done in that regard is in good faith. No one complained about Barcaxx's edit style which I took up, not on the article's talkpage or on his or my talkpage. If HPUNX has an issue he can just as easily take it up on the article's talkpage, as all users (including myself) have been doing for months on end now.

It should be further known that if there is a general agreement for a fix among users (almost always settled on a talkpage) no particular source for such edits are required. In my case I did in fact use a source, the wikimapia, to give an approximate location of the villages I added. For whatever reason HPUNX has decided to omit that fact in his complaints. Sopher99 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All comprobable false allegations, one by one. First, as it can be seen on User:Barcaxx1980 talk page, both User:Hanibal911 and me warned him that he couldnt add towns to the map without giving sources, so there were people who complained about it. Second, in the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map talk page can be seen that I twice pointed that towns were added without any source, so suggesting that I have resorted to the administrators board without raising the issue in the talk page is simply a lie. Finally, another comprobable invention, there's no such general agreement among users for adding towns to the map without a source, proof of that is other users reverting other adds for not being sourced [24] (and the reverted user didnt behave like Sopher99, but tried to find sources to back his claim). Also, claiming that alleged agreement has the same logic as saying that an agreement has been reached among the editors of an article to add content without source. Clearly, a severe breach of WP edit policy. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 23:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx's talkpage has Hanibal instructing him not to use the al-mayadeen as a source. He doesnt mention his other edits.

Regarding your usage of the talkpage, as seen here, its just you cursing out Al-Hanuty for suggesting the use of scholars on twitter and a quick denouncement of me as a user... all two or three hours ago. Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems that apart from the lies exposed above, this user have a blindness problem:

• Proof of both User:Hanibal911 and me warning User:Barcaxx1980 about his wrong edits (According to Sopher99, quote "He doesnt mention his other edits"):[25]
• Proof of me raising the issue of adding of towns to the map without sources (and receiving no answer): [26]

Again, you have been exposed.--HCPUNXKID 00:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you made one warning on the 7th and never got back to it. For your information Barcaxx continued through the 12th with those edits, almost entirely uninterrupted. Like-wise after seeing everyone was fine with it - ie the other 9 users that edit the page - I took up to add more villages. And guess what? Everyone was fine with it - save for you.

So it looks like did consult the talkpage, which I clearly missed. But my point resurfaces even with that - no one responded to your concerns, solidifying the fact your the only one complaining. Sopher99 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Admin,I would like to inform you that editor hannibal911 has added cities without a source.Alhanuty (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many of us have - and that's my point. HPUNX is calling me out on edits everyone but him is fine with and which he made no real effort to consult other users about this. Sopher99 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

False again, unless your definition of "many" is two persons (Barcaxx1980 & you).--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admins the editor Alahanuty should be punished for the defamation in my address since if you look my history of editings you can see that I am never edit without specifying the source. Although the user Alahanuty made edits using data from blogs and messages in Twitter. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A source does not need to be available online, or in English. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A block or ban is not punishment, it is prevention, I hope you will understand that. Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban. Sopher has had the chance to refute but he hasn't. I have come accross such misrepresentations by this editor before and I think a block or topic ban would be in line with our policies on encyclopedic and verifiability principles. Pass a Method talk 03:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - I have been active on Syrian pages. I have replaced dead links, filled references. Got those pages on my watchlist. It's usual that Sopher99 can be seen as a lone editor opposing numerous other editors and everytime I would find it. OccultZone (Talk) 04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been editing the pages for around 3 years, and if you check the edit count per person for the Syrian Civil War, I have the top count, more than dozens, perhaps numbers exceeding 100 other users. It is only natural that in such a polemical issue like the Syrian civil war, that other users will find some sort of gripe with me over time and group to complain. Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. I agree to other editors. The rules should be the same for all. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support topic-ban, obviously we cannot permit adding information without sources. Once is careless, but this user has gone way beyond "once". That said, I wonder if a topic ban from the "Syria" topic might not be a better way to proceed, at least until the user can demonstrate they are compliant and comfortable with our requirements on verifiability? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

Comment both sides did the same thing,so if sopher99 is to be blocked then hannibal911,should be blocked also for doing the same thing.Alhanuty (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty you misrepresent facts as I did not added cities or villages using only the map Wikimapia I substantiated all my changes using data from Wikipedia. But you probably forgot as you edited on the basis of messages in Twitter and blogs. So you are disingenuous accusing me of being that i broken rules. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the specific article we are talking about is actually a template map for towns of Syria. I have in fact used a source to add those, the wikimapia, which gives the approximate locations of real-life villages in Syria.

I am not too enthusiastic about this support list because 2 of the 4 users are wikihounders who have been quite antagonistic to me in the past. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Very weak & desperate argument, there are dozens of Wikipedians who antagonize you, because of your continued irrational behaviour and POV-pushing, so that's your fault, not theirs...--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally what users here seem to be omitting, or just plain not checking, is that I did in fact use a source, wikimapia, to give the names and locations of the villages. Sopher99 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Which as you know is not an acceptable source - esepcially to make claims about specific "villages" being involved in a war ES&L 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I did check the noticeboard - and no consensus exists for it being unreliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Wikimapia Sopher99 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are really a professional on distorting facts. When we talk about a source needed to add towns to the map, we talk about a source wich states wich side of the Syrian Civil War has control of the town in question. You know that very well, so dont try to act innocently by saying that you use Wikimapia as a source, as that tool cannot be used to verify wich side has control of the towns, only to verify the physical position (lat. & long.) of the towns.--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually on February 9th, when I first started adding the villages, I used this map provided by the BBC to detail which side it belongs to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22798391 . The villages I have added since lines up with the map, and anyone who checked the source I gave could confirm it. Sopher99 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding small particular towns basing on a map (wich is not really a BBC map, but from the Syria Needs Analisys Project, it seems you have a problem with sources) wich only includes some provincial capitals and not any town is a non-sense and very, very dubious, for not saying something worse. And also, if we accept the use of general maps to add particular towns, I could perfectly bring newer maps that contradicts several parts of that other map, for example, this (at least this one has towns on it) or even here in WP, this. Also, not to talk when maps contradicts articles wich state that one town is in control of any of the sides of the conflict. So, no, unless we want to mess up the Syrian civil war more than it is yet, we cannot use general country maps with no towns to add particular towns.--HCPUNXKID 20:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, only a few days ago,Sopher99 reverting another user's edit because the lack of source, it seems he had changed his mind very, very quickly...Also, this is the excuse he gave for his unsourced edits. Someone should explain him that two wrongs dont make a right...--HCPUNXKID 19:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99's editing of other contributors posts on this page

I have just noticed that Sopher99 has made significant changes to multiple posts by other contributors in this edit [27] where words have been replaced with '***' - one such word being 'troll'. Unfortunately I can't seem to revert this gross infringement of talk page guidelines.

It seems to me that regardless of other issues, this act of stupidity alone is quite sufficient grounds for an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So, to clarify, he replaced the words "troll" (and derivatives thereof) with "***", as well as "Devil's" (of which the only use was User:The Devil's Advocate's sig), all in the process of fixing a typo. I'm not sure this is intentional, tbh. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I saw something on VPT awhile back about something similar and it turned out to be some sort of plugin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, this happened to Sopher before due to some plugin, and they were advised to not edit Wikipedia if they could not get it to stop DP 10:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have three or four different word filters. I forgot they were on. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You have an edit filter that replaces the word 'troll' with '***' in the text provided for editing? What is this filter called, and is this a default replacement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few, such as "Web-Filter Pro" and "Simple profanity filter" - their chrome extensions. I forgot they alter wikipedia editing text, but I turned them off now. Sopher99 (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with AndyTheGrump, this user thinks he can do everything he want without consequences, and it seems that previous time-limited blocks hadnt make him change his behaviour.--HCPUNXKID 16:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. My time limited blocks were for violations of the 1 revert rule. I have since stopped even approaching a situation that would lead to a revert violation. Sopher99 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

False again, what you have done is learn how to evade the 1RR rule without being punished, something very different...--HCPUNXKID 17:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Care to show me an instance? Sopher99 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher think you should honestly admit that often were wrong. But you persistently trying to prove a point and I think it is not constructive. You find it easier to blame someone than to admit their mistakes. But I think it solve the admins who is right and who is wrong. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did I blame someone else? No really, show me one point on this page where I blamed someone else for wrongdoing against wikipedia editing policy Sopher99 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx? No, I only said that users were fine with the edits he made, despite initial concerns on Feb 7th that were never re-adressed onward

HPUNXKID? No, I only said that he was the only one complaining about the edits I made, and little effort to consult me on his concerns, save for 2 sentences on the talkpage that no-one responded to and he never got back to. Thats not a breach of policy and not the cause of the problem.

So tell me again, who am I blaming for the problem? No-one, because my point is there is no problem, just a lapse in judgement about the construction of a template map. Sopher99 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you just had to to talk with the editor Barcaxx1980 and try to explain to him how need edit. If you look at his talk page then you will see what I tried to explain to him how need to properly edit . But he still newcomer unlike you . But you did not try to talk to him and just started to add the citys and villages without identifying the source. Although unlike you, he in most cases use some sources maybe he not always was right but he is new to this actually unlike you or other experienced editors. But all decide the admins because only they can say who is right and who is wrong. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sopher, so your filters have apparently played Emily Post all over ANI. I'm surprised at your resentful and unapologetic attitude when this was pointed out; rather as if it was somebody else's fault. Why the ©@£$∞§=)(/&% don't you simply go back over the noticeboard and, you know, fix what happened? Especially the unlinking of The Devil's Advocate's sig. For another time, I strongly suggest section editing. It has many advantages at this busy board, and will presumably also prevent bowdlerizing filters from running amok all over it. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

ummm I'm not unapolegetic or resentful. And please tell me, where did I blame someone else for this? I blamed google chrome extensions for this. I don't think those count as people. To be honest I don't know where the changes were made, but now that I turned the filters off things appear to be normal. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should ask Google Chrome to fix it? All the replacements of words with asterisks still remain on the page. AndyTheGrump posted the diff that shows where the replacements are above, but here it is again. Please click on it, scroll down it and see the changes you made, and, I suggest, edit ANI a section at a time to fix them. You should stop dragging your feet. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Her calling Barcaxx1980 the one responsible because he is doing it (Giving unsourced material) is like "The pot calling the kettle black." I think she is just trying to blame someone else, because, "If Barcaxx1980 jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" Barcaxx1980 is not to blame. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• What is he doing!!! some body sould stop him. He reverted 5 times with no source. You guys really made him crazy when you refused to give him those villages in Der-Alzor (for FSA against ISIS). Please give him Mars and tell him to leave the page. Opposition has no control in alawite and christian villages in Masyaf and west of Homs and Hama. and no control al all in Tartus. I gave him a map from opposition itself. It is very well known fact and he knows it very well, but as you refused to give him those villages in est of Syria, he will delete Damascus itself !!!

I know I am new, and I was not giving sources to every thing, but Hanibal and another user did tell me that and they guided me and checked my edits, and I am contacting them to understand how to make things in the right ways. But this guy Sopher99 is really amazing !!! He is a country himself and nobody can ever tell him what to do. User:Barcaxx1980

Legal threat

DerreckTapp (talk · contribs) who appeared to be previously editing as Tappindustries (talk · contribs) diff Hello Jim, Do you really want a lawsuit on your hands for administering false representation of a biography of a living persons.... Jim1138 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, see: (User creation log); 07:57 . . User account Tappindustries (talk | contribs) was created and should probably be blocked too, if only for the disruptive editing on the Brian L. page. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ‎

Given the incredibly high likelihood that the accounts represent the same person, I've blocked them both. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

They have been retired to spend more time with their lawyers, then...?  ;) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User was blanking Brian Litchenberg claiming fraudulent content, later only claiming that the Vanity Fair was fraudulent. Unwilling to provide source. Jim1138 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Obvious legal threat, so I went ahead and blocked him per NLT (he also had tried to delete this ANI section, heh.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Mauriliorodriguez (talk · contribs) has also made the same kind of edits to the article. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. There was also that blatant copyvio at about the same time _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN Concerns On Rupert Sheldrake Page

The Rupert Sheldrake page has become a particularly hostile place to edit, and not just because its controversial nature includes a high standard of evidence. The problem is that editors like vzaak and Barney the barney barney are treating this page like their own private soapbox to promote their POV, embodying WP:OWN, violating WP:CIVIL by being condescending or outright hostile and utterly rejecting honest attempts to improve a very tricky page. I have posted to Vzaak's and Barney^3's talk pages to try to resolve the issue, but as is mentioned before this has not worked historically.

As I feel there is still plenty to do on the Sheldrake page, I went in to see if I could bring some compromise with balanced, moderate edits backed by solid sourcing/explanations. After getting no feedback from my talk page proposals I went ahead and adjusted them, requested feedback and proposals if anyone had other ideas. The result was a wall of text full of scolding, warnings and declarations about my ignorance in the matter, accompanied by reverts of practically everything I’d changed, even the grammar corrections. The reasons for these reverts were convoluted and my attempts to address those reasons were ignored (ie. a punctuation revert was explained by a post of MOS:LQ despite my pointing out I had actually corrected a violation of it). A recurring theme was an insistence that any edit by me required my addressing all their demands and getting permission, while they consistently ignored my concerns and edited/reverted without any attempt at consensus. I continued to try to work toward some sort of resolution that fit WP:BLP standards and still addressed all the points they brought up, but every compromise has been summarily rejected and any work reverted to preserve Vzaak’s POV. Here are some related diffs:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594423326&oldid=594335472 (Vzaak here insinuates that I am a proxy user due to editing this topic. This is significant given the high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks" or "proxies")
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595300294&oldid=595275653 (Here Vzaak warns me against making any changes to the article unless there is no argument on Talk, AFTER Vzaak made repeated changes to the article with no consensus)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594471532&oldid=594468825 (other editors arguing that changes should be made. Vzaak made superficial word changes that did not address the actual repetition of quotes)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vzaak&diff=595482595&oldid=595171376
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595300708&oldid=595274343 (Reversed all changes, including grammatical ones that were correct under the very policy Vzaak used to justify the revert)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595430975&oldid=595422218 (revert by longtime affiliate of Vzaak, ignored detailed description of reasons on talk page, extended far beyond personal “likes/dislikes”)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594707680&oldid=594469184 (there was no clear resolution on Talk, misrepresents “redundancy” as problem of simple word repetition, instead of repeating the exact same quote twice)

Barney^3 then weighed in, misrepresented my arguments and proceeded to write condescending ad-hominem insults on my Talk Page. For some reason he chastised me at length for fallacies and arguments I'd never advocated, written or supported. Here are some supporting diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The reason I’m bringing up what would otherwise just be a case of dispute resolution is the fact that this behavior is part of a long-term trend of hostility to alternative opinions, even when they are reasonable, neutral and supported by policy/sources. By systematically reverting edits, reprimanding editors and even harassing those who persist, Vzaak, Barney^3 and a few others have created such a toxic environment that no one else is able to make meaningful progress on the page that they’ve staked out. Whether this is intentional or not is a complex question, but what is certain is that this conduct violates the spirit of WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:CON, WP:HARASS, WP:IMPROVE, to name a few. In particular the feeling seems to be that WP:BLP is completely subordinate to WP:FRINGE, even though it is a biography page, not a theory page. The consequences have been serious and real, resulting in the driving off or aggravated blocking of a large number of otherwise qualified and well-intentioned editors (that in particular may be a larger problem than can be resolved on ANI, I fear).

In addition, Vzaak has made it clear that (until a very recent surge in mass-editing) they are a SPA: from Vzaak’s formation until Feb 11, 74% of all article edits and 81% of all article Talk Page comments were about Rupert Sheldrake. An indication of how heavily Vzaak has dominated the page is also referenced in the fact that Vzaak has made more edits to Rupert Sheldrake than the next three top editors combined. When you have such an emboldened Single Page Account, you end up with a Singe Account Page. That’s effectively what’s happened to Rupert Sheldrake.

This is a list of posts by editors who have given up/grown frustrated with this article, many of whom have had issues with Vzaak and Barney in the recent page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

These are posts by a very large number of editors, most of which have given up on the Sheldrage page, complaining of a long-recognized problem with POV and bias. These editors include David in DC, Iantresman, Lou Sander, The Devil's Advocate, and many others. Most of these posts feature Vzaak and Barney^3 prominently, establishing a pattern of conduct: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This behavior is hostile toward collaboration and detrimental to WP. Countless examples of this conduct establish that this is not an isolated occurrence. Over the past few months I've seen many hundreds of efforts at contribution end in frustration and over-zealous reverting, despite dozens of pleas for consensus, reasonability and accessibility (several of them made by myself). The reason the page is relatively static is not because it is particularly well-crafted, but because those who try to edit it are harassed until they leave, or, in many cases, are threatened by Vzaak and/or Barney^3 with sanctions of dubious legitimacy. This problem isn’t going away, but it is driving away people from WP.

I propose a topic ban on fringe articles against Vzaak and Barney^3 in order to remove the hostile and dominating environment that has developed there. Vzaak has proven to be a viable and useful editor in other areas, and I would not want to lose their future contributions to topics they are less opinionated about. Unless Vzaak is a SPA and has no purpose on WP except to advocate personal POV on fringe topics, this should be a relatively painless way to resolve months of conflict. Both Vzaak and Barney^3 have pursued such sanctions (and worse) against many other editors for far less, and the citations above indicate the sheer volume of disruption they are causing. The Cap'n (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by vzaak

I will skip the vague claims and move right to the numbered list of evidence. The "re" links are the original links given by Askahrc.

1. Proxying for Tumbleman, re[28].

Askahrc has been going around promoting Tumbleman's post-block claims.[29][30][31][32] The story is that Tumbleman admits to four socks while insisting that he had no IP socks. The claim is that this evidence, for example, is wrong. I daresay that I cannot imagine a more solid case of IP socking. The shared IP with the confirmed sock Philosophyfellow is damning enough on its own; when added to the other evidence, there just isn't any question. Moreover, the presumed admitted socks appeared both before and after the IP socks, and were blocked according to similar evidence. Callanec, since you handled this SPI would you please confirm that this claim by Tumbleman -- proxied here through Askahrc -- is not credible?

Askahrc is also saying that Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) and Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) were topic-banned because they were suspected socks of Tumbleman, a preposterous idea that was not mentioned in the respective AE requests, nor anywhere else that I am aware, except in Askahrc's recent activity.

Askahrc also relays Tumbleman's aspersions directed at me (echoed in Tumbleman's post-block socks) which somehow make it my fault that admins concluded that Tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE ("a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll")[33]. I don't think aspersions by proxy (of a blocked user, no less) are any more appropriate than direct aspersions.

Now Askahrc is taking up Tumbleman's first attempted change to the article, as described in the first paragraph of my statement in Tumbleman's AE[34].

2. Ignoring WP:BRD, re[35]

After Askahrc's bold deletion of a Sheldrake quote[36] (the same deletion Tumbleman made), the quote was eventually restored two days later by me. After failing to persuade others that the quote should be removed, he went ahead and replaced the quote with something else.[37] This was not a competent edit, as explained on the talk page -- the source does not connect morphic resonance to telepathy, nor does it even mention morphic resonance!

3. Askahrc's suggestion creates a positive change to the article, re[38]

Askahrc suggested the word "telepathy" was redundant in the lead. I incorporate this suggestion into the article.[39]

4. Askahrc posts a puzzling message to my talk page, re[40]

I don't know why this is mentioned. Maybe he thought I should have responded on Valentine's day?

5. Sources added to the article, re[41]

Askahrc said that remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect were "fringe science" and changed the article accordingly. I found that an extremely weird assertion, and added sources to back up the original wording.

I politely gave Askahrc a pointer to WP:LQ[42], because his edit[43], with comment "Grammar. Periods go within quotations." is against the MOS. The sources do not contain the periods that Askahrc inserted into the quotes.

6. Revert by IRWolfie-, re[44]

Whatever -- paranormal, parapsychological, don't care. In the talk page I said "parapsychological", but I was referring to the original wording "paranormal". This is not the kind of diff that warrants mention in an ANI.

7. Same as #3

Askahrc is strangely claiming that I misrepresented the redundancy problem as simple word repetition. Askahrc gave two sentences from the lead,[45]

• Sheldrake proposes that it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".
• His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as telepathy and "the sense of being stared at"[7][8]

and said of these two sentences, "They seem completely redundant to me". I removed the redundancy, per Askahrc's suggestion.

IP troll

Askahrc says that someone -- who? -- is "reprimanding editors", with a link given to here. The person doing the "reprimanding" is this IP: 134.139.22.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP, which is in the same geolocation as Tumbleman, began a flurry of trolling activity four hours after Tumbleman's confirmed sockpuppet Philosophyfellow was blocked.[46] Is this IP Tumbleman? It doesn't matter, it's just a troll. For all I know it could be Askahrc -- the IP is at California State University, Long Beach, Askahrc's own school, as stated in his user page.[47] I'm not claiming it is, I'm just saying that the troll could be anyone, and the matter has no relevance here.

Conclusion

Totally strange, to me. Askahrc makes claims like "74% of all article edits and 81% of all article Talk Page comments" are by me, but just links to my contributions. Moreover, the claim is objectively false because I am the #3 contributor of talk page comments.[48] Obviously, the #3 contributor cannot contribute 81% of comments!

I believe I have been extremely patient with Askahrc, offering extensive explanation and detail on the issue.[49]

Perhaps a community ban of Tumbleman would help avoid this kind of disruptive proxying. vzaak 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Askahrc is a single purpose account which edits from a Pro-Fringe angle on Rupert Sheldrake. He appears to ignore his own SPA status while commenting on others being single purpose. From what I have seen Askahrc/The Cap'n continued from where Tumbleman left off (including posting big messages of support on tumbleman's page: [50]) and has done more to stir up controversy where there is none than any current editor. Strangely enough I have been characterised by Cap'n as an "affiliate" of Vzaak despite minimal interactions. It is also unseemly that Cap'n appears to have mentioned sympathetic editors with the express purpose of notifying them of this conversation, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Typical Wall O Text allegation as frequently made on the Talk:Rupert Sheldrake page by those who ignore or cannot comprehend that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP not only allow but call for the well sourced content by appropriately accredited experts representing the mainstream academic view to be the appropriate measures for content in the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• I haven't checked whether Askahrc (talk · contribs) is a pro-Sheldrake SPA, but I have been working on the basis that he is a self-appointed "BLP warrior" with apparently honest intentions of trying to ensure that WP:BLP is applied to the letter of the law. However, he simply is an extremely clueless and massively WP:INCOMPETENT BLP warrior. The effect of his efforts seem to be to remove well cited statements of Sheldrake's views, in order to make him appear "more mainstream" - i.e less wacky. However the article doesn't take a position on Sheldrake's views - it merely states what they are and what the mainstream scientific reception to his views have been per WP:FRINGE (you can see from the article that the reception hasn't been pretty). "The Captain" is reading between the lines and concluding that there are BLP issues that simply aren't there. WP:ARB/PS sanctions should be considered. I and vzaak have done a lot of research into this topic, and it isn't helpful when someone arrives who is clearly deficient in knowledge and understanding both of the subject and Wikipedia policies, and starts threatening people with WP:AN/I when he doesn't get his way. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• @Cap'n: Posting at such length as in your OP is counterproductive as regards getting uninvolved input, as it's likely to drive uninvolved admins, or anybody with any time constraints, away from the thread. I suggest you post an executive summary another time. This time it doesn't make much difference, as you're in any case extravagantly unlikely to get what you ask for, a topic ban against vzaak and Barney. Their work defending Rupert Sheldrake against fringe POV-pushers may not get much thanks from day to day, but I for one am grateful for it. Thank you, guys. Following mainstream science and reliable sources actually isn't a POV, Cap'n, it's the essence of WP:NPOV as detailed in WP:UNDUE. P.S., I'm intrigued by your phrase "revert by longtime affiliate of Vzaak". If you're insinuating some impropriety — tag teaming? meat puppetry? — please say so outright. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC).
• This is going to seem a little scattered, as I'm responding to a number of different posts here. First off, a quick summary (you're right, Bishonen, that's my bad):

vzaakand Barney the barney barney have a long history of dominating the Rupert Sheldrake page and resisting cooperation. WP:OWN, WP:FAITH

I tried to make moderate, neutral edits (please see diffs above to confirm) but every edit was arbitrarily reverted with specious explanations. WP:CONS

In keeping with a long established habit(see complaints by other editors above), Barney^3 has begun launching ad-hominem attacks while Vzaak begins to argue that if I continue to edit the Sheldrake page I must be a sockpuppet/proxy. WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS

First of all, the editors who have criticized this post happen to be a who's who of those who are still able to edit the Sheldrake page freely (Bishonen excepted). I regret this post was over-long, I tried to trim it down, but I'll put together a summary to post below. Regarding the comment IRWolfie is a "longtime affiliate", it appears to my examination of edit histories that the two tended to curtail the same sort of edits at about the same time, and that IRWolfie rarely got involved without Vzaak also being active there. I can't prove tagteaming, however, so that's why I didn't include that editor in the incident. As far as my being more of a SPA than Vzaak; the very first edit Vzaak made was to Rupert Sheldrake, as was the greater part of the next 2000, whereas I've been around for over 5 years and only recently began giving a damn about this page. As to that interest, I've made 21 edits to the page and only 50 talk comments, compared to Vzaak's 645 and 393, respectively. Vzaak tried to claim my data is false because they're the 3rd contributor on the Talk Page, but I explicitly stated I was listed the Article's statistics and that data is accurate. I don't have an issue with Vzaak talking the most, I have an issue when Vzaak edits more than most people combined and then prevents others from doing so. As for the contributions page, I linked there because that is where I compiled that data. I didn't think an excel sheet of my own findings would be well received here, so I directed editors to the source I got the data from. How's this for a deal from an "SPA": If Vzaak agrees to a Fringe topic ban, I'll agree to one as well. I don't have a ax to grind with Fringe either way, and if it removes a major disruption from the topic I can edit all the rest of WP in peace.

Vzaak spends almost as much time talking about Tumbleman (which has nothing to do with these issues) as about this specific problem. I'm also beginning to be called a Tumbleman proxy (you know, it is possible for editors other than Tumbleman to care about this issue), or that I am in fact several of the hostile editors myself because one of the skeptical posts came from Cal State Long Beach, my old school (BTW, I graduated some time ago and I'm not prone to posting diatribes from my alma mater). As far proxying, I've been transparent that I disagreed with the gist of the Tumbleman block, and that I spoke to this editor later. This is not being a proxy, it's having an interest, and all of the positions I have put forth have been mine. If they're covering the same areas that Tumbleman and countless others have, its because these issues are apparent to a lot of people and yet don't get fixed. Finally and most importantly, the argument that I am trying to present a pro-Fringe perspective is easily disproven. For instance, if I were trying to get rid of a quote in order to make Sheldrake look better, I probably wouldn't keep insisting that we defer to using the longer block of the exact same text! Nor would I try to find other quotes that say almost the same thing about Telepathy. I've been trying to reach some sort of consensus, but it's not even a matter of not compromising at this point, it's a matter of not allowing anyone to make any changes, even if they're still 95% your POV. I'm not trying to make Sheldrake's page seem more mainstream and have never tried to say his views are (show me an example where I defend MR as accepted by science or appearing feasible!). Note that neither Vzaak nor Barney^3 offered to attempt more consensus-building or to try and be more hospitable to other editors, instead slinging accusations of proxying (Vzaak) or simply acknowledging that anyone who disagrees with them is too ignorant to be allowed to edit their page (Barney^3). None of them have shown any evidence that they have not been abusive. The Cap'n (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Askahrc, adding more vague claims isn't helping your case. For instance if you accuse someone of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:HARASS, you have to provide evidence of such. When have I been uncivil toward you? When have I harassed you?

The discussion on the talk page seems fine to me, apart from your not being very informed about the subject matter and not really understanding the responses you received. You didn't even understand when I reverted your quoting mistakes and referred you to WP:LQ.

My first reaction to your choosing to make the same edits as a blocked user was: "While this feels like proxying for a blocked user, I shall assume this is not the case, but there should be a compelling reason to rehash the issue."[51] We discussed issue with the proxying concern aside.

I never accused you of being a sockpuppet. I would never accuse anyone of that outside of filing an SPI.

You are the one who brought up proxying here, so I had to respond to that, with evidence. And the evidence shows that you came into the Sheldrake page with a host of misconceptions which have undoubtedly contributed to your difficulty. Perhaps the first step you could take is to carefully study, without prejudice, this evidence. I'm sorry, but you've been conned.

Barney has contributed the majority of the pro-Sheldrake material in the article. For instance he dug up the "astonishingly visionary" quote. We're not bad people. vzaak 21:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake makes his fifth or sixth appearance on AN/I and I can't see any improvement since the fall. I'm one of the editors who left discussing this article because the discussion became so polarized. I don't understand at all why a handful of editors are so invested in controlling the content of this one particular article, it is surely not worth the animosity that has resulted from trying to improve it.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on Sheldrake's work, pro or con. But I think it becomes toxic if every time a new editor shows up who is marked as having a specific point of view (and everyone has a point of view), they get labeled as being a sock, a proxy or representing a fringe POV. If enough editors on the talk page concur and the label sticks, that new editor is hassled and all of their edits will be reverted. It's not just a problem on the Sheldrake article, I've seen it happen elsewhere but it's been a perennial problem with Sheldrake. Once someone is labeled as "fringe", other editors just tune them out and start seeing them as a vandal. It's really destructive for Wikipedia (especially because those doing the labeling view their zealousness as protecting WP) to have articles that just a few editors with a particular point of view own.

Now, I haven't provided a long list of diffs or named any names. I think if you visit the Talk Page discussions, you can get a sense of the dynamics. Personally, I don't want to spend my Saturday reading divisive, archived TP conversations, I just wanted to support The Cap'n's opinion that this is a situation that needs to be addressed. I wish it could be done without topic bans and blocks but this article has been a mess since (at least) August 2013. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I support The Cap'n's comments about the situation, and I believe that his proposed solution would be helpful. I endorse the comments of Liz. The article is owned, which no article should be, and the owner and its cohorts are not good stewards; (note their typical accusatory comments above, not to mention their claims of special expertise and good intentions). One of the problem editors of the Sheldrake article voluntarily withdrew from it. That might be a good solution for some of the others. Lou Sander (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Lou Sander, the irony is that if this was one of the earlier times this article came to AN/I, there would be over a dozen editors commenting. But most of those who were active or made a stab at it, have thrown in the towel. So, there might be less fighting there now but only because there is an invisible "Do Not Trespass" sign that becomes apparent once you actually try to edit the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, you helped extend the problems with the article as much as you could when you continually supported the troll and sockpuppeteer Tumbleman at the article. You also avoided reading the evidence of disruption and sockpuppetry as much as you could, and further went on to accuse other random editors of sockpuppetry without evidence. Is it really surprising that this article has issues when there are people prolonging the drama? (And I know you haven't read a thing to date, especially when you wade in saying Personally, I don't want to spend my Saturday reading divisive, archived TP conversations,, you've decided your angle, and you'll jump to support those editors who agree with it). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What IRWolfie (talk · contribs) says about Liz (talk · contribs) is extremely insightful. Having at least 1% of a clue is usually desirable before commenting. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz has made serious allegations without providing any evidence to back them up. That is unhelpful. Cardamon (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Liz: Your comments are not helpful as they do not acknowledge reality: single-purpose accounts do focus on Rupert Sheldrake (who argues that morphic resonance is responsible for interspecies telepathy), and the attempts to polish that article violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. The complaints in the OP are far too long and vague. If no one is suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG, this should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@vzaak, I never said and don't think you're bad people. For the majority of my edits dealing with you and tRPoD I've been very respectful of your efforts and appreciative of your POV (which I tend to share). My issue comes with the behavior that has backed up that POV, and the degree to which that POV appears to motivate the editing on Sheldrake's page. I agree with the statement that the Sheldrake page is dominated by SPA editing, though I politely disagree with the conclusion of which side that SPA is on. I think it's disingenuous to say that you've never presented a pattern of hostility when you consider the fact that the majority of editors with whom you've used the terms you've used against me (proxy, SPA, etc) have ended up with sanctions against them that you feature prominently in. As far as presenting Barney the barney barney as a helpful moderate, I find that shockingly misleading. I have rarely encountered someone who is less civil than Barney^3, whose first recourse is to repeatedly call disagreeing editors stupid and ignorant (as seen above and in the diffs I provided).

Liz has not been disruptive and has barely interfaced with the Sheldrake argument except to remark on the problems I listed above. If either myself or Liz have been abusive or violated any type of policy or NPOV, please list the diffs. Otherwise, please consider the fact that this very ANI has been a showcase of the mentioned editors declaring that anyone they disagree with does not possess the right or capability to edit on the Sheldrake page. My notice may have been overlong, but I included dozens of diffs showcasing problematic behavior, and can include dozens more showing WP:OWN, while they have not provided any diffs or evidence demonstrating the unsuitability of the edits they have reverted time and again (exactly what problems are they resolving at this point?), nor addressed the abusive behavior of Barney^3 at all. With all due respect to the admins, I feel you are being mislead in this case. Vzaak and Barney^3 may be valuable editors in general, but on the Sheldrake page at this time they are dominating all discussion and mandating a POV. I don't wish to ramble on too much longer (a fault of mine), but if it would be helpful to list out more diffs demonstrating WP:OWN I can readily do so; I can get as specific as anyone would like. Please do not dismiss this case as a result of my regrettable verbosity. The Cap'n (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary to your assertion Askahrc (talk · contribs) - I am not exhibiting disruptive behaviours typical of WP:OWN. I am willing to discuss content with other editors, to the point of bending over backwards to be reasonable with editors who clearly think that WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV WP:FRINGE should not apply to this article (although there is a limit that has been crossed several times). I am willing to let others edit the article. I am willing to allow content that is the "consensus version" even when I have somewhat subtle disagreements over wording. What I will work against is attempts to have this article excepted from expected standards of WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV WP:FRINGE. There is a difference here that you are wilfully ignoring: You are conflating competence, knowledge, interest and understanding of a topic with WP:OWN because you haven't go consensus for your changes. Get that consensus, and even if I disagree, I won't press the issue. That is fair, and it is how Wikipedia should work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything that can be done about these Mikemikev IPs?

123.214.175.236 (talk · contribs) and 118.219.86.100 (talk · contribs) are obvious Mikemikev socks, but as the IP addresses are so different I'm guessing a range block is inappropriate? I can sp the talk page but that seems a shame. I've just been attacked as pro-Semitic on one page and an Arab supremacist on another, so I must be doing something right. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah they look to big to me (both /16 for a major South Korean ISP), semi protection looks like the only option as I can't see a common trend we could use for an edit filter. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

74.89.85.38

74.89.85.38 keeps on adding lists of programs to Nickelodeon articles that are unsourced. I looked at the websites and many of them aren't even there. Wikipedia is not a television guide. I have warned him about it, yet they keep on doing it. Please block this user. Finealt (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP has shown no activity for the last few days, so maybe they've stopped. If their previous editing pattern stays consistent, they'll probably be gone for a month or more. If you notice their behavior starting up again (adding unsourced info) then a block may be warranted, though it's difficult to know how effective it will be since this editor usually edits for one day then "hibernates" for at least a month before starting up again, so they might not even notice the short block usually handed out to IPs with a clean block log. Then again, this IP has shown a consistent focus on the kind of content they've edited since November 2012 (and never edited prior to that time) so this is likely a static IP that has been used by the same editor for years. A long(-ish) block may against this IP may have minimal collateral damage. But since blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and the editor has stopped for now, a block wouldn't be appropriate at this time. -- Atama頭 16:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Правичност

I don't know where to report this since this classifies under several categories: edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, etc. The user was recently involved in a edit war on Serbs article for which he was reported and which resulted in that page to be fully protected [52]

Now this user is trying to transfer that conflict (with which BTW I had nothing to do with) and that content dispute on the article Croats, making non-consensus and non-discussed changes and calling the previous (might I add sourced information) as biased trash [53]. I reverted this edit and made him aware that I know about his content dispute on another article and warned him not to transfer that dispute on this article. Then few hours later he again introduces his changes again calling the content "trash" and furthermore making an extremely rude personal attack against me with a baseless sockpuppetry accusation [54]. IMO this definitely falls under the jurisdiction of the WP:ARBMAC. Shokatz (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have had some concerns about Правичност's editing for a while (I'm here because Shokatz notified Правичност, whose talkpage is on my watchlist).

Interestingly, Правичност tends to edit similar pages to PANONIAN - who left after being blocked and topic-banned. Правичност seems to edit-war similar content into those pages. Правичност's account was created shortly after PANONIAN "retired", and the two both have an unfortunate habit of making false accusations of sockpuppetry by adversaries. bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sokac 121 is the reason why article Serbs is under protection 4th time. I apologize to Shokatz that i mistaken him for Sokac121, because i see his English language knowledge is way better than the other user`s English (a google translate version). But i am surprised i got reported here :) ... i am not transferring anything, the Croats article holds biased numbers and unnoficial datas next to the official datas, a real madness, reliable is something i would not call this article. Sokac121 a constant vandal and agressor on Serbs article (specifical goal - figures) seems to use more than one account, i saw similar edit`s and same way of English knowledge expressing in some cases by editor`s under different IP. I may be wrong about that, but i am certainly not wrong, that this user is the reason these constant disputes start over one and same thing, on one hand he disagrees and edit warres and fights over figures and soruces on article Serbs and on the othe rhand he uses weird questionable and primarily unofficial sources to pump up figures on article Croats, making them alot more larger than in reality.. he has double standards and i dont aproove such behaviour and vandalism. PANONIAN? I dont know who is panonian, i started using wikipedia perhaps 1 year ago or less and this is my only account, your detective intuition seems to have fooled you Bobrayner :) (Правичност (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC))

If you are interested in discussing the content you consider contentious, then bring it to talk page first, do not edit-war and delete what you don't like and call it trash, that is not a valid reason for anything. And accusing others of being sockpuppets without proof doesn't help either, in fact it is a blatant WP:PA. Also your recent edit on my talk page [55] is again the same behavior with which I believe you came to the article in question. You need to calm down a bit. Shokatz (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz, i already posted my ideas on Croats talk page, but nobody seemed to have been interested to be involved in such discussions. The "edit" - post on your talk page was just to notify you, you have been mentioned and replied to on this page by me. And about Sokac121, i dont really care what he has to say through google translate beneath this message of mine. I already posted my opinion about him and what i said can be seen by his edit history on Serbs talk page; simply pure hater and vandal or pusher. Regards (Правичност (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC))

User:Правичност is today invaded me and User:Jingiby , (see here [56]) Constantly offends other colleagues who disagree with him. Terribly is what doing--Sokac121 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also realized that Правичност has a strange behaviour. Edit-warring, abusing other editors, refusing to accept the rules here, etc. Jingiby (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember if I've had any direct interactions with this user, rendering me involved - it's possible. In any case, if nobody takes this up here, you should appeal for WP:ARBMAC enforcement at WP:AE instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nanshu's ad hominem attacks

Last year, I raised my issues with Nanshu (talk · contribs) and his extreme rudeness in regards to editing the same articles. No action was taken because for whatever reason, he stopped editing after the report. He has recently decided to disrupt WP:MOS-JA and in this lengthy diatribe he takes multiple pot shots at me, calling the proposal that has had a consensus formed as "utter nonsense", saying I'm WP:OWNing the section on the MOS (based on two discussions from 3 to 4 years ago), and calling into question my opinion because I'm in the top 100 editors by number of edits. There is no reason that Nanshu should be allowed to make these attacks in his attempts to form a new consensus (not to mention he acted without one) now or last year or ever. As was suggested in August 2013, I'm bringing this up, again, because he has done the exact same thing he did at Talk:Hokkaido and Talk:Ryukyu Islands and he's going to disappear for several more months when nothing can be done to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

His latest edits to WT:MOS-JA are more of the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Reading the links I get the impression that Ryulong (talk · contribs) is attempting to abuse this board to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Nanshu's reasonable comments about Ryulong's behaviour isn't a personal attack if it is true. Who knows why Nanshu may have "disappeared" in the past, people do have real life commitments, but certainly Ryulong's evident intimidatory behaviour could be a factor. Posting this[57] to an admin's talk page ten minutes after posting to this board appears odd given that this board is patrolled by admins anyway, so it he seems to be WP:ADMINSHOPing to boot. And Ryulong's claim of being "in the top 100 editors by number of edits" as justification of his behaviour indicates an issue of WP:OWN does exist and appears to be impacting his ability to work with other editors in a collegiate and constructive manner. --Nug (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  Nug, you are misconstruing everything I have said and done to your goals, as you have done in the disputes on Talk:Soviet Union. I contacted Nihonjoe several hours after the initial posting here because he is also a major editor of Japanese articles, not because he is an administrator. And I was pointing out that Nanshu in his edit here said that because I have such a high number of edits that my opinion on the matters on that page should not be acknowledged for some strange reason. I am not coming here to gain the upper hand. Nanshu's behavior has been problematic for several years and he acts this way to more than just myself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  One only has to compare your block log with Nanshu's block log to see whose behaviour has been more problematic over the years. --Nug (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  And now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  You claimed Nanshu's behavior has been problematic for several years, yet the evidence of his block log does not support your accusation, therefore you just violated WP:NPA. --Nug (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  I have not violated NPA. I have provided diffs to show that he's combative and rude yestrday and last year in August. The fact he has not been blocked for this and I have been blocked for unrelated issues does not prove anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  I've reviewed the diffs and I don't think Nanshu was being any more rude in calling your argument "utter nonsense" than you were in calling his argument a "lengthy diatribe". The fact that you brought this content dispute here while Nanshu initiated a Request for a third opinion, demonstrates that you are the one with the combative attitude, not Nanshu. --Nug (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  This is not about his request. It is about his chronic rudeness towards me. And 12k of text essentially saying how "Ryulong is wrong and here's why" is a lengthy diatribe if I ever saw one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nanshu's latest comments at WT:MOS-JA continue to include personal attacks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To address one point brought up by Nug, we don't compare the block logs of two editors and reward the shorter one in a dispute. A block log can assist an admin in determining an appropriate escalation if an editor's misbehavior continues, and in a general sense it can give an idea of what kind of disruption or other trouble a person may be prone to. But that's it. It's not really worth bringing up a block log comparison in this situation.

As to Ryulong's initial request... I was going to state that this doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks, but Nanshu is clearly taking a stance of superiority against you while claiming you were "the guy who was incapable of understanding what transliteration was even though he was given a short lecture about it". In light of this edit which earned Nanshu a warning back in August, it's clear what they're trying to say. They're being more circumspect about it this time but it's still an ad hominem and so I'll leave a stronger warning. The fact that Nanshu has at least tempered the language suggests that maybe there's an attempt to be more civil (though it could just be wikilawyering to dance around a violation of WP:NPA) but I think that this warrants a warning. And for what it's worth, I have a basic understanding of Japanese so I can understand what the dispute is here (Romanization standards for languages related to but not exactly Japanese) though I have no intention of getting directly involved there. -- Atama頭 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a qualitative difference between Nanshu telling Ryulong is "wrong and here's why", and Ryulong calling Nanshu "a kind of asshole". --Nug (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also a difference between acknowledging that what I said is wrong and spending 50 sentences attacking another editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that Nanshu didn't spend "50 sentences attacking another editor", that is just an egregious exaggeration. Nanshu mentioned you exactly twice and devoted the remaining 99% discussing content. Only the Pope can plead infallibility, being told you are wrong with respect to content isn't an ad hominem attack by any stretch of the imagination. Your complaint against Nanshu is a total beat-up. --Nug (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought so at first (I even wrote two paragraphs essentially saying what you just said) until I paid closer attention. There is no excuse for Nanshu stating that someone (anyone) is "incapable of understanding" and taking the position of being the teacher who is dealing with a hopeless student. And I noticed that it was almost identical to the speech that Nanshu used back in August against Ryulong, except that he was careful to not call him "stupid" directly but to use other terminology. You're correct that 99% of that long diatribe was on content (well, maybe more like 95%) but it's the part that wasn't on content that is the concern. Even if Nanshu is correct (and I don't have personal knowledge about katakana usage for Ainu and Ryukyu language terms, nor am I inserting myself into a content dispute) that doesn't excuse the position he is taking. Nanshu can make his argument successfully without denigrating other editors in the process. There's a big difference between saying "you're wrong" and saying "you're an idiot". Keep in mind, I have no objection to Nanshu stating that Ryulong's statement is nonsense, that is attacking an editor's argument and is definitely not a personal attack. I'll concede that Ryulong's comment calling Nanshu an "asshole" on the WikiProject Japan talk page was also an attack and Nanshu did not rise to the bait in that discussion which shows restraint to me. -- Atama頭 00:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting old user pages

I used to be User:Sam Korn, but can't remember the password for the account or for the associated email address. I had my old user page deleted a couple of years ago, but I'd really like to get rid of all the other pages in my old userspace. Since they show up in an internet search, I'd really like to get rid of them. Could some kind soul possibly delete them for me? Many thanks. A later Sam (451) (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sam, long time. I excavated your 2006 e-mail address from an old arbitration committee page and tried to contact you that way, but it turned out to have been disabled. :-( I guess I shouldn't delete those pages without some kind of confirmation that you're you. Any ideas? Can you tell me something you and I would both remember, say from IRC? Bishonen | talk 20:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen: it is indeed a long time. Thank you for replying to me. The best I can think of is that I do have access to my old mailing list address, which sent many emails still available in public archive. If you emailed that address, I could reply. A later Sam (451) (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I removed some details from your post above, no need to leave them out in public. I believe you — I'll delete the pages tomorrow — just falling into bed here. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

• Greetings, little user! Blast from past! bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Suggestion: While I'm sure B or friends will delete the pages you requested in short order, I think you get more complete exclusion from internet search via Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing. NE Ent 14:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Once the pages in question have been deleted, their URLs can be submitted to Google Webmaster Tools to remove Google's cached copies as well. — Scott • talk 16:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• User space pages (and their talk pages) have been deleted. I didn't delete the user talk page archives, since they contain the talk page history and policy frowns on that. But I blanked them, and protected your talk page. Let me know if there is anything else. You were before my time, Sam, but I run across your name from time to time, and it looks like back in the day you helped out a lot. Thanks for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. I'm not terribly worried about it. It's just that there were some very odd results in the first page of a Google search for my name and I'm happier now they're gone. Thanks to everyone for your help. A later Sam (451) (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Michael Slater

IP 120.146.138.140 is claiming to be the subject of this article and is issuing legal threats via the edit summary. I initially reverted the IP's edits but after examining the quality references given I have undone my own edits until the issue is resolved. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the content involved some serious negative comment on a WP:BLP, which was not well supported by sources. If the IP really was the subject, he had reason to be upset, although WP:NLT still applies, of course. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that I've RevDel'd the edit summary as it had a phone number in it. But it's content was "This is Michael Slater and I have removed this section because it is incorrect and totally misleading. If I can't get control of this I will have to get legal advice. You can call me ..." The IP has been told to follow the advice at WP:Contact us - Subjects and not to make legal threats so no more action needed here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also Fraggle81 you handled it exactly right, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This may be a case of WP:DOLT, but the language here that really concerns me is where the subject insists that he needs to "control" the article, which is never going to happen. I'll leave a message to try to assure the subject that we don't want to defame him and one of our biggest priorities on Wikipedia is to not necessarily harm our article subjects with unsubstantiated negative information, and that we take such issues seriously. -- Atama頭 17:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass removing of links to transfermarkt

User Cloudz679 removes a lot of lins and references to transfermarkt profile of football players. Is this action agreed with someone? This must be discussed at least with members of wikiproject football and other not affiliated editors. WHO decided what transfermarkt is not reliable source? It′s a bullshit. Tranfermarkt it′s reliable source, and especially in case for footballers from Eastern and south-eastern small European countries it′s a much better source than any other local one. For example, i can with certitude that transfermarkt helped me in tens of cases to fill in and correct transfers history for Moldovan footballers. I do not care this is his decision or agreed with somebody, i will use further transfermarkt, because in a lot of cases i can′t find more reliable source. I will not notify user on his talk page. I will not try to convince you in correctness of my words. Enwiki is not my home project. I just announced you about an unconstructive (IMO) mass action. Regards. XXN (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Transfermarkt was determined not to be a reliable source following several discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard; the final determination was here, and further confirmed at this discussion. Removal of Transfermarkt is simply following that consensus, as it has been determined it should not be used here. Accordingly, I would advise you to reconsider your statement that "I do not care...I will further use it", as refusal to follow consensus here could be taken as being disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Also, I see you made no attempt to discuss this with Cloudz679 before bringing this here, and also that you did not notify Cloudz679 of this discussion as is required, so I've notified him on your behalf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 10#Template:Transfermarkt. GiantSnowman 19:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally to the above, I used edit summaries consistently throughout my removal of the links, and provided additional information regarding this on my talk page, in the Transfermarkt section. I have been working transparently on a community-agreed action. XXN please use edit summaries, in particular when reverting the actions of others, so we may work together. If no reliable sources have discussed a particular subject, there may be a case for deletion of such articles. Thanks, C679 21:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible spam

User:WG2012 is going to numerous articles about American military installations adding links to local directory sites. Not sure whether this should be reported at admin intervention against vandalism or here, but I've noticed how accounts like this tend to be blocked quickly, sometimes without warning. He seems to be doing it in good faith but still these links aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Survivorfan1995 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 February 2014‎

First since you mentioned them here you need to notify them that you did. Next before bringing it here you should try to discuss this with them and explain why the links are not appropriate. How are they supposed to modify their actions if they do not know there is a problem? GB fan 21:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You stated, "accounts like this tend to be blocked quickly, sometimes without warning". Not usually against good faith editors, or at least administrators try to avoid that, because that is tantamount to driving away newcomers. I agree that the best course of action is to approach the editor first. -- Atama頭 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Paranoid, offensive subject line

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

---

I deleted a couple of sections in a C-level article basic income, that was referenced only to a blog, and had poor encyclopedic style. The article had the 'multiple issues' and these sections seemed to be the issue, so I tidied it up as best I could and deleted the tags.

However, an editor is revert warring it back in. The most recent subject line they used was:

undoing subversive vandalism by user: GliderMaven . Source is concise. The problems of guaranteed income are logical ones. Deleted text warns specifically about the subversiveness being inflicted here[58]

I don't care how logical the editor thinks it is if it's not the referenced opinion of a recognized expert/author, and there's references to prove it. Logic depends on axioms, and you can prove anything if you choose the axioms. That's partly why Wikipedia's position is that it has to be referenced.

Anyway, that aside is it wrong that I should find this subject line rather offensive?

GliderMaven (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean edit summary. I've given him a warning. He also needs to learn about reliable sources it seems. @@@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, that page is a cesspit of advocacy and very poorly referenced contentious claims. It needs a good clean-out, but it looks like there are some ownership issues that might make that more fun than it needs to be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

At issue is basic income, the topic of the page. There is widespread confusion with guaranteed income, and so a need to distinguish the difference. There is also an obvious need for a proposed benefits section. The reference is not that important, but is the best written and clear argument that I have found, and so arguably high quality irrespective of the publishing platform. The summary on the page is concise and describes the single most essential element on the page: Proposed benefits of basic income. It is certainly a good faith opinion that such a deletion is vandalism. Whether their misunderstanding is in good faith or not, his deletions are shameful just because they are wrong. This is a case where you should allow the content experts, without bias towards publication sources, the willingness to contribute to wikipedia in an unpoisoned environment.

You should not ask what administrative rule may I invoke to pervert truth, but look at a page that is being stripped of its core content, and left with only the arguments against the concept, and recognize that truth is being perverted. If the truth abuse is in good faith, it remains shameful stupidity. Content can no doubt be improved, but editors should make some attempt at improvement instead of deleting core elements. Shameful stupidity in mass deletions poisons any effort to improve the page because shameful stupidity is indecipherable from political bias intent on vandalizing the page.

"is it wrong that I should find this subject line rather offensive" -- If you don't see how your actions are vandalism, then I may not see how the reference is low quality. So invoking criteria for reverting edits may be contentious. The page is better with content of, in your opinion, "poor encyclopedic style", than with no content. Perhaps you can contribute constructively to this page, but if not, do something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not really how it works. If content is removed because it's unreferenced, and this shifts the tone of the article away from neutrality, the focus is on restoring the neutrality, sure - but unless the intention was to remove the content because the editor disagreed with it, and the lack of references was an excuse, it's not a user problem - it's a content problem. On the other hand, a user saying "I don't need to follow the verifiability policy until you make the content how I like it" is most definitely a user problem. I'm sensing a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality coming from you, Godspiral, and I would encourage you to step back and evaluate whether your intentions are to enforce verifiability or truth. If the former, come up with better sources. If the latter, you should probably focus on topics you have less of a strong opinion about. Ironholds (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The content has been there about 1 year. Basic income, much like economics, is not a discipline where empirical results are determinitive, and unlike economics, there are few empirical results. Basic income is philosophy. Philosophy can always be attacked on verifiability. The quality of philosophy does not depend on such attacks. I don't see anything wrong with the source. It is both short and readable, but regardless, the importance is the arguments. A verifiability attack can be abusive. It is a subjective rule. Not "being allowed" to describe the arguments (proposed benefits) for basic income is a necessarily blatant abuse because it makes the page worthless and non-communicative of its title topic. Its content that had been refined by several editors until the recent page destruction. A page destruction committed without any feedback to the talk page, presumably no qualifications, to content that had a wide consensus as to the proposed benefits list, and essentially the core content of the page.

"enforce verifiability or truth" -- "You people", in abusing verifiability interpretations, possibly on subject matter you don't understand, make a very high effort task of summarizing these arguments, much more difficult and not worth implementing, if encyclopedic style nazis can claim its imperfect without any effort of their own, or consideration for editor (content experts) consensus. A more constructive approach would be to question the content in the talk page more specifically than the unsupportable abuse of "a cesspit of advocacy and very poorly referenced contentious claims". Its important that those who don't care enough to contribute, not destroy pages, on specious and unsupportable grounds. Admins should be aware of these potential abuses, and their ability to detect a content hosting platform, is not definitive in assessing the quality of the reference, and so unless they are willing to make the effort to understand or improve the content, should not let pages be destroyed. Put some "this needs improvement" sticker on the section, then let people improve it, instead of supporting what is objectively vandalism. Godspiral (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Proof that this is a defacement attack by some injecting their personal view is what is left on the page and "claimed properties section. The Costs section should stay, but it is poorly written and unsupported with text. Is the BIEN organization an approved government funded source of information? Can that not be attacked the same as naturalfinance.net? The disincentive to work section only makes sense as a rebuttal to proposed benefits. IT IS ENTIRELY UNREFERENCED, and a naive criticism addressed by many writters. The supposed references are to authors dismissive of the argument. The Reciprocity section is a stub politely left behind after someone attempted to explain it, and then rebut it. The criticism and rebuttal would be better referenced by a blog source as it would actually present argument, rebuttal and assumptions instead of hiding them behind "a full text unavailable reference".

Proof of vandalism and Personal view injection is what was left behind is only criticism, poorly written, not verifiable or even less verifiable than what was taken out. Its furthermore content that is less essential to the page. GliderMaven is necessarily biased in removing it, Lankiveil is necessarily biased in calling the best referenced and most essential content "a cesspit of advocacy and very poorly referenced contentious claims", and unilaterally declaring the vandalism to be a good faith edit, while leaving the comparatively weaker content in. I would recommend both users be banned, as the alternative of only government funded sources of information being acceptable wikipedia content references for philosophy topics inconsistent with entrenched political talking points is necessarily a vector of state sponsored attack against those philosophies. Both of these users are deliberately abusing their opinion to destroy the page's usefulness based on this attack vector. Not banning these users is an act of support by the wikipedia community for politically biased (and potentially motivated) vandalism of philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"encyclopedic style nazis"? Calling for users to be banned and if we don't ban them we are supporting vandalism? A ban may be in order here, I agree, as so far I cannot see Godspiral as a constructive editor who will contribute to the project. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying the possibility of maliciously vandalizing wikipedia pages while claiming rule authority to do so? Such a denial would be something a nazi would make.

My eyes glazed over while reading the silly accusations in your post so maybe I missed something but pretty much any section which is called "Supposed deficiencies" is just begging for attention. When the last sentence is "Some speculate that misunderstanding basic income and guaranteed income as essentially similar concepts may be an intentional misunderstanding, defensively positing that if basic income can be misunderstood as something with major flaws, then it can be forever avoided", well the section is just begging for at least partial deletion. In other words, there's a reason the section you refer to was single out, and it's not for the conspiracy reasons you gave. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a good argument for partial deletion of the section distinguishing basic income vs. guaranteed income. Its thought provoking enough (why are poor arguments advanced in this world?) that I would not delete it, but given this controversy, it may be. That there is a good argument to support deleting part of the content, does not justify deleting the much more important section on proposed benefits.

" Are you denying the possibility of maliciously vandalizing wikipedia pages while claiming rule authority to do so?" No, it is possibly that someone is maliciously etc. That is not what is happening in this article. It's simple: if there are no reliable sources, the content can be challenged and that's what happened. "Such a denial would be something a nazi would make." No, it is not. One more nazi comparison and you're blocked. And don't give me no crap about politically motivated editors or something like that: I wrote Basic income in the Netherlands and I'm a leftie like you wouldn't believe. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. This morning (UTC), Dougweller asked my opinion about blocking Godspiral for personal attacks, after having warned them on their page. I was all for assuming good faith and waiting at that point, since the user seemed unfamiliar with the local culture, and might not yet have read the NPA warning on their page. But now, having waited, I see Godspiral complementing his accusations of vandalism with further egregious assumptions of bad faith, as well as calling Dougweller a nazi in a cutely deniable way. ("Are you denying the possibility of maliciously vandalizing wikipedia pages while claiming rule authority to do so? Such a denial would be something a nazi would make.") That's quite enough. Blocked for 48 hours, longer next time. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

• I realize that in the post just above Drmies gave Godspiral "one more" chance, and Godspiral did nothing after the warning. However, I endorse Bishonen's block. If it hadn't been for Drmies's warning, I would have blocked them. Drmies was being generous in giving Godspiral a final warning - the block was richly deserved.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Being a true liberal (in the US sense, that is) I'm also a softie and believe in the power of education, that the truth will set us free. I have no problem with the block, of course: there is of necessity considerable leeway in what are essentially civility blocks, and the severity of the infraction and the pain/disruption caused by it will be measured differently by different admins. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

[Bishzilla puts her dukes up.] You wanna piece of me, Drmies? bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

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

Action needed on repeat copyvio infringer

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

---

Resolved

User:Masum Ibn Musa was warned by MadManBot on 1st January 2014 about copying from external websites. The editor ignored the warning, and continued adding WP:COPYPASTE copyvios. On 8 February 2014 I requested a WP:CCI investigation into their edits, which was accepted. The editor responded by blanking both the CCI notice and the MadManBot warning four days later. They have now continued to create new articles incorporating material copied (with attribution but without quotation) from other websites; thirteen articles about Kabaddi players each copying two sentences from this source. (Examples: Juni Chakma, Arzana Akhter Baby.) I am therefore requesting an indef block of the editor to prevent further copyvio additions, until such a time as the editor is willing to discuss the issue and/or stop adding copy-pasted material. The editor has previously been blocked on Commons for copyvio issues.

(Not using the editor's username in the subject line because it's apparently their real name. I will notify them of this thread momentarily.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The title of this section when I came to it was either meant ironically by D1000, or someone added PAs about D1000 to it, but either way it doesn't seem necessary to be there, so I've changed it, leaving an anchor to catch any links. BMK (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a competence issue with copyright, given this user's past problems on Commons. Maybe a block until they promise not to do it again is the best way forward? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

I have now blocked Masum Ibn Musa for one month, and removed some more c&p phrases from Arzana Akhter Baby. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Violation of editing restriction by CensoredScribe

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

---

CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) from 18:02 to 19:09 CS added the categories Category:Films featuring puppetry or Category:Television programs featuring puppetry to more than 15 articles. Earlier today CS also added the cat Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction to several articles. This would seem to be a violation of the restrictions that were agreed to in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#CensoredScribe above. As usual most of these additions ignore the guidelines WP:DEFINING as well the fact that sourced info needs to be in the article before the cat can be added. More than one editor has mentioned the fact that CS should read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH yet the edits performed ignore both of these. We have had more than one thread regarding these edits in the last week or so and at the end of them CS seems to accept the restrictions agreed upon. Within a day or two CS returns to the old editing patterns. This shows WP:COMPETENCE problems. (Redacted) MarnetteD | Talk 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

CensoredScribe back at violating editing restrictions after previous block

And as soon as the previous block expires, CensoredScribe is back at making mass changes to categories again.[59][60][61][62][63][64][65] 24.149.117.220 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This comes after several different editors expressly explained his situation to him on his talk page. At this point I'm not convinced in the slightest that things are going to change. GRAPPLE X 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Again? Already? Having read through the long thread at User talk:CensoredScribe where CS entirely fails to understand why the last block was imposed [66], I would like to make a formal proposal that CensoredScribe be indefinitely blocked from editing, as clearly lacking the necessary competence to contribute to wikipedia in any useful capacity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Floquenbeam already blocked CensoredScribe for a month, with the warning that next block will be indefinite. I think that's enough for now. But I think I share Andy's skepticism that any of this is sinking in. CensoredScribe seems to not take any of this seriously, given their apology to dragons and quoting Darth Vader in the recent request to clarify the topic ban. -- Atama頭 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, set his restriction to "CensoredScribe may not add or remove categories from articles under any circumstances. They may only suggest adding or removing categories on the article talk page but must include specific references in support of adding any categories, but may suggest category changes to no more than one article per day." Don't even let him play around with categories. The talk page thing is a bone to see if they can improve. If they can't, that can be removed as well. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't even want to allow that much (the talk page stuff); there is no value whatsoever to this person's input into categorization. Categorizing JRR Tolkien's One Ring as a "Fictional WMD" makes my brain go all wibbly-wobbly. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had to re-block without talk page access, their recent contributions really aren't much more than trolling. If a month off doesn't help, I definitely think an indef block is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper attacking an editor

An IP is using talk pages to tell the world about some of the evil editors here. It's pretty low level, but it is irritating and I'm concerned that it may eventually persuade the named editors to leave. After a break, the IP has returned to User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777 (see its recent history). The IP reported me to WP:AN six weeks ago (WP:AN permalink), and some IP ranges were blocked. I have tried to communicate here and here and here (and notified here).

Would someone please remove the recent comments from User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777 and suggest a remedy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps add a notification link to here? I did not want to add anything to that talk without removing the other stuff, but twice is enough. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked, it'd be nice to know who did the rangeblock and its extent, since they appear to be on a highly dynamic IP. They also appear to be highly obnoxious. Acroterion (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the rangeblocks were by User:Someguy1221 (who closed the AN discussion mentioned above). I'm not sure, but perhaps there were five /16: 124.148.0.0/16 + 124.149.0.0/16 + 124.168.0.0/16 + 124.170.0.0/16 + 124.171.0.0/16. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of /16 blocks: I'll have a look at the possibilities once I've had some caffeine and feel smarter. Acroterion (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked 124.168.0.0/18 for a week, we'll see if any leak around the block. I've watchlisted some of the pages they've frequented. Let me know if they pop up again. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

One leaker, now blocked, not enough to do a rangeblock at this point. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! As you know, there is an outstanding problem with a restored personal attack which I have just commented on, but that can be handled in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Androoox

Please can some fresh eyes take a look at Androoox (talk · contribs)?

This is an editor who I blocked for doing an end-run around a CFD process, and who seems to be in battleground mode. See User_talk:Androoox#Admin_User:BrownHairedGirl_2014-02-12_Regions_of_Saudi_Arabia_and_user_block_incident (permalink).

All the other editors who have commented so far have urged restraint on Androoox, but to no avail. (I think that about 4 have commented to date). Androoox has gone beyond alleging vandalism, and has now twice accused other editors of libel: [67], [68]. I warned Androoox that these could be interpreted as legal threats (see the discussion), but the message doesn't seem to have been fully understood.

So far as I can see, Androoox's primary focus is Wikidata, so zie may be unfamiliar with how things work on en:wp. I also wonder whether English is this editor's first language.

Whatever is going on, my continued involvement is not helping, so I don't want to respond any further. It would be great if some uninvolved editors were able to try to defuse the situation. Androoox is clearly a committed contributor, but it is not helpful for their frustration to be expressed in the current style. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

1) "This is an editor who I blocked for doing an end-run around a CFD process" - This is not true! That is the core of the issue. You claim stuff that is not true. You asked me to stop and I did stop - even before. I also was not working around CFD, since I had no interest in Renaming, Merging or Deletion of a category at the time I changed the category for the regions of Saudi Arabia from Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia to Category:Regions of Saudi Arabia. You violated WP:NOPUNISH. There was nothing to prevent, since I did not go on with category changing of the region articles at all. Also, you claimed there were dozens dozens of articles affected, but there are only thirteen regions and two overview articles that fall into the region-category. And I was about to reply as shown to you, but boom you blocked me. It would be great if any admin could show me how this block was justified. Androoox (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

2) Furthermore: Quantities do not make up for quality. See what User:Hasteur wrote and check the facts. This user claimed things that BHG herself had not claimed. Androoox (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There does seem to be a language problem here. Androoox now says they had "had no interest in Renaming, Merging or Deletion of a category". However, removing all the pages from one category and placing them in another category amounts to renaming, and since categories cannot be moved, that is how we rename them. If, after removing the CFD/S tag from Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia[69], Androoox's intention was to retain both categories, that should have been explained in WP:CFD/S and in the edit summary, but neither was done. However, as Androoox pointed out to me after the block[70], they had already begun depopulating the category example even before the CFD/S tag was removed from the category.[71]

The block was preventative, because Androoox continued to edit having been warned to stop and to undo what they had done. Once I had rolled back the changes, I offered to lift the block "as soon as commit to stop implementing your withdrawn proposal".[72] That was only 25 minutes after the block had been placed[73]. I repeated the offer twice[74][75], but Androoox chose not to take that offer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PS This all appears to originate from a discussion on Wikidata between Androoox and Ladsgroup (talk · contribs) (who signs on wikidata as "Amir"). Androoox had raised the issue with Ladsgroup on Wikidata on 5 February[76], which was presumably what prompted Ladsgroup to make a bot request on en:wp on 7 Feb[77]. Note that the discussion on Wikidata was about moving the whole category, not splitting it, and that after the bot request was rejected by User:Hasteur[78], Androoox proceeded to request speedy renaming at WP:CFD/S [79][80].

I don't know anything about how decision-making procedures work on Wikidata, but these two Wikidata editors appear to be expect a process rather different to how things work on en:wp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi; Androox is supsected of being a sock of the banned Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT I request a indefinite block of Anderooox for using the term libelous in these diffs: [81] [82][83]. My commentary may have been misinformed or detrimental to Anderooox's position, but leveling a charge of libel without meeting the very strict definition of the term as defined here on wikipedia is a legal threat as it is designed to chill discussion of the issue. Per the above mentioned guideline until Anderooox recants their statement and affirmatively rejects that they are seeing legal remedies, the expected result is clear, they must remain blocked. Hasteur (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Anderooox failed to obey the big orange bar on this page which says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have checked my user talk page and can find zero notification from Anderooox in over 9 hours since they mentioned my name via the user mention process. It is my understanding that using a user mention (triggering the mention box) does not fufil the requirements of the orange bar. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

He clearly hasn't a clue what libel is. People with linguistic problems with English often are missing that clue. He's not trying to chill discussion - he simply believes that your statements/stated assumptions about him are incorrect, and so much so that he's offended. He shouldn't be throwing "libel" around, but I see no intent to chill, just to tell you to stop offending him. Now, the fact that he's actually fecking up badly and you called him on it is another story - so, since the truth is an absolute defense to libel, what's the issue anyway? DP 16:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• @User:DangerousPanda - what in your opinion is the right term for written publication of a false claim that harms the reputation of an editor. The false claim is here. The claim that I reverted a revert with respect to the regions of Saudi Arabia lacks evidence. FTR, when I wrote "libel" I had not at all prosecution in court in mind. "Murder" is also a legal term, but it is not only a legal term. Is libel different?
• @User:BrownHairedGirl - where is the evidence that I would revert your revert? If you cannot show that, than your claim that I was blocked to prevent that I would change the categories again, is not backed by evidence. You asked "STOP" and I did obey. Nonetheless, you blocked me. You argue that my first edits when returning to editing have not been, to revert my former edits. So, you blocked me for not undoing with the first edits. Which policy allows you to do this? Androoox (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The use of "libel" is a legal term, and should only be used as such. As I said, you're a non-identifiable person, and libel cannot ever apply. It's use obviously comes close to violating WP:NLT. You could say "it affects my Wikipedia reputation", but realistically, you actually WERE doing what you were accused of - so you cannot claim that it was misrepresenting your actions when you were actually doing the infraction DP 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DP, you see, the libel worked and now you are engaging too. Now you claim I did what Hasteur said. But I did not. There was no reversion of a revert. You still didn't give another word that could be used instead. So, people can engage in libel, but targets of the libel are not allowed to name it as such? Androoox (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from non-administrator) @DangerousPanda: could you please clarify what, "People with linguistic problems with English often are missing that clue." followed by, "He's not trying to chill discussion..." mean? What is a 'linguistic problem with English'? Is 'chill discussion' a formal term in the English language? To be honest, I'm having difficulty in trying to comprehend what your point is. It reads as both an attack and a defence of Androoox - and English is my first language. Without going into further details in parsing your entire comment (equally abstract vernacular shorthand), all I can say on the matter is that it is one of the most convoluted pieces of the vernacular I've come across for some time. If you know you are discussing someone whose first language isn't English knowing they will be reading your comments, I suspect it would be far more effective to use clear English. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Simple English: people for whom English is a second language often misuse the word "libel" to mean something else (see my comment above). I believe that was Androoox's problem. However, because he actually was doing what he was accused of, he cannot claim libel (or any other word) anyway DP 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You spread libel too if you claim I reverted a revert. Or if you claim, I cannot claim libel, because there was none - rendering me as someone who made a false claim. FTR: I am not interested in a law suit. Androoox (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I reiterate my assertion that Androoox has gone well beyond the NLT prohibition when using "libel" here to get other editors involved and further accusing other editors of libel. I call for an indefinite block per WP:NLT until Androoox agrees to strike every last claim of libel. Regardless if they are not interested in suing, the use has the effect of chilling discussion which is why we have NLT. Anderooox could have used the terms "incorrect" or "lies" (which have been disproven through an independent analysis of the actions) but using the specifically protected term is a express ticket to Block-ville. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was prepared to accept Androoox's assurance that he did not intend legal action, but hoped that they would also refrain from using that term again, and strike or amend his previous comments. Sadly, Androoox has not stopped using the term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia.Georgemoney.net?

Help! Whenever I try to search anything, this is the address that appears in my address bar. Luckily, My parental controls blocks this, but it does get annoying. TitusFox 08:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Run a virus scan, immediately. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Scan Complete, Nothing! As I said above, Parental Controls Block everything but Wikipedia, so how could I get infected? - TitusFox 12:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, No More Georgemoney! But It may have a DoS Attack Soon if it's Harmful! :) TitusFox 12:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Kusurija

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

---

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm writing it in right section (if not, please accept my apologies), but there's a problem with user:Kusurija. He deliberately changed my discussion posts two times, completely changing the meaning to opposite ([84] and [85]). Can he be stopped to doing so? --Silesianus (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non admin comment)Another editor and I have both left warnings on their talk page. If they do that again, I recommend that you either post here or to an admin and they will be swiftly blocked. Blackmane (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The editor appears to have been warned here and here. Has it taken place again since the warning? If not, I would say that these strong warnings will suffice, and continuation of the behaviour post-warning would be sufficient enough to warrant action from an admin. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just updating, Kusurija has [86] for changing your comments. So I'll be closing this. Blackmane (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Recent behaviour of User:Ryulong

ryulong (talk · contribs) I think we need to discuss this users recent behaviour. This user has a long history of warring with other editors and apparently will do anything to have anyone who gets in his way blocked. I would like someone to check out Tommy_Oliver where he accuses the nominator of being a sock of one his opponents and paints himself as a victim of harassment. I think it's time to remind this person that he has no right to intimidate other editors and that he himself will get blocked. He has a long block history and it's time to address what needs to be done. --Anonymous 16:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.98.130 (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely edit warring there (Ryulong and IP 174) and inappropriate removal of comments by Ryulong. If they think an editor is a sock, sock puppet investigations is the place to go and, no, it doesn't matter than a checkuser won't check an IP, not all SPI's require CU for adjudication. NE Ent 16:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Because a checkuser doesn't link IP's to accounts, it's just a judgement call. Are you saying Ryulong is less capable of such a judgement call than the people that frequent SPI?--Atlan (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The articles in question are List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes and Tommy Oliver. He has been known to accuse new editors who edit those Pages as being "trolls" and harassing him. He seems to he owns those pages and will not let anyone else edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.1.153 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably. Additionally, the community has endorsed the judgement of SPI admins via Rfa, and the process -- in which one editor identifies a possible sock and an admin SPI volunteer validates that judgement -- is less prone to error. IPs have been given the right to edit here by the website owners (WMF), and those of us who edit here have an obligation to respect that. NE Ent 17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I got rather tangled up in this sorry mess myself: see also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#User trying to delete nomination and its edit history, [87] where Ryulong and an IP were edit-warring over the IPs posting of a complaint about Ryulong deleting a malformed AfD in the Tommy Oliver article, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron, and the thread on Ryulong 's talk page [88]. It seems that Ryulong was right about there being socking involved, but I still think that the way he handled this was entirely inappropriate. Ryulong could simply have asked for an SPI, and posted a comment to that effect in the malformed AfD discussion. Or posted similar a comment in the thread started by the sock in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Instead, edit-warring to remove all traces of what only he at that point had decided was a sock ended up making the whole situation much worse. And as it happens I think the original malformed AfD actually had a great deal of merit - the Tommy Oliver article is a great wall of fancrufty plot summary, with little evidence to support any independent notability for what is after all just one of many characters in a long-running franchise. It has been suggested before that Ryulong tends to exhibit ownership of articles, and has a habit of deleting anything he doesn't like without explanation. In this case, such behaviour seems to have spectacularly backfired. I'm not usually in the habit of watchlisting obscure fancruft, and unless something obvious draws my attention (e.g. the edit war at talk:Articles for deletion) I for one wouldn't have known about it. Perhaps Ryulong should bear this in mind in future, and deal with suspected socking in a more appropriate manner, rather than engaging in behaviour which not only circumvents due process, but attracts the attention of others to his questionable behaviour. If the purpose of the socking was to cause trouble, Ryulong seems to have ensured that it succeeded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OP here is a sockpuppet of a banned user, likely either Don't Feed the Zords or BuickCenturyDriver, and is very likely AS92813 evading his ban with the help of dynamic IP assignment. So therefore my removals are in line with WP:BAN. It is unfortunate that people forget that banned editors are not allowed to edit and that I am the unfortunate target of a large number of banned editors. The nature of Tommy Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should not be up for discussion here. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And I don't think that simply because I'm not a clerk should not mean that I cannot identify sockpuppets of banned users that I regularly come in contact with when I see them. I may have been incorrect in my initial thought that this was Wiki-star harassing me again, but at least new evidence has come up to suggest another banned user(s) is to blame here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that banned users have the right to edit. I am however suggesting that you unilaterally deciding that the IP was a sock and edit-warring with them at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion was a sure-fire way to ensure that the sock achieved their intended result. What harm would it have done to simply note your suspicions in the malformed AfD, or at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, raise a SPI, and leave the matter there? Edit-warring with the sock achieved nothing beyond aggravating the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring when it's a banned editor's sockpuppet. Also, AS92813 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have his talk page access revoked and block extended for the sockpuppetry performed in posting this thread and in editing this article. He removed my comment to any admins who might read it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

just a bad case of edit warring against an edit you don't agree with when there is no evidence of your claims. 03:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.130.219 (talk)

And here is another sock puppet address.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He is making another attempt to manipulate policy and get someone blocked. 174.236.104.53 (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what he's making, but it is quite clear what you're up to [89]. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've got to agree that Ryulong's recent behaviour has been problematic. Claiming any IP must be a sock, without any substantive evidence, just because they may happen to disagree with his POV is just wrong. Just above[90] he attempts to have an opponent, who appears to be in good standing judging by his clean block log, sanctioned over an obvious content disagreement. It seems that he'd rather have his perceived opponents administratively eliminated rather than do the hard yards in building consensus through the various dispute resolution processes. He has been sanctioned in that past by ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong for misusing rollback and IRC to elicit admin action, and we are seeing the same pattern of behaviour in his tendency to edit war and ask admins directly on their talk page for assistance. This just can't go on. --Nug (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit history of List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes shows this user persistently reverting edits that are clearly not vandalism because he feels they're committing "block evasion", even though the IPs in question were not blocked at all. Eventually, he asks editor Materialscientist to block the IP range and he complies without even looking into the matter. You have to wonder what this person is trying to accomplish in not allowing other people to edit these articles. The only editor in question is the AfD nominator which got blocked for 3 days. Another problem is his kneejerk reaction to edits he doesn't agree with, like this one. He reverts and immediately, without notifying the editor reports the user or IP to WP:AIAV. It appears in this case the editor who blocked the IPs never looked at the IP's contributions, so clearly this seems to be a coordinated attack on the IPs and the editor who nominated This AFD. I think he needs to stop taking edits to "his" pages personally and be civil like everyone else. 174.254.194.116 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If a person has been banned, than any contribution, no mater how useful, is prohibited. Using multiple IP to evaded a blocked is disruptive. To suggest that all these 174.*.*.* IPs that are editing the same articles and making the same accusations against Ryulong are different people flies in the face of common sense. -- 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true that somoene block is forbidden from editing, but the user has no proof who the IPs belong to so they are clearly acting on suspicion alone. 174.226.192.213 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's illogical to insist it's an eagle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But the duck, if one exists, hasn't been identified. It hasn't even been determined yet whether these IPs do in fact belong to a banned user, the clerks at SPI have suggested around 3 or 4 possible candidates but are unsure and have referred it to a CU. In the mean time IPs are being blocked on apparent suspicion seemingly fanned by Ryulong. What exactly was the urgency that caused Ryulong to revert here before due process? --Nug (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The duck exists and it's quacking as is evident from this thread. And the only reason there are 3 or 4 possible candidates is because 3 of them are probably the same person and the fourth is a misidentification because I seem to have a lot of people that dislike me and have a lot of free time on teir hands. And WP:BMB, banned users' edits are reverted regardless of the content. This is the same bullshit pulled by socks of Don't Feed the Zords/BuickCenturyDriver last year on List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes. New year. New season. New honeypot. Stop assuming everything I'm doing is wrong, Nug. I am not abusing rollback. I am not violating my arbitration restrictions. I am doing everything within the word of the law in order to prevent a banned editor from doing anything. I should be able to know without "due process" that I'm being harassed by the same person on a dynamic IP assignment. And it is really unprofessional to do this, Nug, simply because we are butting heads over a completely unrelated issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Now can someone please close this thread because it's only feeding the trolls.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not up to you. You know very well that you no right to decide who is and isn't allowed to edit Wikipedia. WP is for everyone, and is free for anyone to edit just as Facebook and Google. Besides, you have no proof that our IP range belong to any banned user. 174.252.0.103 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidence that this is a honeypot that needs to be shut down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are completely wrong. We can and do restrict people from editing - nobody has a 'right' to edit. And such restriction doesn't need 'proof' either - though we generally only act where there are reasonable grounds to suspect improper behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is this guy saying he's more than one person when this thread has had the signatures modified to be "Anonymous" twice?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And god, what is it with this time of year and your free time? You pulled this same garbage last year and got caught.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the edits came from the same IP range doesn't prove anything. Just let it go, take a break and let the arbcom deal with it. You're only hurting yourself. Nobody is harassing you and the current episode list are hardly vandslism. 24.185.93.138 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. You found a different internet connection to harass from.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is, unfortunately, a consistently abusive editor, like his following little edit war from last year shows: "God damn it's just a fucking section that's directly related to one you should have but didn't make yesterday" User_talk:Boneyard90#The_section

When faced with this in a recent dispute on his behaviour, his main "defence" is that it was practically a year ago,as well as "I haven't heard about you before", because I happened to bring this piece of abuse up, but misplaced it as a wholly unjustified criticism of myself, rather than being a wholly unjustified abuse of User:Boneyard90

This kind of attitude, and language, ought to be wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia from editors.Arildnordby (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Have I ever said that I felt I was right in responding that way? It's obviously wrong. I have a bad habit of speaking on this website informally and that comes out when I am bothered by someone's actions. But that does not mean you have to keep dregging up that one comment I left to Boneyard90 a half a year ago as an example of "Ryulong should be punished" when all this garbage was started and is being perpetuated by a banned user. It seems you are still misconstruing what I did (why do you assume it had to do with you when I pointed out it had to do with this, and there was no reason to start up a new thread considering the first one comprised two comments). I was wrong then. I may be wrong about certain things now. But the fact still remains that I am being hounded by sockpuppets of a banned editor and editors like you, AndyTheGrump, Nug, and now Robert McClenon are enabling him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you wish for general sympathy and support, get your attitude right. Using the f-word, (and you also have used in summaries ffs) just alienate others. "fhs" is a lot less offensive than ffs, and you know that.Arildnordby (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The use of non-directed profanity in one's comments is a personal choice, and it has long been the consensus of this project that its usage is not in and of itself uncivil. Let's drop that red herring. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, personally. If Wikipedia thinks it is OK to put off, say, roughly 90% of the world population by allowing sexually explicit swear words to be part and parcel of "verbal intercourse" here, perhaps Wikipedia might be the one suffering from it? But, I'm not to fish for herrings here. Particularly if they are red, after all... End of story :-)Arildnordby (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, I think that the civility line is that if someone politely asks you not to swear at them, especially on their talk page, civility demands that you should try not to. But that's the limit. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Civility ss to answer in what you yourself, to the best of your ability, regard as a value neutral way, focusing on the logic of the argument, with minimal rhetorical flourish. If some particular editor has given you license to bang their heads in to "really" get the message through, go ahaed. Otherwise, avoid it. Tou can have lots of valuable editors who gets frightened/put off oof a nerdy/socially uncouth way of speaking.Arildnordby (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) You are an abusive editor.Arildnordby (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is equally uncivil to demand that someone else conform to your perception of what is and isn't appropriate levels of swearing in interaction, as long as they don't attempt to describe you with their swearwords. Request moderation of language all you want, but if they refuse, you can either ignore it or disengage from interaction with that individual. An exception might be made if the interaction is on your talk page. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets should not be responded to. Don't feed them, don't respond to them. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
if Wikipedia is not a battleground, it sure seems like the Wild West these days where anything goes. It seems you can edit as if you were playing a video game. 19:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by LotsofSnowThisWinter (talk • contribs) Really? I happen to know about the whole penis-in-vagina-thing. Are you a sockpuppet for Ryolung, perhaps? Perhaps he doesn't know about the penis-in-vagina-thing, and therefore has an innate craving to descend into that type of language??? Anyhow, it offensive to normal people that he habitually resorts to such type of abuse. That was my main point.Arildnordby (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Arildnordby, this is really just showing you should not be commenting in this debate any longer. LotsofSnowThisWinter is one of my harassers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Not really. It simply shows that you have LOTS to work on at your attitude and language, and still don't get it. What language you, or I, happen to use at a bar simply isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. You alienate people with your manner.Arildnordby (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Ryulong thread: Is it ArbCom time yet?

Here we go again with another thread about Ryulong. The many threads about Ryulong just illustrate why "community consensus" at these noticeboards seldom solves anything. It works reasonably well with trolls, flamers, and other editors who are not here to build the encyclopedia, but is an electron sink with tendentious editors such as Ryulong. Sometime some editor will get sufficiently frustrated with the drama caused by this editor, and other editors with whom he edit-wars, and other editors whom he dislikes and who dislike him, that they will file an ArbCom case. Until then, there will just be a lot of pointless drama. Unfortunately, it's ignore the quarreling or file an ArbCom case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about the arbcom case, but I strongly suggest RL that he give up trying to keep new editors off his favorite pages and let it go. The more he tries to get them block the more they keep coming back. I seriously don't know what he's trying to accomplish by pursuing them off the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.93.138 (talk)

• Would anyone wanting to pose a serious question like this please first get some experience concerning what Arbcom does. Also, it is unacceptable to claim WP:NOTHERE with no evidence other than mud from a previous section. I just had a glance at Tommy Oliver and it's not the kind of article I would use as a model for notability, and Ryulong should learn that edit warring even with probable socks is not productive, particularly when other editors join in. However, have a look at WT:Articles for deletion#User trying to delete nomination and note that Ryulong made a sock accusation there—and the sock was later blocked. What evidence of WP:NOTHERE exists, apart from an over-eagerness to combat probable socks and fictional-category enthusiasts? Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It can be quite frustrating to have to deal with IP block evaders and general incompetence, of which there is a lot in the Power Rangers and Super Sentai subject area. It becomes doubly frustrating when those block evaders come complaining here on ANI and their enablers, rather than look at years of background and facts, just count how many times Ryulong is the subject of threads to reach the short-sighted conclusion that if it's this many threads, it must be Ryulong's fault. I'm not saying Ryulong is the paragon of good behavior, he isn't. But he gets too little credit here.--Atlan (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq, Atlan. I cannot believe that an ArbCom case is even being mentioned when in the most recent cases of me being involved with anything on this page lately (as well as several of my recent blocks) are due to having to deal with banned users head on and only realize this fact afterwards, and the other case is another user who got banned for the very thing I brought him here for. All I'm trying to do is keep a bunch of extremely crufty pages from getting too out of control. And for some reason that pisses a lot of people off. And on top of that I have to deal with BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords/EddieSegoura/CBDrunkerson/god knows who he really is here and Wiki-star/Dragonron on every other month. It's too much for me to handle and no one wants to touch these pages with a 10 foot pole or get involved with anything regarding me because of the stigma that I've gained for being who I am on this website. I know I need to change my behavior. But I can't do that when I have to keep track of two separate sets of banned users who I've pissed off by figuring out who they are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

SPI perspective

From an SPI perspective see this and this. Any IP in the 174.192.0.0/10 range should be considered a sock when they're arguing this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We can add 24.185.93.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to that list too. If I recall, these banned users originate from the same area.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

the Spi page was closed with the two username blocked, do that didn't do much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotsofSnowThisWinter (talk • contribs)

Brand new account that comes immediately here to comment against Ryulong. Yeap, this is yet another sock. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hounding

Hello, I am a newbie who is being victimized and hounded by a patroller. I have found the last few days rather harrowing and have been given medication to help me sleep. Please somebody look into this matter for me. The name of the patroller is Siteku. All attempts to talk ends up in ridicule at my inexperience. The article in question is Cecil Jay Roberts. Thank youCowhen1966 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC) If I am not mistaken, he has even put my article up for deletion. Please help!Cowhen1966 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

From everything I can see, User:Sintaku has been extremely polite and helpful in trying to guide you. DP 17:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Sintaku's motive was to help me I do not dispute that. Maybe Sintaku needs to put the appropriate boxes on new articles rather than putting a standard box on a new article whether it merits it or not. The article does not have issues with tone, grammar etc. it does have sources, they are not poorly sourced and there are no issues with notability. I understand his job is to patrol new articles but he should also take the time to read the article before tagging it with incorrect templatesCowhen1966 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: You most certainly should not have moved that "article" into articlespace from the AFC holding pen. It shouldn't be live whatsoever DP 17:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that was not moved with any bad motives. Again, it's me trying to find my way around Wikipedia. Please do not assume the worst! Good faith and all that?Cowhen1966 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur with DangerousPanda regarding Sinkatu. I'm sorry that you've found the experience stressful. Wikipedia has evolved policies over the years to ensure quality articles that frequently seem harsh to newcomers, and Sinkatu has just been trying to explain those to you. It may be the case that editing Wikipedia isn't a hobby that you're going to be able to enjoy; if it's affecting your health, it's definitely not worth it. NE Ent 17:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution but With all due respect, you cannot make that decision for me. I still believe that there are good editors out there who are truly willing to show me around Wilipedia! I still have faith in the system and I am prepared to be mature about this and use the right procedures in good faith. I am here to learn but not to be bullied. Thanks.

Cowhen1966, explain why you tagged the article Italian cruiser San Marco claiming it resembled a "review". What led you to happen upon that article in the first place? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I must be honest, with my newly given and found powers to slap boxes on articles I have a bias towards for whatever reason, I thought I would retaliate and give them a doze of their own medicine. As in, if I looked hard enough then there is something that I would definitely find wrong with their articles, and I did ! However, I quickly snapped out of it because This isn't about who wins this is about trying to be professional. I therefore refuse to enter into an edditting war. If I do find something that I feel does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, then I too will exercise the right to do so in good faith! I hope this clarifies your query.Cowhen1966 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Cowhen1966 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1966, what you did here is called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This behavior could get you blocked from editing. Now, I doubt anyone will block you for it this time, since you are new, and you said you now understand that this isn't acceptable behavior. But please understand you could find yourself on thin ice here if you don't be more careful. When other editors tell you that your sources are a problem, listen to them! Most of the folks here understand Wikipedia pretty well and are trying to help you. Make sure you are the type of editor who will accept their help rather than being uncooperative. Friday (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As you may find, I was not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I was getting sucked into an editing war so when I realised what was happening, I quickly decided not to participate in that sort of behavior. With my little experience here as a newbie I can understand why editing wars begin in the first place. So no! I was not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point I was prompted to take a look at their own work as anyone would do and genuinely found an issue with the tone. Funny how they removed the box without addressing the situation because they could but have refused to remove the box on the article I created as a single editor even after I have made the changes to the article as requested. Again Friday, as I have said before Wikipedia accept primary, secondary and tertiary sources all for different purposes. What Wikipedia does not permit is unsourced or poorly sourced references in support of what may seem libelous to Wikipedia. I never said that I acted in an unacceptable behavior. What I said was That I quickly avoided an editing war. But I did act professionally at all times. I do accept that I was slightly frustrated with the unfounded claims of poorly sourced material, problems with tone and grammar, issues with notability etc and that may have prompted me to look at their work, but I acted professionally at all times. The article I looked at read more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. Now can you see why editing wars begin and why I refuse to take part in it?Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also the only clear cut example of WP:Hounding or harassment I've seen from what's been discussed in this thread. As a single case and coming from a new editor, there may not be cause for any action due to it but it definitely doesn't help your cause if you're showing the beginnings of actual wikihounding/harassment. Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not. At all! I contacted 2 forums that is hardly hounding is it? And the only reason why I did that is because I wanted a backup just in case I one of them did not receive my complaint or I may have not sent it through correctly. Remember! I am still trying to find my way around this expansive site and I am bound to make some mistakes along the way. I am sure you have been there before.Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1996 I see you opened a mediation request relating to the dispute in this thread Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/An editor is harassing me and a made a fairly related DRN thread Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#My talk page and the page of one particular editor. I suggest you read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is has some serious problems with reliable sources. See Talk:Cecil_Jay_Roberts#Reliable_sources_needed JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cecil_Jay_Roberts JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I closed the DRN case because we do not deal with conduct disputes at DRN. Thanks. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine! This proves that had I not contacted a backup site and had just contacted DRN, my complaint would not have been heard.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Reading over the comments on Sintaku's Talk Page, Cowhen1966 it sounds like you had a negative experience in "live chat" (I'm assuming an IRC channel?) that account for your hostility towards these editors. Every article on Wikipedia is subject to criticism but new articles get special scrutiny. You might find more help at WP:TEAHOUSE if you have specific questions about WP guidelines and standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC) thanks for that Liz. Hostility is not the word I would use to describe what has transpired here- it's more of trying to understand why people make the conclusions they do when it is quite obvious that the article does not make any libelous claims and is rightly sourced. It is frustrating for a single editor when multiple edits are being made on the article almost to the point of un recognition. It is ok if the edits being are libelous but they are not. Special scrutiny is welcome disrupting an article because its reference does not possess an ISBN number and the sources are foreign is not enough grounds to nominate the article for deletion.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I left a message on the reporting editor's talk page explaining why Sintaku tagged his article with maintenance templates and how that is not considered harassment. Looking everything over, unless something happened on a IRC channel, there was absolutely no harassment. I encourage you guys to read over the message. Cheers, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You may find MrScorch that the article does not suffer from poor grammar, tone or libelous claims. I endear you to revisit the article.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1966, I sympathize with your perspective, but let me give you a reassurance about the fact that you're not being singled out in any way here. I've been an editor of Wikipedia for more than seven years, I'm an administrator (which means that at some point people thought I could be trusted enough to get some dangerous tools) and I've made thousands of edits to this project. And even I am daunted by creating articles, because it's very difficult to get it right. Wikipedia tries to maintain standards for the articles it has, not just in regards to how they're written but even in regards to whether or not the subject deserves to be included. And living up to those standards can be difficult, especially for someone who does not have a great deal of experience here. So please don't feel that you're being harassed in some way, think of creating an article here as being similar to submitting a written work for publishing. Other people are going to critique it and edit it, and while they will try to treat you fairly it won't necessarily be without negative feedback. For that matter, to achieve what we call a "good article" which sounds simple enough is in reality a very difficult hurdle to cross and takes a great deal of work and expertise (and is probably beyond the ability of most people, myself included). So please don't feel discouraged, try to take use any criticisms as a way to improve your article. -- Atama頭 19:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:HARASS by User:Maurice07

I have tried to assume good faith, but this is getting a little annoying. Maurice07 (talk · contribs), who has an userbox on his user page saying "This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide" (clearly showing his anti-Armenian sentiment), has been voting oppose in almost all of my move requests lately, some of them with obvious absurd comments:

• Armenian surnames (15 Feb 2014)
• Sergey Lavrov (24 Jan 2014)
• Classical Armenian orthography (23 Dec 2013)

One interesting pattern is that he is always the first user to vote. I'm getting a sense of being harassed by this user. By the way, he has a very impressive blocking record and has been warned in Jan 2013 for his editing related to Armenia, Azerbaijan. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have repeatedly clashed with Maurice about Template:Largest cities in Turkey in which Maurice was inserting incorrect information. It more or less ended with a (denied) request to the Edit Warring Board ([91]), a clear attempt to silence an opponent. The Banner talk 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you be annoyed User:Yerevantsi? Is that voting forbidden? Yes, I reject so-called Armenian genocide, it's my personal opinion. Nevertheless,i didn't any change in the article of the Armenian Genocide so far. Hımmm, What do you think about other support voting?

• Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915 (9 January 2014)
• Akhtala Monastery (18 January 2014)

Also, I have voted in many move requests!!

• World Heritage Sites in Germany
• Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević
• Heliopolis Palace
• Kosovo

and more than.. In short,here there is no any wantonness against you or being armenian. Maurice07 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your editing is clearly targeted on me. Every request move by me is almost always being voted by you. Coincidence? I find it hard to believe your sudden urge to vote on requested moves related to Armenia, even if two of your votes were "support". Someone who denies the Armenian Genocide and doesn't edit Armenian articles votes absurdly in my requested moves is kind of worrying, as evident by the comment you left on Armenian surnames. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any prohibition on this issue? As I stated above, it is no coincidence but I just don't vote for your requests moves. You don't like this situation because, it's contrary to your interests. Am I wrong? Currently, Sergey Lavrov was not accepted by other users!! Also, what do you say about ur vote request move for article Baklava. [92] Your comment "ridiculous nationalism "! If moves had it been requested by another user,my votes would be the same again. I have no conflict with you. Maurice07 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Unresponsive and uncooperative fringe editor

GreatTruth123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GreatTruth123 is a conspiracy theorist who keeps altering articles such as Adam Weishaupt and Illuminati to reflect the belief that Weishaupt was creating a new religion ([93], [94]), that the group was monolithic and not "a name given to several groups, both real and fictitious; and that of Weishaupt's group was merely the beginning. He has been changing the descriptions of the Weishaupt's Illuminati from an NPOV description to sensationalist claims ([95]). He has made some rather nonsensical edits apparently connecting Weishaupt's founding of the Illuminati to the demon Bael ([96]), and overemphasized the word "conspiratorial" with overemphasis ([97]).

He has repeatedly removed "Order of" before "Order of Illuminati" in reference to Weishaupt's Illuminati, despite constant reverts, and has not attempted any discussion on the matter ([98], [99]). This is often combined with his attempts to insert the word "conspiratorial" in places where it doesn't need to be ([100]).

And while I'm not going to out him, I will say that if it weren't for WP:OUTING, I'd have plenty more proof that that's why he's doing those edits.

"Why hasn't anyone discussed this with him." His page is full of warnings, but he has chosen to ignore them.

"Oh, but he doesn't seem to be aware of talk pages, or that he's getting messages." Well, tough for him. He's had the opportunity to receive the messages, but he has chosen not to, so it's ultimately on him. I logged into the mobile editor just now just to make sure that there is a notifications tab, and Helen bleedin' Keller would be able to tell if she had messages. I'm not saying indef him (ok, I wouldn't mind that), but he needs something more than a message to get his attention.

"Oh, but you're being bitey." Anyone who wants to say this first needs to follow him around for a month, cleaning up after him, and trying to get his attention. Heck, if you can actually get his attention outside of blocking him first, then I might let you say I and the other users who have tried to get his attention have been bitey.

"You sure are responding to a lot of strawman arguments ahead of time." I've encountered them before with these sort of not-quite-vandal disruptive editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

They've got the word "truth" in their username, that's usually enough to sound general quarters and load the blockhammer shells. Blackmane (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked them. Edits like these need to be referenced and agreed in talk. Let me know if they continue when the block expires and I think the next block will be indefinite. --John (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian, you forgot to mention that they've never used an article talkpage or an explanatory edit summary, either. (Usually no edit summary at all, but if they've added a word, they'll occasionally put that word as an edit summary.) I rather wish somebody had thought to ask them to do that, in amongst all the warnings, and link them to 3RR, too. There's been something of a rash of newbies with similar behaviour lately, and I, at least, haven't had any luck with giving them short blocks to catch their attention, as John has now done; they tend to simply sit out the block and either disappear (=create a new account?) or resume after it expires. I agree with John's block, and hope it'll help, but the contributions don't look very promising. I'll just try the non-templated human voice once, and tell them what they need to do keep editing Wikipedia after this block expires. If they steam on regardless, I'll be as willing as John to block indefinitely. (Ian, if the suspicions you mention are germane to the editing of the articles, you might consider sharing them by e-mail.) Bishonen | talk 21:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Islamophobia vs Terrorism Projects

I'm trying to better understand why the efforts of one organization or group whose primary goal is public awareness regarding the dangers of terrorism involving Jihadists and radical Islamists is being labeled Islamophobic and actually included as part of a Wiki series on "Islamophobia" (the latter of which I find to be very subjective and seemingly biased which violates Wiki guidelines) while another is portrayed as positive, and far more balanced in the presentation. One such example is the label of Islamophobic given to Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) , and specifically referencing Pam Geller as Jewish and "described as anti-Islamic[10] or Islamophobic" VS the very positive portrayal of the Investigative Project on Terrorism , and Steven Emerson whose religious affiliation is not disclosed, although his affiliation with the Democrat party is mentioned. . I did not present my question on the SIOA Talk Page because the actual page was recently in lock-down. From what I gleaned, there was an ongoing dispute which may or may not have been provoked by bias, and that is why I decided to bring my questions directly to the Administrators for discussion. I also believe there may be rule violations resulting from what appears to be religious discrimination against Pamela Geller. If I'm seeing it, I'm sure other Wiki readers are seeing it as well. I would very much appreciate input from some of our Administrators who were not involved in the SIOA dispute before I attempt to make any edits. Thanking you in advance. Atsme (talk)

I just took a look at the Steven Emerson and Investigative Project on Terrorism articles. My impression is that both of those should be treated similarly to Pamela Geller and Stop Islamization of America such that all of these articles accurately describe the hate-filled vitriol directed at Islamic people. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, we don't settle content disputes here. That's not the role of Administrators. You might want WP:NPOVN. Or perhaps WP:BLPN in respect to Pamela Geller as she is a living person. I'll be glad to advise you at either of those venues on any specific issues, but this board is basically to deal with actions by named editors that violate our policies and guidelines in ways that require actions that only Administrators can do. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

He does have a point about one subject identified by religion and the other not. Otherwise I am not sure I understand his point. Coretheapple (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46 mass-creating articles

Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) is creating thousands of articles - between 2 and 10 per minute.

I've asked them to stop to discuss it, per WP:MASSCREATION.

The user has responded, but has not stopped since being asked. [101]

Ongoing creations

22:57, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+436)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bajar ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,835)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,781)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer, Gowhar Kuh ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,799)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,827)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Yar Mohammad ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,820)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh ‎ (create) (current) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,812)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Anur ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,813)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,781)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gargij ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,767)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gami, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,806)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,882)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Qir Mohammad Mir Kazehi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,813)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bulan Zehi Kach ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,821)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bi Barg Rigi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,824)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Esmailabad ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,780)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Amirabad ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,755)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Saraj ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,840)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Yusef Hasan Zehi ‎ (create) (current) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,772)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Khodadad, Khash ‎ (create) (current) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,827)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Qader Bakhsh ‎ (create) (current) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,755)‎ . . N Mowtowr-e Bajar, Khash ‎ (create) (current)

88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:88.104.19.233 is an admitted sock puppet (see its talk page where he/she admits using multiple accounts, but nowhere does he link them as required by WP:SOCK). Each of the articles is notable and in the creation of the stub categories (see stub categories for creation), all this was discussed long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not admit that. I admit I have edited Wikipedia in the past. I have followed all due policies and guidelines in respect of that.

Plus, that is a utterly separate issue; feel free to start SPI or whatever you wish.

WP:MASSCREATION says, clearly, "The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval." - and "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed."

Carlossuarez46 is creating thousands of articles, at a speed that must be considered 'bot-like'. There are concerns with at least some of the articles being made - but it is unrealistic to address the concerns whilst they make 50 more articles in the time I've spent replying here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• • The IP does not appear to be doing anything wrong, as there is no rule against editing while logged out or any requirement to disclose the name of your account if you do edit while logged out. Reyk _YO! 23:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it. If they will not, I ask admins to stop them. I'll be happy to discuss the articles, but this is an ongoing disruption - which is the only reason I am posting on ANI. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• We're now discussing; the difficulty with the anon is that we have no idea whether he/she is participating in more than one incarnation. Logging out to do edits that you don't want to be reflected in your "real" account is problematic. Does User:Reyk consider that to be acceptable editing? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do consider that to be acceptable editing. Policy explicitly allows it. Unless the edits themselves are disruptive (which I see no evidence of), there's no problem with anything 88.104 is doing. If you're not satisfied with that you know the way to SPI, but in the meantime is there a reason for your apparently automated creation of zillions of badly sourced microstubs? Reyk _YO! 23:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it. If they will not, I ask admins to stop them. I'll be happy to discuss the articles, but this is an ongoing disruption - which is the only reason I am posting on ANI. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If they'll stop, then the rest of this can all be discussed amicably over a nice-cup-of-whatever-beverage-you-prefer. That includes allogations of my breaching SOCK policy, and debates about masscreation, and discussion of sourcing, etc. -I've asked the user to stop, and they haven't done so; that's why I'm seeking admin intervention - to extinguish the ongoing fire. They've created about 20 more in the few minutes since I first posted here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

C, I agree that "Logging out to do edits that you don't want to be reflected in your "real" account is problematic". But I am not doing that. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Most of the articles seem to be for places. They appear to be trying to turn {{Khash County}} blue.--Auric talk 23:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Auric, sure, and I'm happy to discuss that. But please glance at [102] and indeed just their ongoing contribs.

 Right now, they must stop and discuss. Right now. If not sooner. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's interesting, but it gives no timescale.--Auric talk 23:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*What you are doing is avoiding WP:SCRUTINY; what axes have you to grind? what is your real position? have we had history you don't want anyone to know about? That's part of the problem - if you won't tell us your real account how does the community know you're not me (you're not we both know that but no one else does) or anyone else who comments here.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No axes, nothing to hide. But that's irrelevant right now. Do whatever you like to me later. Just stop. Then we can talk. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*You fail to assume good faith; why would I "do something to you to later" - I didn't even block you as a sock or start an SPI on you - geez. So far you haven't forwarded a single objection to anything I've created; you say you want to discuss but you haven't said anything meaningful on topic. And when you do, your comments can be assessed, but if you won't show us what your position is, how can we assess that properly? As I told you these were discussed at the stub creation long long ago - for all I know you were there then. WP is not a bureaucracy. I ask you to stop editing in your logged out mode and come to the table as your (wiki)self. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"I didn't even block you as a sock or start an SPI" - gosh, thanks! I am so very grateful that your munificence, the Admin, didn't just abuse your powers.

I have a reason: WP:MASSCREATION. I can give specific reasons regarding specific articles, if you'll just damn well stop for a bit!

I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with you in the past, FWIW - although still, it's irrelevant.

You're an admin, for Gods' sake. Please stop disrupting the wiki, and fall back on core principles, so we can discuss it. Surely you can see that creating 10 articles per minute needs a bit of a chat, without explicit approval? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• So we've had interaction. What was it? This is the part of you anon where no-one can tell your real motives. As I said and keep saying: this was discussed long ago. It doesn't need to be discussed routinely regularly. About 90% of the populated places in Iran are now completed; you think that we don't need the rest? What other articles don't we need? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem unable to read; I said, "I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with you in the past".

As you have raised the topic of your adminship, I looked up your RfA. I note that it is from 2007, and is considerably different from current standards. So it is natural that, after so long, you might not be aware of current expectations.

Would you be prepared to submit to a fresh RfA? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since you're a sock we can never know what other editors think of you...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think Carlossquarez46 needs to follow policy and get Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval approval for mass creation. NE Ent 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*You started out of the gate accusing me that I would do something to you... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand that statement; please clarify it and supply diffs. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your addition above "Do whatever you like to me later." speaks for itself. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem here. Carlossuarez46 has been writing stubs on Iranian settlements since 2011, and I don't see any reason why he should stop now. WP:MASSCREATION isn't applicable here, since it doesn't appear that he's using any kind of automated process; when all he has to do is copy the previous article and change the population info, it's rather easy to create multiple articles in a minute. Unless there's some flaw in the Iranian census data (and if there is, the IP hasn't mentioned it), these are all sourced articles on notable topics. If there's a legitimate complaint about the quality of the source, I'd be interested in hearing it, but otherwise I don't see why the IP is demanding that a three-year article-writing project be stopped now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There's probably no problem at all with the creations, which should make getting the required approval from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval fairly straightforward. NE Ent 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

My first post in this matter was to ask you to stop and discuss. [103]

Your response was on my own talk, "I'm a bot not a human". [104]. Again, I asked you to stop while we discussed, but you continued.

And that is how we arrived here at ANI.

I don't think I 'started out of the gate' with any accusations at all.

However, you started out by accusing me of being a sock. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the response was "I'm not a bot, I'm a human"[105]; precisely the opposite of what you claim. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

TheCatalyst31 do you think anyone can create 10 articles within 1 minute without using automation?

I do indeed have questions about the source quality, and I can discuss that if he'll stop to give me a chance! 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, open 10 browser windows, have the articles written in word and cut and paste. You'd be happier if these went one per minute, that can also be done, but it would just be a longer stretch of my time. You talk about your vague objections but nothing concrete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Then perhaps there is nothing for you to lose by pausing for a few minutes and allowing the IP to expand in their apparent concerns? You can always resume if their complaints are meritless. Resolute 00:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• No, see WP:MEATBOT. Whether Carlossuarez46 is use full automation, semi-automation, or even cut-and-paste doesn't matter. NE Ent 00:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As you can see, I haven't created a new article for about an hour and anon has raised nothing during that period. How much longer does he or she need? As for WP:MEATBOT there is no sacrificing of quality nor disruption. Show me the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• There is no universally accepted definition of "automation," but any series of rapid edits may be considered automation. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Identifying_the_use_of_automation_tools and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Amendment_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28Nobody_Ent.29. NE Ent 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, Re "vague objections" - I can make specific objections, and discuss this, within 24 hours.

Can you please stop creating the new articles for 24 hours, to give me a chance to respond?

If so, this ANI discussion is concluded.

The 'side issues' about my alleged socking, and your admin conduct, could be discussed elsewhere on more appropriate fora. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC) striking, per the below 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually - I think the best solution would be if you'd submit a Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and we can discuss it there before you continue. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll hold off for 24 hours to hear your specific objections; there is a Wikipedia:RSNB as a forum if you think that the sources are not reliable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I struck my "24" thing just as you were replying.

Will you go via BRFA before making any more? Or not? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• You have 24 hours to present your objections. Speak or hold your peace. Excessive drama on your part is wasting everyone's time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Carlossuarez46, you are causing the "drama" here. You were, in good faith, mass creating articles in violation of a policy you weren't aware of. No big deal. However, once the policy was pointed out to you you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, unsupported sock accusations and WP:IDHT. Unless you can get the WP:MASSCREATION policy changed in the next 24 hours, your deadline is meaningless. (A quick check of notability guidelines, which I'm no so expert at, makes me think the articles are likely fine so I think you should not have an issue getting the necessary approval.) NE Ent 00:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to 'You have 24 hours' I do not accept that.

I think it's bullying.

I ask admins to take necessary measures to prevent you from mass creating articles unless/until you receive appropriate approval, per policy. Besides, last I heard, there was no deadline.

I'm confident I could provide objections within 24 hours, but I don't see why I - personally - should have to deal with such a 'deadline'. I think you need to go through the appropriate channels instead - which will give me the opportunity to explain my issues with the pages you plan to create.

You've repeatedly refused (here) to adhere to WP:MASSCREATION, which is a policy - so I look forward to admin responses to that ongoing problem. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:MASSCREATION does not apply to manual editing, by its very terms. You haven't complied with WP:SOCK and furthermore, you propose a solution and walk away from it after it's accepted - where's your good faith? And you still haven't provided any specifics on what you claim is wrong with the sources. Absent that, your whole pitch is drama. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Continued debate would be disruptive and pointless, so I trust in admins to take appropriate action. You've been advised to adhere to policy, but are resolutely refusing to do so. I'll provide 'appropriate diffs' in due course; I hope that in the meantime you will be prevented from further disrupting the wiki. Best, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If this isn't "mass creation", I don't know what is. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have now added a few specific objections [106] - really, those are just examples. We're talking about thousands of articles, made out-of-process by an admin who refuses to stop.

Seriously - I do understand places are considered intrinsically 'notable' - but a village of 24 people in "4 families", with the only ref being 'search it here' and a 2006 excel spreadsheet that mentions it? Seriously? If this is permitted, I'm gonna write about my bathroom.

And that's just one of the hundreds of articles they created during this ANI discussion - at like 10 articles created per minute. I hope you can see why this is disruptive? It could take years for sensible editors to make any of this encyclopaedic.

How many has the user made? I don't know. Thousands.

Anyone can automatically make this stuff, from random non-reliable-sources; it just pollutes the accuracy of the project and creates massive amounts of work for others. This is pretty shocking stuff - especially from an admin. And when asked to desist, their response is to accuse me of 'socking' and ask me to thank 'em for not blocking me. Good grief. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• The articles seem perfectly appropriate to me. including the one mentioned above. There is no question about the notability, even at a very small size, and I can see nothing inappropriate with the sourcing. Unless you can show somethings actually wrong about the articles, I don;t the the reason to complain about them. The rule relating to mass creation was intended to stop totally automated or semi-automated processes unless they could be shown to be accurate, as we had before that--and after that--several such creations that caused considerable trouble; it was a necessary rule & I certainly support it. But I see no agreement there on the number of edits which would be considered a mass creation: someone did suggest 50, someone else suggested thousands. It's perfectly possible to create 50 routine articles of this sort in a few minutes by copying and pasting, if one has a suitable reliable source, and I do not consider this semi-automation. The guiding principle is the WP is not a bureaucracy. All limits on article creation are meant to prevent harming the encyclopedia, not to prevent its improvement. (And, fwiw, I definitely do consider editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny to be very close to bad faith editing.) DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• 1) The spreadsheets are the official Iranian census reports. If you think that a government's census reports lack reliability, you are mistaken. The link is to the US's geonames database which is used as a reliable source throughout wikipedia. 2) you claim that I have created "hundreds of articles ... during this ANI discussion." This discussion began at "23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)", as your initial edit is timed. Everyone is free to check my contributions: no new articles (much less 100) during this discussion. Now you are lying to try to make some point??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Opinions vary on these contentless cookie-cutter geographical location microstubs. Some claim all geographical locations are inherently notable and therefore MUST have an article even if there's nothing to write about. Other, myself included, reject the notion of inherent notability altogether. Mechanically grinding away at a meaningless task just to achieve a 100% completion rate is fine if you're a video game addict, but not for an encyclopedia. Here it just serves to dilute and diffuse content so that it cannot be used. I don't remember if "Random article" was ever useful, but these days you can never get anything except these mass-produced and utterly vacuous "articles". Finally, if you think 88.104 is in violation of WP:SOCK, you know the way to SPI. Badmouthing someone, but being unwilling to go through the proper channels, is not a good look. Reyk _YO! 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not in violation of SOCK. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Simple question - which I have asked before: will you adhere to WP:MASSCREATION or not?

After hours of dispute, you have refused to adhere to that policy. I've no idea why you have not been blocked until you will (except, of course, you are an admin so you're special). 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is the problem with the articles of Carlossuarez46. I see many of them coming into the list of articles with disambiguation pages and I seen them leave almost just as quickly. When I requested some edits on an article with many dab-links, responded quickly, politely and solved the links to disambiguation pages. His field of work is outside my interest (except solving the dab-links) but I have no indication that Carlossuarez46 is creating sub-standard articles. So what on earth is the problem? The Banner talk 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Apologies for saying they created "hundreds of articles during this ANI discussion" - they only made 38 new pages.

38

23:29, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer, Gowhar Kuh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Yar Mohammad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Anur ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gargij ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gami, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Qir Mohammad Mir Kazehi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bulan Zehi Kach ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bi Barg Rigi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Esmailabad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Amirabad ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Saraj ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Yusef Hasan Zehi ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khodadad, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Qader Bakhsh ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Bajar, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+94)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm, Khash ? (projs) (current) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+55)? . . N Rahimabad, Sistan and Baluchestan ? (redir) (current) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+41)? . . N Rahimabad, Gowhar Kuh ? (redir) (current) 23:21, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm ? (projs) (current) 23:20, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+541)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Rahm ? (create) (current) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer ? (projs) (current) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+460)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khoda Nazer ? (create dab) (current) 23:15, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab ? (projs) (current) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+467)? . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Mehrab ? (create) (current) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar ? (projs) (current) 23:13, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+462)? . . N Mowtowr-e Hajji Akbar ? (create) (current) 23:12, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gami ? (projs) (current) 23:12, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+461)? . . N Mowtowr-e Gami ? (create) (current) 23:11, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad ? (projs) (current) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+947)? . . N Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad ? (create) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+34)? . . N Mowtowr-e Esma'ilabad ? (REDIR) (current) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+128)? . . N Talk:Mowtowr-e Khodadad ? (projs) (current) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+602)? . . N Mowtowr-e Khodadad ? (create dab) (current)

88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is it OK if I mass-create 10,000 articles about the rooms in the homes around me, if I reference it to a spreadsheet from my local housing club? More to the point - if I'm asked to stop, should I stop and discuss it? Would it be OK if I just said "oh, you're probably just a SOCK so I will ignore you and carry on regardless"? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You still fail to mention what the problem is of his "burst-creations" (a lot of articles in a short time and then quietness). The way you act gives me more the idea that you have a grudge against Carlossuarez46 and are out for revenge than that you serve the interests of the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suggested test-case; perhaps someone can nominate Purjangi, Khash for AFD. And we'll see how it goes.

I can't easily do it myself, as an IP.

I'd think that an article about a 'place' with a population of 24 with only a ref to an archived 'census' would be deleted, but we can see if we try.

If it isn't, I really am tempted to write articles about 2b My Street, Someplace - and to mass-create 3,4,5,6 and 7b. They're all real places too, and I can show an equivalent 'reliable source'. I can even write a bot to make them, 10 per minute - no worries there. And I shall do so - not WP:POINT, but only if it's OK to do so.

Hell, if Wikipedia accepts articles on such places - great! I have a million articles to add!

So which way are we going here? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the notability issue, articles on populated places are practically always kept at AfD (and given that somebody tries to nominate one every few months, I doubt consensus has changed since the last time this happened). Part of Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia is to function as a gazetteer, according to the five pillars. Gazetteers traditionally include settlements, even small ones, and do not include individual houses or rooms, so there's a pretty clear distinction here. Keep in mind that one of the first major increases in Wikipedia's article count came when a user created articles on every settlement which was counted in the US census; I don't see why Iran should be treated differently. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a lovely argument, and one we can have elsewhere.

Meanwhile some fucking admin who thinks they're God is adding 1000s of articles that don't adhere to WP:V, and when I request they stop I'm accused of being a 'sock'. How about that? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, calm down please. Stay civil. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so to rephrase that in civil terms;

A user is creating thousands of articles which do no adhere to policy;

I asked them to stop, but they refused.

So I asked for help from admins, because it is an ongoing issue that is disrupting the wiki. I explained why with regard to policy.

The user has refused to stop.

The user happens to be an admin, but I don't think that is relevant.

OK? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The articles created do not breach WP:MASSCREATION as they are not automated or semi-automated. I think this point has been made several times. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DGG and The Banner: this seems like much ado about a minor issue. Can't we just go back to improving the encyclopedia without all the personal snipes? – Connormah (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, dude; MASSCREATION consensus says "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed".

This user is creating thousands of new pages.

Surely you cannot be saying this is not 'mass creation]? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see MASSCREATION might well apply, since cutting and pasting is semi-automated, as far as I'm concerned. At the same time, Carlos has stopped, from what I gather, so I might ask, as the IP has done elsewhere, what admin action is required? FWIW, I removed one of the IP's PRODs since such a deletion in these circumstances needs to follow a discussion. Given how much trouble the IP goes through to get their point across (and can you please try and do so without hitting "return", twice, after every period? sheesh!), they could have created a dozen accounts already to send these stubs on four-family villages to AfD, so a proper community discussion can shed some light on this. Now, I'm not going to close this thread, since the IP seems to have delicate toes and I'm a bit overweight, but I don't think there is much else to do here. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting is no more automated than using a keyboard. They're both done on a highly automated machine using its technical facilities. Either can be considered automated if done by a script, but not if done by hand. (I interpret semi-automated as done by a script with manual checking, and automated if done without such checking) Anyone who creates articles on factual material, especially numerical or geographic material, without inserting the data by cutting and pasting is in fact probably doing it sub-optimally, as any other method is much more likely to introduce typographical errors. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies,

IFF TheCatalyst31 stops mass-creating articles in breach of policy, then sure, that's OK.

Or if they put in an appropriate bot request, in accord with WP:MASSCREATION - that would be groovy.

For 'right now', we have a user creating massive amounts of articles without agreement, who is refusing to stop and discuss things. That is why I sought admin help here.

As of now, they have not agreed to adhere to policy, and they've continued to create articles.

OK, so maybe they stopped right now 'coz they've gone to bed or whatever; but I will probably sleep too, and I don't want to awake to find they made another 1000 bot-like articles that will need fixing. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter IP??? His articles are free from errors and are constructive. Carlos has been working on Iranian articles were several years, why now does it matter if he's found a way to generate them quicker if they're accurate? Between 2 and 10 isn't problematic, if it was over 10 then it might be appropriate to request permission. Leave him alone, let him get on with it and do something useful. Stop rule warring half a dozen times with the same old thing. Somebody close this thread as soon as possible please, the Manchester-based IP has now been blocked for disruption.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

When did the mass creation of microstubs with minimal sourcing and no evidence of notability become "constructive"? bobrayner (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He's attempting to provide very basic information about real world locations in a developing world country. You could argue that it might be better to created sourced lists by district instead of a stub for every place but it remains a constructive approach and attempt to improve us as a resource. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

2002. — Scott • talk 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Which was approved by BRFA, which is what masscreation requires and precisely what Carlossuarez46 has been requested to do. NE Ent 12:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the BRFA was filed in 2006, four years after the Rambot stubs were mass-created, and two years after they were kept at VfD. Copy/paste creating is not bot creating, and there's nothing wrong here. He's helping, moreover, by creating articles for places that most people won't know how to search for, since these places' names are in the Arabic script, not Latin. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Just to make things clear: I do not object to Carlossuarez's work; in fact, I have congratulated him on it not too long ago. I do believe that MASSCREATION applies (I differ with DGG, but that's possibly because he has a clearer idea on what "semi-automated" means than I do, and I don't know what those scripts are and what they can do--don't bother explaining), but Carlos has been doing this for years and I am not aware of any previous problems with his contributions. Or, to put it another way, I assume he has permission, whether tacitly or explicitly. Ent's link I do not understand; that is, I don't understand what it has to do with this, but I'm probably betraying my technical ignorance.

  What made this get out of hand is first Carlos's insistent line of questioning about the IP (socking, etc), which in my opinion was unnecessary: if everything is above board with these creations, then the source of the question should be irrelevant. Second, of course, is the IP's...insistence, which got them blocked for actions in another thread, involving yours truly. Reyk's and Bobrayner's comments, however, indicate that not everyone is at peace with those creations; their's may be a minority opinion, but it should be taken seriously--ANI is not the place to do that in, that goes without saying. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the issue. The articles are mass created, but they are not bad articles. They are perfectly notable. On the subject of "automated editing", copy-paste is no more automated than my fingers hitting an arbitrary plastic key and somehow making these words. I could have just easily found each and every word here in another article and diligently copy-pasted them to make this paragraph, and it would be no more or less of a paragraph, because it still conveys (or konveyshehehe) the same amount of ideas. KonveyorBelt 18:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Historically, "automated" editing has been difficult to define (as indicated by WP:MEATBOT) -- see a discussion from last March about whether something was or was not "automated." The simple, policy compliant thing to do remains getting WP:BRFA approval; Carlossuarez46 could have done that already with far less fuss than this ANI thread. I'm a very IAR contributor but somedays it just makes more sense to cross the tees and do the eyes. NE Ent 02:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Question for @Carlossuarez46: Why have you accused the IP of being a sock with no evidence? I know that there is a guideline/policy that states this may not be done, and some editors may consider this a personal attack. (If someone else knows it please link to it below). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA NE Ent 02:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm you state I've accused the IP with "no evidence". The IP stated here that he/she has edited under other names. Per WP:SOCK: a user may not edit logged out to violate any of the prohibitions on socking generally: "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy." The IP session was used to violate WP:SCRUTINY and WP:HAND, particularly using the logged out account for a set of edits he/she doesn't want traced to his real account. His/her disruptive editing earned him a block, but his main account is "clean". At least one other admin has expressed concerns about this above. In the bigger picture; as the IP requested above: "All I ask is, for the user to stop and discuss it.", done and done. This dead horse has been flogged - and we're discussing meta issues and diverging - and there is no consensus that my edits are improper, and they will resume when convenient. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping.

Per WP:MASSCREATION, will you please now sumbit a request via BRFA before you make more articles? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that A7 does not apply to places - and that's fine, regarding potential deletion. However, just because we make an exception for places when choosing deletion, it does not mean that you should create new articles with such weak sources. There are core policies that state creating such articles is prohibited - WP:V, WP:GNG. We can discuss the nuances in regards to places - I don't think ANI is the right place for that.

My main concern is, you (an admin) are adding articles to the wiki that policy says you shouldn't create in the first place. I accept that other policies say that such articles should not necessarily be deleted - but that is another issue.

You're creating articles from information that is like this;

Place	Pop (from a spreadsheet)	Geo coords
Someplacename	10	1,2,3
Anotherplacename	20	3,4,5
Yetanotherplacename	30	6,7,8

You've got literally around 20 bytes of information about these 'places', and from each of those you are making articles that are about 4000 bytes - that is, 200 times times more than the information seems to need.

Example: Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh. All you 'know' is, it's a village. In that particular example, you don't even know the population or where it is.

Just that the name was once mentioned on a census.

I do understand that the wiki gives a special case for places, but really... there is no encyclopaedic information about that village, except that it probably exists. Nothing. But you've made an article that, with templates, is over 800 lines long. It adds nothing to the encyclopaeida at all.

So please, will you stop adding any more, and allow discussion? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• As discussed above it doesn't apply, so no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• You seem to show a great dislike of administrators. You keep repeating that I am one. You also noted earlier that that's not relevant. I beg to differ from your interpretation: it adds "nothing" to the encyclopedia is your opinion. It is not the majority opinion. As one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars is to be a gazetteer, putting an article about each place is part of what Wikipedia is. given that we're not paper, we're uniquely able to do that. Once an article is started others can expand it (including IP's like you who cannot create an article) - some have already begun to expand Aghuyeh, East Azerbaijan among numerous others. You don't like the sources, but you didn't complain to RS notice board. The census published by the Iranian government and subsequently taken down is used throughout. Geonames is published by the US government. Other sources are also used. Rather than trying to stop or delete articles, improve them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem attacks.

As to whether 'mass creation' applies;

On 16 Feb, you created over 1000 new pages.

[list blanked--page size increase of some 25% is not helpful. it's in the history if you want to see it. Drmies]

I put it to you that that is 'mass creation' in anybody's terms. Nobody can realistically say a user can create so many valid articles in such a short time, without automation. Whether you're copy-pasting onto tabs, or using a program or whatever tool, is beside the point. You are mass-creating articles.

I am challenging whether your mass-creating is appropriate, with reference to policy.

So far, you have refused to acknowledge the policy, and your retaliation was to accuse me of being a 'sock'.

I intend to challenge that in the appropriate places - if you want to accuse me of socking, please use the right forum for it. I might do an RFC/U about your conduct. And the content of the articles (for mass creation) can be done on BRFA or AFD or whatever. ANI isn't the right place for that.

The only thing that belongs on ANI is, if admin actions are needed to prevent disruption. At the moment, you are refusing to follow policies; you have already created thousands of problematic articles without appropriate approval. I'm just asking you to stop it, and follow policy. Is all. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Your behavior here demonstrates that even were MASSCREATION to apply - which is doesn't to manual creations - it would be futile to go through that process. So even were it to apply, IAR also applies, which is also policy, and off we go. You have threatened to take various articles to AFD, plesee do so if you think you are correct. But I think it quite unfair that your objections should deprive the English-language Wikipedia of these articles (which seem to have no problem at the Farsi wikipedia). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm with drmies on this one: while I don't quite comprehend IP's tenacity, Carlossuarez46 could easily afford a two-day conversation about this mass creation. No one will suffer if a stub article containing an Iranian village name and population is delayed by a week, and then this entire thread could be archived and never read again. Sharpened axes could once again rust in peace. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We've had a two-day discussion here and what has come of it? There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I am doing (a minority opinion certainly objects, I see that). I am often in a minority in XFD discussions, but I would not repeatedly trying to force my position on others by trying to make them stop what the community doesn't prohibit. What ever happened to WP:BOLD, avoiding WP:BUREAU, and trying to make an encyclopedia (including the gazetteer part)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you don't have to stop: a brief pause (causing injury to no one) and an explanation, then you will most likely be able to continue just as before, but with even more consensus behind you, avoiding future problems of this sort. I don't see any reason to block or stop you, but I feel that IP has the right to ask for some clarification before add more new entries.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The community prohibits the mass-creation of articles without prior approval. Full stop. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, you've said many things that indicate you do not understand current English Wikipedia norms - such as, "your objections should deprive the English-language Wikipedia of these articles (which seem to have no problem at the Farsi wikipedia)" for example. I wonder if this is because you passed RfA in 2007, when standards were very different indeed.

I have already asked you on your talk page, but I ask again here;

Will you voluntarily resign your admin status, and go through RfA, to show your current knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and to ensure the community has faith in your being an admin? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mr.Choppers: I have answered all the sourcing questions. Notability can be tested at AFD, not ANI, as the IP states. Opinions on what gazetteer entries add to the project don't require further response. The IP's interpretation of MASSCREATION in not correct (or at least doesn't have a consensus) as has been discussed above, there seems only that procedural clarification. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, do you think that a user creating around 1000 new pages per day is 'mass creation', or not? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You do understand that the policy only applies to automated and semi-automated creation, not to manual cut and paste. Continued provocation is a great de-motivator. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please directly answer the questions;

1. Do you agree that creating 1000 pages in 1 day is 'mass creation'?

2. Will you stop until you get approval from WP:BRFA per WP:MASSCREATION?

3. Will you voluntarily resign your admin status, and go through RfA, to show your current knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and to ensure the community has faith in your being an admin?

88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• 1. No, WP:MASSCREATION applies to automated and semi-automated editing only.
• 2. No, not necessary.
• 3. No, that seems to be your true objective.

That said, I'm done with this thread, feel free to comment but I will continue to create articles and otherwise improve the encyclopedia. Dealing with this drama has certainly made editing wikipedia less enjoyable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Given those answers, I ask admins to prevent Carlossuarez46 from creating new pages in breach of policy. Again. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@88.IP, 1) what "harm" is Carlos doing to Wikipedia with this "mass creation" of articles? (WP:HARM unfortunately refers to BLPs only) and 2) review WP:GEOLAND - populated, legally recognized places (such as these villages) are deemed notable. I'm sure they would hold up at AfD. Carlos here has been doing this for a long while without incident, and while his behavior may not be perfect (I don't care about that point), he has explained the policy basis for his actions multiple times to multiple people; and almost everyone who has commented in the section other than you agrees with him. Why won't you learn to drop the stick? First with the section-close edit warring and now here. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashn66 - he's creating many thousands of articles in a short space of time which do not meet the core principles of WP:V WP:N. Also, he's not obeying policies and guidelines.

Hey, can anyone explain any policy/guideline reasons why it is acceptable to create shite like Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh? The reference there shows it (probably) exists, and that's about all. I understand that there's no CSD, and that geo places are somehow 'special', but I don't see it adds anything to the Enclyclopaedia.

And please don't say 'take it to AFD', because we're talking about thousands of articles he's created.

I'm kinda sorta working on a RFC/U and/or Arbcom case, but just seeking opinions - why would anyone think that Mowtowr-e Hajji Cheragh was valid?

Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you read all of what I wrote, and carefully? ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

---anyone who thinks I'm just being a dick, please just look at [107]. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(Ansh666, I will read it carefully now and respond soonest) 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666, OK, I will respond to your points in turn;

• 1) what "harm" is Carlos doing to Wikipedia with this "mass creation" of articles?

It dilutes encyclopaedic information. For example, I could find a spreadsheet showing the "winners of the local chess championship in the town of Rachel, Nevada. I could create 1000 articles from it. That would not increase the "sum of all human knowledge" because it'd be massively open to misrepresentation - anyone can create pages showing things like that - and we do not allow them, for good reason. WP:V and so on.

By creating 1000s of poorly-sourced automated articles, he is making wikipedia just a little-bit-less-reliable.

The articles need to show verifiable facts. Adding that 'foobaabazz town' exists (ref a-spreadsheet-that-doesn't-even-exist-any-more, see archive-here) is the weakest imaginable case. It seems to have some special status, because it's allegedly a 'place' in India.

If that is the case, then I can find a spreadsheet from the UK council showing the geo-locations of every pothole in the UK. Are they notable? No, of course not.

He's adding places with a population of zero - and population 'unknown'.

If we allow that, then others can add 'places' like the bottom left corner of Main Street in Birmingham.

There is no WP:V at all.

2) review WP:GEOLAND - populated, legally recognized places (such as these villages) are deemed notable.

OK, Brian is sleeping in my kitchen tonight; can I haz article?

>I'm sure they would hold up at AfD.

We shall see - shall we? That's the wiki way. I'll nominate some as soon as possible. But I need to check them, and I can't check 1000 articles in 1 day - it's just not possible. That's why the wiki is careful about mass-creation.

>Carlos here has been doing this for a long while without incident, and while his behavior may not be perfect (I don't care about that point), he has explained the policy basis for his actions multiple times

Yeah, but, I have explained his behaviour is against several policies many times too.

>to multiple people; and almost everyone who has commented in the section other than you agrees with him.

I don't think that is true. I think lots have sided with him - after all, he's a special-admin, and I'm a humble IP. But at least some have wondered if his blatant disregard for policy and his personal attacks were perhaps 'a bit out of order'.

>Why won't you learn to drop the stick?

Actually, I probably will. Because sadly, I've almost no chance to challenge the entrenched community of admins who defend each other. I probably will just give up, like thousands before me who wanted the wiki to be a better place.

>First with the section-close edit warring and now here. 6an6sh6 06:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I get angry. Then I quit, or get blocked. That's how it goes.

Poor wiki. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, another heavy dose of WP:IDHT and misquoting of policies - inching me closer to leaving this place, unfortunately. May I suggest you actually go and read, in detail, WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places before you come and try to quote them back to us? Also, Carlos isn't one of those admins that is well known and often-defended (Drmies didn't know he was an admin before yesterday, was it?); being an administrator gives him no special standing in this...dispute. And again, while his behavior hasn't been perfect, his actions outside this thread have been endorsed by everybody who has commented here with the exception of NE Ent and Drmies, who agree in principle with his actions but think that a BRFA would help. As they say, actions speak louder than words. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, admins break policy and guidelines, and an IP is ignored. Actions speak louder than words? What do you suggest I do? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoting "IDHT is just lazy in the extreme. I did hear it, and responded. I am more knowledgeable about wiki policy than you.

This is an easy one.

A user is making a shitload (1000s) of pages that don't conform to core policy. We have a policy to deal with that - WP:MASSCREATION - so, he can put in a request, and it can be discussed. That's all.

It seems like he is refusing to do that, hence asking for admin help. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't hat this again, I put the relevant sentence in my edit summary but I'll quote it here again: "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring." - the bolding isn't even mine. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, between edit conflicts and my internet going out I keep losing edits. Anyways: "I am more knowledgeable about wiki policy than you." - literally every editor who has commented here would disagree with you on this one; seriously. Do you even read what I write? Anyways, as to what you should do, I've said that already: drop the stick. It's clear you aren't going to get consensus on this little crusade of yours. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your reverting of my comments of this page is outside of policy.

Please don't quote template guides at me, like I'm an idiot.

I'll "drop the stick" if you want to drop editors who care about the wiki. Let me know. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if you want me to go away, I'll go away. Fine, have it your way. Let me know if you want me to retire, too. [/sarcasm] ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

---

TL;DR - Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) is creating thousands of articles - between 2 and 10 per minute. About places in Indiasorry, didn't check details; Iran - kinda meant 'India' in the sense of Indian subcontinent but that's wrong, I apologize 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC), apparently based on an archived spreadsheet.

I've asked them to stop to discuss it, per WP:MASSCREATION.

The user has responded, but has refused to stop.

That's about where we're at - an admin refusing to adhere to policy, apparently because they think creating 1000 articles within a day isn't 'mass creation'.

That's what I'm asking admins here to deal with. Is all. The rest is just... well the usual ANI thing. Some users called me a 'sock', some bickered about the ANI itself, and so on. I tried to shut down such things, [108] but meh.

Bottom line - user mass-creating articles without approval. Needs approval. Refuses to apply for it (to date). Is all.

If I were cynical, I'd point out that if the user was not an admin, they'd have been blocked within minutes. But meh.

88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you SLOWED DOWN and PAYED ATTENTION, it would be obvious that they're in Iran (that fundamental a mistake), and that very few people agree with you, and I doubt that the administrator status had anything to do with it. Ok, that's it, I'm done. Bye. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop shouting, and learn to spell, and I'll bother to respond. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The amount of time Carlossuarez46 has spent in this thread is greater than it would cost them to simply follow policy and file a BRFA request. NE Ent 09:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko, again

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

---

There was very recently a community ban discussion concerning Kumioko, which was closed with no consensus to ban, and an admonition for Kumioko to "grow up". Kumioko was editing at the time through IPs, most of which were blocked, so he created the account User:BannedEditor. This acoount was indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts by Adrmboltz, the block was lifted by 28bytes so that Kumioko could participate in the ban discussion, then the block was reinstated by 28bytes when the discussion concluded. As the account's block log shows:

• 22:01, 11 February 2014 28bytes (talk | contribs) blocked BannedEditor (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (restoring Admrboltz's block)
• 14:19, 10 February 2014 28bytes (talk | contribs) unblocked BannedEditor (talk | contribs) (per discussion with blocking admin)
• 13:43, 10 February 2014 Admrboltz (talk | contribs) blocked BannedEditor (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts)

The indef block for abusing multiple accounts is still in place. Blocks for abusing multiple accounts are for the person, not for the account, so until, this block is lifted, Kumioko is not allowed to edit Wikipedia under any account or IP - however, he is currently editing as User:108.45.104.158. This is, unfortunately, yet another example of Kumioko's belief that our rules to not apply to him. I would ask that this IP to blocked, that any other IP he begins to edit with be blocked, and that Kumioko is prevented from editing here until the indef block is lifted. BMK (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Because of my history with Kumioko, and because I said more than enough in the ban discussion concerning my take on his behavior, I will not be participating in this thread unless specifically asked to by a third party. BMK (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But you were willing to start it, yet again over nothing. You want to see me kicked off the site and you always have. I only hope the community realizes that you are the one that needs to be removed not me. This is a stupid waste of the communities time and should be closed. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Of the two of you, only one adds value to this project, and it ain't you Kumioko. I would add that your repetitive and pointless crying on Jimbo's talk page is also a "stupid waste of the communities time". However, my view at this point is that BMK should simply ignore your latest round of whining and move on. Resolute 01:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Prior really long AN thread found no consensus to block K from IP editing. NE Ent 00:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

BMK, you didn't say what you wanted. I realise you said you'd stay off the thread, but your posts so far don't explain what you want. Another community ban discussion? The last one, as you said, was closed with no consensus. Or do you want admins to block a specific account or IP? If so, maybe SPI is more appropriate and less drama?

Can you clarify what admin action you are requesting? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For what its worth, blocking this IP wont really amount to anything except making things more confusing. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I intend to close down this discussion in an hour or two, unless there are objections, on the basis that there's no specific admin action requested so far. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

" I would ask that this IP to blocked, that any other IP he begins to edit with be blocked, and that Kumioko is prevented from editing here until the indef block is lifted" sounds like a "specific admin action" request to me.

As to whether there is anything to do here. Yes SPI would be the place to go, however Admrboltz decided not to block the main account meaning that he decided not to sanction Kumioko. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Vote time then? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, user is not disrupting the project at this time, can't see any justification for a de facto ban. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Kumioko, would you consider a voluntary break, perhaps of three months, from Wikipedia? If you tried to edit during that time, someone would just revert your edit, without commentary, templates, or lots of fuss. I think the last ban discussion failed, in part, because there's a stigma of serious wrongdoing associated with bans that people don't see in your conduct. But you've said many times that you were going to retire, or stop editing, or go off to Wikia, and then come back here a few days later, unable to stop commenting. If people helped you stay on Wikibreak by reverting you, without labeling your behavior as "sockpuppetry" or misconduct, would that serve your purposes? I think the current pattern of behavior is doing a lot to upset both you and other people, and it's not really helping change the encyclopedia or the way it's run. Choess (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions on IPs. No evidence of wrongdoing other than the usual drama-fest and attention seeking behavior by Beyond My Ken/BMK. Let a thousand IPs bloom across Wikipedia with the freedom to comment as they see fit. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tried to close this, per [109]. Which seems reasonable, no?

But someone objects [110] [111].

They said, "A non-admin should not close an AN/I discussion when specific admin action has been requested" [112] - is that some new policy I do not know about? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

87.232.55.69

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

---

Disruptive editor who clearly fits WP:NOTHERE. Returns sporadically to vandalize; most recent acts are to change album personnel listings to completely fictional ones. Previously has been reverted for adding non-notable entries to lists of musical topics and to change colors on band member timeline graphics to ones that are hard for readers and editors alike to use. Never uses edit summaries and never attempts to discuss or describe his/her changes, and has been warned repeatedly (up to being given the final warning template twice. What should we do? (I can provide diffs, but really, it's their entire edit history, just go take a look.) LazyBastardGuy 02:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If they are vandalizing why didn't you report them to WP:ANV? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, people, I was expecting that question. I actually did take it up to ANV twice, believe it or not; the first time his edits were too long ago (I only noticed he was at it again a few days after the fact) and the second time I was told to take it here, in spite of the fact that I had caught him mere hours afterward this time. One way or another, he'll get dealt with, though. ;)

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the barnstar! LazyBastardGuy 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

MrScorch6200, it's helpful to report problems. Kindly do not bite people who do so, just because they weren't aware of all the wrinkles of Wikipedia's noticeboard labyrinth. This can be dealt with here. Thank you for reporting, LazyBastardGuy, I'll take a look when I've got time, unless another admin gets in first. For another time, WP:AIV is the ideal place to report vandalism. Bishonen | talk 05:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I am puzzled as to how you viewed that as biting. That was a mere question. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you? Then please note for future reference that a question like that is biting, and there's no need for it, because you know the answer. (Why do you think they didn't report it to WP:AIV?) It's chilling, especially as a first response to somebody who took the trouble to report a long-time problem that certainly needed dealing with. Apparently it's a static IP, I've blocked for 72 hours. If the pattern resumes after the block, they'll get a longer one next time. Bishonen | talk 05:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

Well, there's two level 4 warnings on the I.P.'s talk, so further vandalism should be reported to AIV as "vandalism after level 4 warning". Now, let's not fight about it. All that I'm saying is that AIV is the better path and we have the same end result, so let's move on. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP is claiming that a particular user (behind an IP) returns sporadically to vandalize, and is asking for assistance. Have you looked at the case? What do you think? Perhaps you could at least help by providing a link to the IP (87.232.55.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). The type of problem reported above is not suitable for WP:AIV (unless by a good luck a bold admin notices the post and takes stronger action than normal). At any rate, Bishonen has taken the first step. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I was told the same thing over at AIV. That's why I'm here. LazyBastardGuy 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Genre-changing vandal back at work

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

---

78.62.26.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I just reverted about 25 unexplained genre changes from tonight alone. Just see the contributions; they're all the same. The IP was blocked in January for the exact same behavior and is back at it with a veangence. I left a couple warnings on the talk page, but it seems like this is an unrepentant genre-warrior and needs a block. I brought it here rather than AIV since there are so many pages involved.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah yes. Thanks for reporting, Alf. How you doin'? Drmies (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor making undiscussed page moves despite being warned in the past

Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs) has just moved Common Era and Anno Domini without any discussion. He was warned about such moves in September 2012 but has obviously ignored the warning. I'm moving back but I've got no reason to think this won't happen again. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong in making an undiscussed page move, per WP:BOLD. I can see that the 2012 move was a bad one, but the move from Common Era to CE and BCE is not a terrible one. You've reverted it now; what now needs to happen is a discussion per WP:RM. If Crumpled Fire did the same move again, that would be a problem, but the move was in itself a reasonable one - not one I would personally support in move discussion, but I saw it on my watchlist and thought, "Fair enough". I think you're being rather unfair taking this straight to ANI. StAnselm (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the defense, I would have appreciated a bit more WP:AGF from the poster of this ANI, but I suppose I can see where he's coming from. What prompted me to make this bold move was that I had noticed "Before Christ (BC)" was now bolded on the Anno Domini page, as was Before Common/Christian/Current Era (BCE) on the Common Era page. That, combined with what I would perceive as an obvious bias in favor of "Common" over the other two alternatives ("Christian Era" is seen first historically), is what prompted me to think that these would hopefully not be controversial moves to make in unison. I now see that it is most certainly a controversial move, and will make effort to not move pages without prior discussion in the future. Crumpled Fire (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is certainly preferred, over let's say, burning people at the stake for disagreeing with you. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is certainly preferable to puerile hyperbole. --John (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly "childishly silly and trivial" to observe that according to history, people were burned at the stake by Christian authorities. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::I took him to ANI because he ignored an earlier warning. These are not rarely edited pages and I don't think that WP:BOLD is appropriate for a page move unless for an article with little to no recent activity. However, Crumpled Fire seems to have taken the point so I am happy for this to be closed. I really don't think the comparison between starting this thread and burning people at the stake is appropriate and I'm disappointed to see it being made .Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the user name, "Crumpled Fire". Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I completely misunderstood this. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One would hope an editor who had edited a religion-related article before would have noticed the wording of these articles is critical, and every change is likely to be controversial. In the case at hand, changing from titles with full words to titles with initials can be viewed as adopting the point of view that the terms are merely initials in people's mind, and no longer carry any religious significance. Obviously this point of view is not shared by everyone. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

BLOCK REQUEST (again)

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

---

Who let the mad man out? Please block this user again. He was a proven sock puppet and he clearly did not learn from past mistakes and is starting to annoy everyone again with his tyrant-style editing and modifications (with no respect to general rules and follow Wikipedia users of cause).

Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/special:contributions/Guardian_of_the_Rings

125.168.97.231 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have to do better than just linking to his contribs list and laying into another editor with personal attacks without evidence is unacceptable. The conclusion of the discussion on their talk page about their use of sock accounts was that there was no abusive use of them, but rather the creation and abandoning of a series of accounts avoiding the areas that the previous accounts edited in. This is allowable under WP:CLEANSTART. Blackmane (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

125.168.97.231, you need to provide specific examples (diffs) to support your allegations. Just saying an editor is guilty of bad behavior is not grounds to block them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If he can't do better than that, it's best to close this rather inflammatory thread. GotR ^Talk 15:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible misbehavior of an IP user (again)

An editor replied me with Chinese (with only a small section translated into English) in Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) but the reply might be a bit inappropriate. The user has been warned previously on his another IP address's talk page. These are the comments he made on me:

1. Saying my past edits (contributions) make him feel "ashamed"（我看了一下您老历来的编辑和在维基上的“贡献”，真是另我汗颜啊。）;
2. Again questioning my "literacy" like before after I made a mistake on identifying the source（就从这里您问的两个问题，就是显出您自己理解上和知识上的问题了（您尽管去投诉，看看是否人身攻击），恐怕不胜任这里的编辑要求啊。大公报引述的是台湾中通社的消息，放狗搜搜都是可以找到的。中通社不“亲中“了吧？Oda朋友的反复要求，这个页面也是明确的。别人都看得明白，为什么就你看不到？我说的阅读能力（literacy），有错么？您老应该提高一下。）;
3. Claiming that replying to my questions is "a loss of dignity", thus will refuse to respond to my questions and asked me not to reply to his comments in the future（回复您老的问题真是有失身分。您老以后的问题我都不回答。请您老不要在follow up我的发言，谢谢！）;
4. Accused me for "inciting Hong Kong-China hatred" for no reason (which is also off-topic) and described me as an "incompetent wiki editor" because I kept "vandalizing" wikipedia, therefore I should "read more books"（还有，你们港独招小朋友有牢狱之灾啊，连”扮民主派“的大状都不愿意出庭辩护啊。有时间多读读书，看看别人写的wiki。对维基做破坏贡献，显示出您的literacy的问题，宣扬分裂国家、煽动陆港仇恨就是您不对了。不胜任维基编辑可以不做嘛。）

I personally think that these words might be inappropriate, so I decide to report here. lssrn45 | talk 13:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui, who is an admin, has already left them a warning on their talkpage. Unfortunately, there is little point in blocking them or issuing final warnings. IP's in HK are typically dynamic so by the time they appear again, they'll be on a different address. I suggest that ignoring their attack laden reply and focus on the content is the best way to go. In future, if their replies are loaded with NPA again, per WP:TPO you can just revert them and ask an admin for a temporary block. Blackmane (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I think it is also the only thing I can do though... lssrn45 | talk 14:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell

This user is being extremely disturbing. He got blocked two times before (check User talk:Lord of Rivendell for proof).

My first complaint is his edit sprees without consulting any other users in talk page and not obeying the plurarity rules. In Turkey article he keeps doing edits as he likes (see Turkey: Revision history for his edits and see Talk:Turkey about the other editor's complaints about him). Now he sees me as his enemy and began to conflict with my edits, throwing mud at me. (i think he is getting obsessed with me)

My second complaint about him is his racism and his nonsense slander on calling me associated with a terrorist organisation. If you go to the page [113] you can definitely see that he is saying those words; (I began to suspect that KazekageTR is a Turkish-speaking Kurd (probably associated with the PKK or DHKP-C, etc, i.e. an "extreme-left" militant organization) whose sole intent is to deface Turkey-related articles.). (by the way I've a Meskhetian Turk origin) First of all, i've made huge improvements on Turkey-related articles. For example i've completely renewed the page Modern equipment and uniform of the Turkish Army and significant edits on Turkey etc.. Secondly, i've got very upset because of a comment like that. I'm not a terrorist and no one calls me a terrorist one way or another. And what he did is racism and totally not acceptable.

Thank you for your consideration. KazekageTR (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting notification of this thread: "Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And check your watchlist you racist."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there's the WP:CANVASSING: [114] and [115].--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an exception for notifying concerned editors; I think that being called an "asshole" without provocation makes me one of them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the way that i've notified him cause i was very angry at the moment. And about those two users, they were the ones who recently got problem with Lord pf Rivendelll. I've simply asked help for my first complaint. There is nothing wrong with it. And did you read my compliants by the way? KazekageTR (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were angry, you should have used the default notification message ({{ani-notice}}) to avoid showing bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR has been accurate in his complaints. Rivendell's behaviour has made it very challenging for other editors to make any contributions to the Turkey article, he continuously monopolises the editing space (he has made over 300 edits to that article in less than 50 days) and initiates edit wars when "his" revision is altered. His unwillingness to reach a consensus for his sweeping changes is made much worse by his evident battleground mentality (see diff, diff, diff), which is ultimately the bigger problem here. To Rivendell everything is a confrontation, he may leave forever one day only to carry on his battling the next.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Although KazekageTR is right in his complaints, he may be wrong in the way that he phrased his complaints. Epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well i don't think that me calling him as a racist isn't bad. Cause he sees the issue of being a Kurd as a something to get 'suspected' and i believe that is racism. Are we on the same page here User:Epicgenius?? And if you check the edit histories of those pages we've conflicted in (especially in Turkey), you will see that i was understandable, patient and tolerant to him. I've always stated those Wikipedia rules that he wasn't obeying in my edit summary or in the talk page. By the way because i was reverting his reckless edits, he started to be my enemy(like i said on the top) and opened up a section here in order to block me from editing. The admin found me innocent and warned him instead. After one/two weeks from that event, he got blocked. KazekageTR (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are on the same page, but you shouldn't assume bad faith. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If i was assuming bad faith, things would go way different believe me mate. By the way thank you for your interest, we can use your thoughts on this issue, of course if you state them... KazekageTR (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, but I find that it's better to get over having "enemies" if you want to continue to be a productive editor on Wikipedia. I understand that there are going to be times when you feel challenged and provoked, but try to not get caught up in revenge, squabbling and holding grudges. If it gets really bad, work on different articles on WP and keep your distance. Having enemies can be a quick way to slide into edit warring which can result in a block or, eventually, an indefinite block. When it comes down to "disruptive editing", admins don't want to spend time sorting out who is right and who is wrong, they'll just block your account because of your behavior, not the content of your edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My "problem"s with Lord of Rivendell have been limited to normal editing disputes, I have not encountered the personal attacks noted above. I do agree with KazekageTR that throwing around Kurd as an insult is not a positive trait. On the editing front, it is true that Lord of Rivendell makes long series of edits, but it's also true (as they pointed out on Talk:Turkey) that they in the past reverted edits by others which were just copy-pastes into the article from other articles made without attribution. In general, it would be useful if the talkpage was more used in conjunction with editing (and it has begun to be more used lately). I get the feel of increasing escalation over the past month. Lord of Rivendell should be strongly informed that throwing around insults is not an action conductive to a collegial editing environment (KazekageTR I assume has taken note that reacting by calling someone racist is not the most helpful move), and from that point if editors manage to keep a cool head and discuss things, I see no need for immediate blocks. CMD (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not limited to Rivendell, but calling someone a Kurd as an insult is pretty racist.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not suggesting any action actually be taken against KazekageTR for that outburst, and wouldn't even if they hadn't gone back and changed it. CMD (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well User talk:Liz, so you're saying that provocation is something like 's*hit happens' ??. You cant just insult or try to insult a person like that. I can call you a terrorist and 'suspect' that you are a Jew and it is okay too? Look at [116] he is provoking me again by the way.

And that section is not just about this insulting thing, if you check my first compliant you'll see that he is not a cooperative person and often making trouble that bothers us all. By the way it wasn't just happened now, it happened so many times. Please refer to Turkey article for further information.KazekageTR (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As I already said, this is not restricted to any one editor, I'm not singling out Rivendell or anyone else because I have seen this kind of behavior too often while contributing to Turkey-related articles to dismiss it as an individual flaw of character. But all too often when someone makes an edit to an article about Turkey, they will come across someone who will say, you have added/removed this and that to make our country look bad, you must be a Kurd! I don't know Kazekage's ethnic origin and I don't want to know it, but I can imagine that having to read such mindless tripe can make even the most level-headed editors lose their cool. So when someone retorts that this is racism, it might not be ideal editing behavior, but does it mean that they are to blame? Is that what our admins seriously think?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley

The user named "William M. Connolley" accused me of "nationalistic purposes" after I changed the orded of names of Nicolaus Copernicus in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus I changed the name "Mikołaj Kopernik" on the first position, and the German version of his name succeeding. I did it because "Kopernik" is the ORIGINAL last name of the person you know by the name "Copernicus". However, the user "William M. Connolley" accused me of nationalism, and he should be warned. Wikipedia is not a place for such a debate, and his revert of my contribution does not have any sensible explanation. This is the full accusation by this user aimed at me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=595856126&diff=prev "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes." - this is what he wrote. How can I put Copernicus's real name on the first place in that article without being attacked? Yatzhek (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You haven't even used the article talk page to discuss this but come straight here? --Malerooster (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at two other threads concerning Yatzhek, [117] and [118]. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:LAME under "Ethnic Feuds." 192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, we use the name he's best known by in English on the English Wikipedia. Everyone knows that DP 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Our article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a classic target of nationalist edit warriors. The article itself has been protected or semiprotected 22 times. Given this background, User:Yatzhek's attempts to give priority to what is said to be Copernicus's Polish name don't appear innocent. Consider looking for support on the article's talk page before reverting again. Some past discussions of Copernicus’ nationality can be seen here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed. This is a discussion for the article talk page, not AN/I. Instead of seeking sanctions for those who disagree with you, you must instead build consensus for your editing choices. Takes longer but it also results in edits that are not reverted and no boomerang effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Malerooster - what should I discuss? He called me a nationalist and you say I have no right to report it???

@ User:EdJohnston - I know Copernicus is best know under his LATIN name, but why is the German name at the first place? Is it just alphabetical order? I don't think so. In other articles the names are not segregated by the first letter of the language, but by the importance. You see, in Poland there is much controversy about foreigners trying to "steal" Kopernik from the Polish nation and persuading others that he was fully German and call him a German astronomer. Some time ago the German Wikipedia had such an information but as I see now it was deleted. Still, no word about his Polish heritage. 80% of the last names in his family was pure Polish. His first language was Polish.

Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136591/Nicolaus-Copernicus

Anyway - if "William M. Connolley " will not reveive a warning, I will stop believing in justice on Wikipedia. If I called someone a nationalist I would immediately get a warning or even worse. I smell prejudice. Yatzhek (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes" is not the same as calling you a "nationalist" (which I didn't realize was a bad thing to call someone). He was arguing with your rationale behind the edit (which isn't ideal) but wasn't calling you a name.

By the way, I bet any editor or admin who frequents this page can give you a list of terrible things that have been said to them during their time editing at Wikipedia so there is no "prejudice" involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone a nationalist has overtones that would be pejorative (same as calling someone a communist, socialist, zionist or fascist would be a pejorative. "comment on the content, not the editor" is the maxim. However, "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes" is borderline content related. "Restored preferred English spelling and common name" would be preferred but the edit is correct. Applying an ideology is not a proper edit summary as it is irrelevant and inflammatory. It's an incivil edit summary that isn't worth a warning but it could be brought to the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Liz Sooo, tracing your way of thinking, when i said now "stop you antipolish attacks!", it obviously wouldn't be the same as calling you "anti-Polish", right?

@ User:DHeyward -- he DID'NT restore the English spelling. I left the English spelling untouched. What he did is reverting my contrib, and placing as first the German equivallent of his original Polish name. Calling my purposes "nationalistic" is highly beyond the Wikipedia rules! Yatzhek (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So why are you are so concerned about an edit that coincidentally promotes a certain nationalistic purpose? That page has a steady stream of editors insisting on such edits, and other articles are likewise subject to boosterism. It's unfortunate if WP:AGF editors are caught in the crossfire, but it's worse that the community has to deal with it over and over. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandal reborn

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

---

A vandalizing user, Irate158, who was blocked because of their behavior, has clearly created a new account for himself, IrateGuy. He's going about creating fake articles and vandalizing existing ones, just as he did as Irate158. Can someone block him? I didn't try warning him; I just didn't see the point. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In the future, you should report this to WP:AIV or WP:SPI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed this account per WP:QUACK. De728631 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive (sort of) editing

Following the fuss caused by the renaming debate at Australia national association football team and the subsequent NPOV tagging, LauraHale (talk · contribs), one of the proposers of the move, today also NPOV tagged one of the redirects to the article (Australia national football team). This broke almost 900 incoming links, so I reverted to a pure redirect. She then changed the redirect to Australia national football team (disambiguation), even though almost all the incoming links were for the men's team. I then asked her to stop editing out of spite (there is a fairly unpleasant history behind the debate, so AGF is not really an option, particularly when Laura has been involved in off-wiki canvassing) and if she really wanted to tag the redirect, then to direct all the links to the correct page first.

Laura responded by asking that I retract my comments about spite, and then proceeded to start changing the links to the article in question. However, rather than linking them directly to Australia national association football team, she has instead been changing them to link to Australia men's national association football team, another redirect, but one with the article title she would like to see, which does rather seem to prove the point that either making a WP:POINT or spite is the motivating factor behind the editing.

Could someone perhaps have a quiet word, as I don't believe this is the way editors should be going about things. Cheers, Number 57 20:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Number 57 has been asked several times to retract non-WP:AGF comment regarding my motivation. Number 57 has not. Further, Number 57 said that the redirect was linked to from multiple articles as a reason not to change the redirect. I WP:AGF followed the advice by changing the existing links (which are redirects anyway) in accordance with Number 57's advice. --LauraHale (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As stated above Laura, it's very difficult to AGF given your past comments (basically saying anyone who disagrees with you is sexist) and deeds around the article. Number 57 21:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of your edits Laura other than to make a point? I don't see any benefit to the encyclopaedia .. Don't fix it applies here... JMHamo (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's just an essay, and shouldn't be taken at face value. But Laura shouldn't be editing articles just to fix a redirect to another redirect. Epicgenius (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As happened at Mark Bosnich here. That's just a lame attempt at POV-pushing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:DJSkippyB not engaging in discussions

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

---

DJSkippyB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had made continued edits to WP:WikiProject National Basketball Association-related articles that do not follow conventions used in the project's biographies, as well as those documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Article_guidelines#Infobox_highlights. The user's talk page has numerous discussions initiated by editors from 24 December 2013 to present that have not received any response from DJSkippyB. Also, all of DJSkippyB's edits have incorrectly been labelled as "minor", despite numerous warnings[119][120][121]. I even asked the user to acknowledge that they are seeing talk page notices, but have not heard anything. The user has been blocked for edit warring before, and I didn't find any talk page interaction from the the user back then either. This could be that DJSkippyB for whatever reason is not aware of their talk page requests. I've seen in these rare situations that the user is sometimes blocked from editing only until they acknowledge they are seeing their talk page OK. As an WP:INVOLVED admin, I am requesting an indefinite block until any response is received, as WP:AGF is in order if there really is a notification issue. Any other suggestions to resolve this are welcome as well.—Bagumba (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for disruptive editing (continuing to mark major edits minor) and not addressing TP concerns. Hopefully, it'll get their attention. Miniapolis 00:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User: Sbcho7

Sbcho7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to vandalises Australia national under-20 association football team, despited requests and warnings to cease on his talk page.--2nyte (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've warned them for edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Davidbena

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

---

I report User:Davidbena, a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, since refuses to obey WP:OR and WP:SYNTH after repeatedly being told to obey these rules, as manifest in lots of his recent edits at Talk:Gospel of Matthew (take a look at the talk page history and you will see him in action, too many edits to provide diffs).

The user was previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits. He later tried to propose some articles for creation, but they all had the same basic flaw: WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The link to the previous ANI is disturbing, since a topic ban was proposed, and four editors supported it, with none opposed. Was the topic ban ever enacted? If not, why not? Why didn't an admin ever close the discussion? StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There was never any reason to impose a topic ban against me, since when I was asked to desist from making suggestions on how to improve the article, I immediately stopped. Besides, I was a newbie at that time, with little experience.Davidbena (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer that, since I am not an administrator, but his OR articles are Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holy Incense and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yemenite Ketubba. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I report User:Tgeorgescu who has consistently been involved in tendentious editing, violating the policy of WP:TE in the Talk page of Gospel of Matthew. The facts there speak for themselves. I suggest a topic ban to this editor, who wantonly abrogates the rules laid out by Wikipedia, and under the pretenses that I am the villain here, when I have done nothing amiss, stands to be chastised for a lesson unto all those who act similarly. I propose that User:Tgeorgescu be banned from engaging and editing on Gospel of MatthewDavidbena (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, forget about me and count how many times other editors told you on Talk:Gospel of Matthew that original research isn't acceptable and how many times you begged to differ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when I was a newbie. But when I was asked to stop, I complied. Now the villain is you. You are obviously engaged in tendentious editing. I will insist on a topic ban for you.Davidbena (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if you show proof of my tendentious editing that's actually going to happen. But not if you cannot substantiate it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, you are unreasonable. Anyone looking at our exchanges on Talk "Gospel of Matthew" can see that you have been antagonistic and tendentious all along the way. I have nothing to do with your accusations since User:PiCo invited me to help mediate on the Gospel of Matthew Talk page. I came, not on my own volition, but by invitation.Davidbena (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why have you objected to the application of WP:OR and presented many original research arguments in that talk page and my own talk page, when you were specifically asked to present quotes from secondary sources? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of proof, I have to prove my point of how he answered other editors by indulging in original research and/or objecting to the very application of WP:OR, even though he was advised that original research is banned: [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137]. And this is a good one, since he shows awareness of the ban on original research: [138]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, he was a newbie in August, now it's February. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Tgeorgescu, I think your behaviour here could be construed as bullying. @Davidbena, my advice to you is to keep your cool and don't go hurling counter-accusations just because you feel you're being threatened. And my advice to all concerned is to drop it. PiCo (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I will not reply any more to his insults. What Tgeorgescu fails to realize is that WP:OR doesn't apply to Talk Pages when there was never any intent to have these personal statements published without verification and reliability. He (Tgeorgescu) has clearly gone-off into left field.Davidbena (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:PiCo: it were bullying if I was the only one telling him to desist from original research. User:Ignocrates also made clear there that he is collecting diffs having to do with WP:OR for arbitration. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

He stated:

Based on what I have read of their comments (e.g., see Nishidani's talk page), I think David and Ret.Prof intend to argue for the priority of primary sources on Wikipedia, i.e. they should have primacy over secondary sources because they are the authentic words of the Church Fathers, unadulterated by the interpretations of modern scholars. It should be an interesting debate in mediation and a pity it's privileged communication. I'm looking forward to it. Ignocrates (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And that is the very original research problem, made patently obvious in {{Religious text primary}}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena's scorn for contemporary scholarship is obvious at [139]. So, he quotes primary sources because he does not believe that verifiable information based upon secondary and tertiary sources would matter. But, in this respect, for Wikipedia secondary and tertiary sources are all that matter. Now, I am not saying that he has to agree with contemporary scholars, but he has to agree with Wikipedia rules and policies if he wants to edit here. And these rules say that contemporary scholarship is all that matters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This sort of thing is an abuse of the mediation process. I agree with user User:PiCo that Tgeorgescu's behavior is close to bullying. My advice to David is to keep your cool and don't go hurling counter-accusations just because you feel you're being threatened. And my advice to all concerned is to drop it. We must end the personal attacks. We must all focus on the content issues in good faith. As a sign of my good faith I apologize for anything I have done and pledge to focus only on the content. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My point was: he realized that he cannot win by secondary and tertiary sources so he tried to win by appealing to original research based upon primary sources. This is gaming Wikipedia and you tell me that I am a bully because I want Wikipedia policies be enforced. Well, if he does not abide by those policies, getting bullied by administrators is part of the package, since they have become administrators in order to enforce those policies. Those policies are not optional and they are not negotiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw my name pop up on an alert, so I will add my 2-pence here. The community should be aware that we are about to begin formal mediation on the content aspects of this dispute. A mediator has been assigned, and we are all waiting for the mediator to show up so that we can get underway. In that context, you might say this is all nervous energy; we are having a pre-mediation discussion on the talk page. That said, Tgeorgescu has a point. There is an obstinacy toward acknowleging aspects of WP:PSTS that is beginning to look like willful blindness, specifically the right way (and wrong ways) to use primary sources. This has already been explained repeatedly, with practical examples, over the course of months. My advice is similar to PiCo's; everyone calm down and let the mediator do his/her best to facilitate an acceptable outcome for everyone concerned. If mediation fails to resolve the problem, the conduct aspects of this dispute are headed to arbitration, where both Davidbena and Ret.Prof will be involved parties. Ignocrates (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Some original research could be allowed in talk pages in order to debunk small factual inaccuracies in reliable sources or in order to deny that a book or article is a reliable source. However, it does not follow that it could be employed to debunk the consensus view of mainstream scholarship. Wikipedia editors should not play scholar in talk pages, so deciding upon the scholarly consensus is a privilege reserved to scholars who live by publish or perish. Wikipedia editors simply do not make the call which scholar is right through citing evidence provided by primary sources. I have explained this over and over, other editors also did it, and I still got the idea that the reported used does not want to hear that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Baby boomers

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

---

71.93.51.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists upon adding "sucks" and "worst generation" claims to Baby boomers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) based on nothing more than Google search results and satirical articles. He's persisted in this behavior despite several warnings. I would greatly appreciate administrative assistance with this problem. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

They've shot WP:3RR to hell but weren't warned for it. I've added the appropriate notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's clear vandalism. Blocked for a week, hopefully he won't come back. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 04:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

erratic/abusive vendetta edits/commentary

Those familiar with my name here know how much I dislike the place and having to bring anything here; but re this I feel some action must be taken against User:PemGateway who has had vocal and hysterical responses to reversions of badly-written and uncited/sloppy material he inserted on Pemberton, British Columbia and Whistler, British Columbia. Though other editors have also reverted his work on those other pages, and he has railed against them and Wikipedia before, he has singled out me as his enemy now, and taken my comments on his off-the-wall addition to the Whistler article's climate section (Whistler is one of the rainiest places in BC, he maintains because of some travelogue/eco-bunk "citation" that it has pockets of the Sonoran Desert - which is ludicrous in the extreme). Noting I'd mentioned this as an issue on the Osoyoos article he headed over there and conducted the lengthy diatribe against me that serves no purpose, is disruptive, and attempts to rake over the coals and inflame the Sonoran Desert claim again (which has its origins in some badly-written tourism bumpf from the wine-region's marketing people based on an obscure botanical claim in one academic paper; in geography there is no question the Sonoran Desert ends at the Colorado River, over a thousand miles to the south). Suffice to say his additions to the Whistler and Pemberton article are often original research, poorly written, very POV and unencyclopedic in nature, and the name-calling he's aiming at me was used on other editors in the past re the Pemberton and Whistler articles.

I do not wish to engage him beyond having already removed his personal attacks and POV/SOAP assault against me; his newest post frets over "dozens of refs" being deleted (by User:Zefr, who cautions him to work things out in sandbox first and notes WP:PLAG with the content in question...come to think of it there was some COPYVIO/PLAG from him on the Whistler and Pemberton articles before...; perhaps that should not have been my place to do and they were of a TLNDR nature. The axe-grinding in his posts is wearisome, and uncalled for.

I hope the adminship in its wisdom can bring him to heel... junk "contributions" are one thing...name-calling and hysterics and article-stalking when those "contributions" are trimmed or reverted is another; "don't send a form letter or use ambiguous phrases pls" indicates a lack of understanding or willingness to understand Wikipedia guidelines, which are anything but vague. No doubt my reporting of this assault will wind up in him trying to maker me the issue, I will try to stay out of it. Mostly the problem is messy contributions and a lot of OR-type statements and sloppy writing/formatting...and apparently plagiarism also. The personal attacks were a step beyond all that, however... .Skookum1 (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In relation to a further edit comment/attack, I put this on the Whistler talkpage Talk:Whistler,_British_Columbia#WP:NPA_advice_to_User:PemGateway_re_edit_comments. Skookum1 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He also complained about me at the Teahouse, and I note that apparently even his initial post there was so chaotic one of the teahouse editors had to tidy it up to make it intelligible.Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem here is lack of competence. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've been at a loss as to how to deal with this editor - the additions are good faith, but very poor quality. The talk page commentary is over the top and hard to deal with. CambridgeBayWeather was making some progress on Talk:Whistler, but it's slow going. Skookum1 shouldn't have to deal with that sort of thing just because he did what needed to be done and reverted the changes. The Interior (Talk) 04:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PemGateway is a bit hard to deal with. As Skookum1 says they tend to insert OR, odd formatting, random capital letters, overlinking and so on. They seem to have understood some things but others not so much. Their writing tends to favour a more folksy style. I've tried to clear up some of the stuff but it is slow going. The talk page remarks to Skookum1 are not acceptable. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Blame my old eyes and the editor's formatting and syntax, but I haven't seen the vitriol. They haven't edited since yesterday--how about we just put them on notice that no further personal attacks are warranted and block immediately if they happen again? A competence block is a possibility still, though that might call for more evidence--diffs, diffs of efforts to explain, diffs of evidence that it didn't help. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bots breaking redirects

The bots DarknessBot and AvicBot stripped away about a dozen redirects that should have pointed to Fair use and pointed them to other pages instead. DarknessBot took one that was, I believe, wrongly pointing to "Fair Access Policy" instead of Fair Use and redirected it to Bandwidth cap. This makes sense, given possible confusion about which page the redirect should have gone to in the first place. However, AvicBot pointed a bunch of other links to Dumplings (film), which is obviously wrong.

I have resolved all of this to the best of my ability, but if AvicBot sent some redirects that should be pointing to Fair use to some other page, I have no idea how to track this down. Can someone please look into this?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

TI. Gracchus (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you make an attempt to resolve this problem by directly contacting the bot operators before bringing it here? ANI is generally reserved for issues that you've already tried to resolve yourself. The bot operators are User:Avicennasis and User:ShakingSpirit. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 05:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. The bot page suggested I come here to report problems, so that's what I did. Sorry for any confusion. TI. Gracchus (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The bot page says "Admins, click here to shut down the bot, non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." If the editor wanted the bot shut down for now (possibly reasonable if it's decided that Wikipedia links should, as a general rule, all devolve to the article Dumplings (film)), he came to right place. Even if he didn't want it shut down, or didn't know if it should be shut down or not, it does say "Non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" and that's really the first piece of advice you see, so the editor did what the page told him to do. Herostratus (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Then I would say that the advice on the bot's user page could be improved. Bot owners are responsible for their bots, they should receive and respond to any complaints about its behavior, and it should only rise to the level of ANI if the complaining editor and the bot operator can't come to an agreement, or if the bot is misbehaving so badly that it must be immediately blocked (in my opinion). Gracchus did nothing wrong. Hopefully, they can work it out on their own. If not, bring it here and involve more editors. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 03:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I'm currently trying to raise Avicennasis on his talk page. I'll talk to him about clarifying the instructions on the bot's page as well as trying to fix the dumpling issue. I'm sure that together we'll be able to get this all resolved. Again, thanks for the guidance! TI. Gracchus (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Calculator

Done, but in the future, please only use Megaparsecs as the S.I. distance measure, and Fathoms as the Imperial one. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The wikipedia home page can only be edited by administrators. The lede news item talks about Renaud Lavillenie's new world record in the pole vault and reads "with a mark of 6.16 metres (20.21 ft)." 20.21 ft is a meaningless number. It should read 20' 2½" WikiProject Athletics has a better calculator {{T&Fcalc|}} which achieves much more proper, understandable results. I'm requesting an admin to fix that. Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You could always learn the metric system, the international standard for athletics. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's really a most unhelpful and incollegial answer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The record is 6.16 metres. That's how international athletics does these things, and has for many decades. It is not 20.21 feet, or 20' 2½". This is a quality encyclopaedia, and should be reflecting the realities of the international world. I suspect that even Americans with a serious interest in athletics would have some idea of the metric measurements. For those who haven't, is a conversion really needed? HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48, you are welcome to come to Alabama and tell the local NRA chapter how some foreigner is going to tell all 'mericans how to do measurements. The reality is the United States makes up a large percentage of the English speaking world, what wikipedia.en is supposed to be serving. The average American has no clue what metric measurements mean, despite decades trying to get them to convert. So you can sit on your high horse and demand that 300 million people convert, again, or we can speak to them in a language they understand, which is why wikipedia has all the other language services. Trackinfo (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As an American I dispute this statement from Trackinfo. Perhaps the average American in Alabama has no idea what metric measurements mean, but that doesn't represent the entire country. The fact of the matter is, anyone working in a STEM field should be well acquainted and comfortable with it. Welcome to the 21st century. It's time to join it. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As someone working in a STEM field, let me assure that if we were trying to be pricks, we'd insist on using attoparsecs. If we weren't trying to be pricks, we'd be happy to use feet and inches. WilyD 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My reply consists of three words: Mars Climate Orbiter. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The "realities of the international world" are, as mentioned, that a large chunk of the English-speaking population (and thus the viewers of the English-language Wikipedia) will relate to feet and inches rather than meters; whether this is liked or not, that's how it is, and just having the meters reading would mean nothing to them. Therefore, a conversion is necessary, and if we're going to provide a conversion, a workable conversion is the one that should be provided. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously agreeing with Trackinfo that, even though it may not be ideal, Americans would not comprehend a decimal fraction of a foot? That it's not meaningful? HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should display as feet-and-inches instead of decimal feet, however I can't quite brain how to make {{convert}} not round to 20' 3". (Also, WP:ERRORS is the place for requests like this, for future reference). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We had the problem with the regular convert giving the improper answer for the sport. That is why User:SillyFolkBoy developed the T&F Calculator itemized above. Look at Pole vault#Men (indoor) to see how we use it. Trackinfo (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not expect to be doing this at ANI, but there is a newish feature:

• {{convert|6.16|m|ftin|frac=2}} → 6.16 metres (20 ft 2+1⁄2 in)

Template talk:Convert is good for answers. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So we have found another solution to the one I suggested. Lowly editors can't make the fix. Its been three hours. What does it take to get an admin to actually make the edit to the home page? Trackinfo (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

An admin needs to edit Template:In the news to insert "|frac=2" as shown in the convert above. The proper place to ask for that is at WP:Main Page/Errors (which is a link at top of this page). The discussion there is a bit jumbled I'm afraid. Let's try pinging The Bushranger. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

user:Mareklug's self-promo

Some days ago my attention has been driven towards an ongoing editwar @meta (link, revdeleted summary contains some insults to user:Odder): in short Mareklug was trying adding two pictures he made on a non-relevant page. This brought to an inconclusive discussion I had eventually to quit (same for a generous flood of insults via IRC). Also a similar situation seemed to happen on pl.wiki. Some days later I was involved in another incident @commons, which eventually brought to Mareklug being warned and another spam-target being editprotected. Finally I found lots of self-added link/citation about Mareklug added by himself here, at en.wiki. Se 1 (this one already removed by user:Kaini), 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. He seems to be trying meeting WP:GNG via Wikimedia's sites (cfr.). The most absurd thing is how he claims everyone opposing that promo has a COI in doing it while I think we were even too polite in handling a kind of self-promo which would had quickly brought a newcomer to a global lock. Contribs are not a ticket for promo. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COS says it all. There's a conflict of interest here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

<moved to below after heavy edits, so it is a new piece, please re-address it> --Mareklug ^talk 13:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You still claim your contribs might allow you to self-promote. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Disregarding your list of accomplishments above, I must say I agree with User:Vituzzu. Even if you were notable (which I seriously doubt), there are some real COI-related issues here which should be reason enough for you to stay away from adding your own name. This is especially valid if someone is already working on an article about you as you claim here. Bjelleklang - talk 13:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

This is the second noticebord dear ex-IRC friend Vito has seen fit haul my butt to, in a span of a few days. He is mischaracterizing my contributions and edits. I think his say here, and there, constitutes a very biased and personally virulently unfriendly to my edits assessment, and as a steward, he lords it over me lately with, dare I say, aplomb. Meanwhile, I did the following, aside from all the nasty, global-block worthy (snicker) offenses:

1. Wrote a BLP for the first Hopi silversmith to be described on the English Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. His uncle has a stub, but the uncle's chops as great silversmith in addition to being a scholar go unmentioned there.
2. Discovered the need to blue-link commesso (art technique), which heretofore existed as italicized plain text mention in some obscure art/architecture article.
3. Lacking time and RSes to outright write that article, I soft-redirected it for now to Commons: better that than reader having no clue what commesso work looks like.
4. Searched Commons cleverly for "inlay work", "commesso", "mosaic", and found ...commesso!
5. Pooled what I found into a new category on Commons that I created and correctly situated, making the soft-redirect from our project to it possible.
6. Found an ill-begotten talk page proposition on Commons that a work be removed form a Navajo jewlery gallery because it is a ...Hopi counterfeit/gloss/aping whatever.
7. Improved the description on Commons of that work to make it understandable what it is, and why it is not a Hopi silver piece.
8. Refactored the talk page in question and reposted that info there, as well.
9. Submitted the BLP I wrote and continue to improve to DYK.
10. Removed it temporarily from DYK as the comments I wrote there are stale now, and no one commented on it yet, anyway. To be relisted soon.
11. Uploaded media that illustrates the BLP person's work, a bolo tie I own, having bought it from the BLP person after a week-long residence among the Hopi in 1988.
12. wrote e-mail off-site with cc: to three OTRS authorities (one of whom replied instantly cc:'ing everyone, including the scholar I wrote to requesting free-license portrait of the BLP person, "Never write me again, Tomasz"). This e-mail letter may produce a rare photo for our use and for Commons of a living silversmith anyway, assuming the scholar does not get put-off by intra-Wikipedia squabbling in public. Living person, so no free use applies.
13. Engaged in constructive if sometimes acrimonious discussions on-topic on IRC on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-commons and entirely friendly on #wikipedia-pl (with tar_salceson).

Did not edit for many hours, being busy in real life.

As far as Vito's vituperation, my added media on meta were 2 on-topic images illustrating the humor page meta:How to deal with Poles -- one for "Tea Who You Yeah Bunny" joke and one for the "Polish Cabal" joke. Ironically, the second is actually ...true to life and not at all a joke anymore. :(

I would like odder and Vituzzi (Vito) to please explain to me, so that I may understand, how my adding humor to a humor page, humor that further elaborates the humor already present there in an on-topic way, constitutes adding "nonsense", "self-promotion", and "is spamming". Just so that I can avoid these nasty transgressions in the future, assuming I shan't be stoned to death in the interim and that there will be future, of course. Because, you see, assuming good faith, which is what odder and Vito have failed to do in my case (Vito persecutes me on noticeboards and stalks my edits throughout WMF projects, taking out mentions/red links as "self-promo" and "non-notable"), while odder tells me to never send him mail ever again (he is the OTRS and he gave me that email address in person in PM on IRC 2 days ago), and asks publicly on IRC #wikimedia-pl if I am "off my meds", end of quote, without being as much as publicly chastised, never mind, kicked off the channel or, as should happen, stripped of his bits as bureaucrat and sysop for acting not like one should. Because, dear Wikipedians, that sort of behavior cannot be brooked, and is beyond pale. I suggest Vito redirects his efforts and deals with it.

Cordially, --Mareklug ^talk 12:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. Adding my link that happens to be factual link to an actual lecture given on the subject of translating the poet to whose article I added it to, a link that enhances the article's external links, seems to be allowed explicitly within the COI write-up, no? I just read it there.

I must confess that the whole COI thing as conceived of and executed or persecuted in my case has me baffled, and that I understand it, and my transgressions, very poorly: I thought COI had to do with Sara Stierch working for WMF and drawing a salary while putting in favorable content into Wikipedia about a BLP person, while collecting $300 for doing so.

Now, I am not being paid for adding a sentence describing what Doug Hofstadter and I have published in Scientific American, or what I have over many years translated in contemporary Polish poetry, all pro bono work. Jesus.

So. Are you guys really thinking this through? And how is COI or spamming the same as adding on-topic HUMOR to a HUMOR page? It takes a very unfriendly reading of the situation to conclude that it does.

Please. Let sanity return. In any case, please advise me what you want me to do and not to do, specifically in the context of my edits -- and I have been editing here since 2002 anonymously and 2005 as Mareklug -- so, you know, chances are I am not the pernicious spammer and globally blockable offender the steward has me for, or the psychiatric case the OTRS handler/bureaucrat/sysop (on Commons) does.

...

Sincerely,

--Mareklug ^talk 13:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. I am notable, of course, subject to future Article for Deletion proceedings. user:ToAruShiroiNeko is preparing my BLP for March 2014 unveiling. :) I am the first author to propose a motility-based artificial chemistry tiling for artificial life computation. See ALIFE1, Proceedings of the 1st Artificial Life Workshop, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1987, published as refereed book chapter by Santa Fe Institute Series in the Science of Complexity, Addison-Wesley, 1989, here as a link for your perusal in galley-format (pages seem out of order until you print them out and assemble them as a book): https://www.dropbox.com/s/q3sj0mnwy2mf0ha/ComMet_paper_ALIFE1%20reduced%20smallest%20size%20Adobe.pdf I am also notable as editor, poet, writer, and critic, but I will let others make that RS'ed. Cordially, --Mareklug ^talk 13:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mareklug: You shouldn't be inserting your own name into other articles. I don't think there's any call for administrative sanction here, but knock it off, ok? If you're all that and a bag of chips, someone else will eventually put your name in the articles where it needs to go. Just be patient. Garamond Lethet
c 14:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That was very sensibly put, Garamond Lethe. Thank you for lucidity. I can live with that. --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Insults on IRC? Why don't you present them here as evidence? Oh, that's right, you can't. If you willingly participate in a corrupt abuse zone, then expect to get abused. Don't bother bringing it up here, because exposing anything that happens on IRC is forbidden by the WMF and its functionaries. They're institutionally wedded to it, despite fiercely denying that at every opportunity. — Scott • talk 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now now, IRC is not as bleak as you put it. I get a lot of joy out of it, and helping people there, or sparring, as the case may be, and getting help myself, as today from Nick Burse about cleaning up noise from a dusty scan. Be that as it may be, I only object to nonlinear behavior: odder gives me tons of email addresses, including his own, in PM, and is generally friendly, only to turn opposite in a span of literally a day (!), removes on-topic humor from a humor page (!!!! calls it nonsense. Well, fuck me with a stick, is it not nonsense to begin with? It is FUNNY nonsense, and I made it funnier. But no..... it is "nonsense". :/ -- and then goes over the line acting not like a Wikimedian with bits but an immature idiot -- insulting me as a mental case off my meds.... I dunno... this is... strange. --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Garamond Lethe: unfortunately there seems to be an ongoing parodying, so we will likely have to deal with that matter in a few weeks. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Vito, what are you saying????? Are you claiming now that I edit by proxy and sock? You have no evidence for that if only because I never have. Vito, wake up! --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• The COI is pretty clear in one article I've looked at, Agnieszka's Dowry. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  Like I already said, I have no clue what is this COI you speak of, except when Sarah takes (paltry) bling for inserting positive spiel normale into some BLP. Please note that Agnieszka's Dowry, the article, was written, submitted, and more or less sourced several years before COI became the in-vogue scarlett letter at Wikipedia. We are the knights who say COI. We seek shrubbery. Please keep your head about you, as in try to assess my contributions in context. Please do not do so anachronistically, i.e. by engaging in time travel, ok? Ok. Carry on. For what it is worth, I promise not to add Marek Lugowski to anything ever again. I do not promise to stick around as a member of the Community, however. There are oodles of other causes that beg for my resources like dogs for bacon, and there is even a new suit dress-up job as an insurance sales agent (I always fancied cross-dressing, you know, geek in a $650 J.o.s suit) about to become licensed by state of Illinois and immediately hired by a certain company with name rights to a great basketball arena. So... Vito, that one is on your dime. And on yours, dear unstable odder. Btw, two dimes make two bits, in case you furriners did not know that. I serve to edify. Always. --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your conflict of interest is obvious. You're the editor of that magazine. Bringing up some other person means nothing, and when the article was submitted means nothing either. Scarlet letter or not, a conflict of interest has always been a conflict of interest, though I will grant you the "more or less" in "more or less sourced", and I assessed that contribution as I would any other. Good luck with the new job. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, kind sir. I certainly did not mean to imply that you are a Vito or, gack, an odder. You have been a true gentleman, if not exactly a scholar. :) I hope to tell my new clients about Wikipedia, so they may come in and edit some. --Mareklug ^talk 04:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bigpoliticsfan and WP:NOTVAND

Bigpoliticsfan (talk · contribs) is consistantly calling things vandalism that are either WP:NOTVAND, content disputes, or just plain good edits. Here are some examples, dated only from after my first warning to this user 19:52, 15 February 2014. [140], [141], [142], [143].

There are numerous other examples, the minority of which can be found on this user's talk page.

Thank you for your attention. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I clicked on each of those four links. for three of them, I see no mention of vandalism. The fourth is this. You may be right about this one: saying in the context of a description of the weather that "record low colour= violet" looks less like vandalism than mere adolescent silliness. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think modifying a non-used parameter in a template is vandalism, given that it's obviously not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You don't think "last clean version," states that there was vandalism? Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that "last clean version" need imply vandalism. It may instead come before bad edits that were well intended. I may screw up a (Wikipedia-unrelated) file on my own computer in some way and then revert to the "last clean version" I have backed up somewhere; this wouldn't mean that I'd vandalized anything. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you review the specific changes that caused the earlier version to be "dirty?" Do you think those edits caused "dirtiness?" Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to allow Bigpoliticsfan to respond to this first, but I have to agree with Hipocrite that a Twinkle revert to "last clean version" is implying vandalism. Generally speaking, when we revert an edit on Wikipedia that was good faith, it's customary to note that we're reverting a good faith (but mistaken) edit. Not mentioning anything in an edit summary is an implication that what we're reverting was a (willfully) improper edit of some kind. The default implication, unless clearly stated otherwise, for a revert is that you're removing something "bad", generally vandalism. This isn't just an observation on my part, WP:REVEXP makes the same suggestion. If nothing else, Bigpoliticsfan seriously needs to improve communication when making reverts, but I suspect that this editor is actually misidentifying vandalism which is disruptive behavior. -- Atama頭 22:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Bigpoliticsfan and removed talk page access for referring to an edit as "dirty". I'm joking, obviously. Surely there must be something better to do on Wikipedia than hound new editors and issue threats on their talk page if they don't comply with your demands to reword their edit summaries? I would say that it is Hipocrite who needs to improve communication when issuing warnings to users. In my experience, threatening to get a user's permissions removed is a great way to get someone to completely ignore you. Perhaps a better strategy would be to calmly and politely explain why it's important to avoid mislabeling an edit as vandalism, and point out the harm that such behavior than cause, rather than busting the door down with your gun drawn and your Internet Police badge prominently displayed, shouting "Ok buddy, where's the vandalism here? How about here? You better answer me now or I'm gonna take you downtown to the station!" ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 04:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How long after my first ignored question about what vandalism they were identifying did I threaten to go after their advanced permissions, exactly? How many months and ANI trips do you need before you aren't "new" anymore? Where did I ask anyone to block anyone? I think you've jumped to conclusions. Oh - and don't worry - the erroneous reverts continue, so the "new" user in question has succesfully gotten over my Internet Policing. I'll leave that to the professionals like you in the future. I forgot what a cesspit this place was. Hipocrite (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My impression of Bigpoliticsfan is that theu editor is a very eager, very well-meaning editor who often acts too hastily. I got that impression by noting the numerous warnings on their talk page. Initially, a notice about prematurely adding information to an article before it was verified by a reliable source. Then, a rash of page protection requests that were all declined, as well as inappropriate (but well-meaning) comments made to RFPP requests. Then, a large number of GA nominations (labeled as "drive-by" nominations) which eventually led to a block warning (but no block). Next, a number of inappropriate deletion tags that led to multiple warnings. This recent spate of inaccurate reverts is just the latest round of mistakes from someone who has leaped into the fray before learning the ropes. I also see that this is at least the third AN/I thread about Bigpoliticsfan's disruptive contributions to the encyclopedia, all of which stem from eagerly jumping into something without knowing what they're doing.

Again, this is all well-intentioned. And I think Bigpoliticsfan is trying their best to improve the encyclopedia in one way or another. With experience, hopefully there will be less of a "bull in a china shop" result. There's just a lot of mistakes made in many areas over this editor's 8 month editing period. Maybe a good solution for them is to pick just one area to start with, take it slowly, take the time to learn the policies and guidelines related to their area of interest, and build up some expertise in that area before moving on? That's what I tried to do, with PRODs, CSDs, AfDs, mediation, COI, and other specialty areas. I don't think they need any punitive action, just some guidance and time. I certainly hope that they take the time to participate in this discussion. -- Atama頭 08:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't glance at "the specific changes that caused the earlier version to be 'dirty'". You gave four diffs; I quickly looked at each. Only one mentioned vandalism, and this characterization was indeed debatable. Bigpoliticsfan is using Twinkle. I have never used this myself, but Wikipedia:Twinkle tells us Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Aha! It's an anti-vandalism tool, therefore its very use implies that what it's used on is vandalism. So you may be onto something here. But wait: the very first sentence of that tells us Twinkle is a set of JavaScript functions that [assists] in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks, and to help [users] deal with acts of vandalism. The implication here is that Twinkle is not only for vandalism. ¶ Yet I one-third agree with Atama: people should give a reason for reverting when this reason isn't blazingly obvious. And I two thirds agree with Scottywong. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive account, copying another's talk and user pages, impersonating an administrator

Troll-B-Gon applied.- The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nothing more to see here. m.o.p 18:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Matreialscientist (talk · contribs) See username and edits. JNW (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Locked by me, then not worth a local block. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Perhaps user and talk pages should be removed as copies of Materialscientist's, with a disruptive intent. JNW (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Whoops, only just seen this (after issuing the unnecessary local block). I also took the liberty of deleting the userpages. Interested parties might find they want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Presbitow; I also recall seeing User:Callenecc and one or two other impersonation accounts doing the round recently. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for blocking the latest incarnation, and for protecting the page [144]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Should we notify Materialscientist? Chris857 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC) No; it's been dealt with, if they were the target of intentional trolling not disturbing them at all denies the troll recognition. NE Ent 16:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multi-user account

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

---

In this edit an editor, TrappedFan says in violation of NOSHARE, "I myself am not a single person, but rather a host of wikipedians who use this account to add to Trapped!" ANI notice given. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty unambiguous no-no. We do not allow shared accounts, and this isn't an implication, this is a declaration of a shared account. Not to mention the repeated insertion of original research. I'm going to block this editor indefinitely until there's a declaration that the account is only used by an individual. Per WP:ROLE, 'Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts", or accounts shared by multiple people, are as a rule forbidden and blocked'. -- Atama頭 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Good block. WP:ROLE is unambiguous. --John (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible block evasion

User talk:94.173.7.13 is currently blocked for 31 hours as a result of an edit warring boomerang at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sabrebd & User:camerojo reported by User:94.173.7.13 (Result: IP blocked), but continues to post from another IP account as User talk:93.186.31.96. However, this other IP account predates the block as does another IP account at User talk:93.186.23.100. I am not sure if this counts as block evasion, but if the editor can just avoid it through using multiple accounts then the block has no force.--SabreBD (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

Could anyone check on edits made by user User:87.9.140.95 Seems a bit disruptive – religiously motivated? --Catflap08 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here - there's nothing disruptive in these edits (many are just link fixes), and I see no particular attempt to push a religious agenda. Can I ask why you didn't make any attempt to discuss this with the editor before bringing the issue here, as the notice at the top of this pages asks you to? Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I informed the user as said above. Simply deleting information out of articles, pictures graphics especially dealing with islam is a bit strange I think. Normally one would discuss that on the talk page first. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

s/(Bosnian|Croatian|Serbian)/Serbo-Croatian/g

The trigger for this discussion are these entries from the history of the article Tuone Udaina:

• 08:22, 19 February 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,134 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (Undid revision 596114359 by Joy (talk) it incorrectly suggests to naive readers that there is a language called 'Croatian', but there isn't, merely a standardized register)
• 02:06, 19 February 2014‎ Joy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,147 bytes) (+13)‎ . . (no, it doesn't suggest anything false, you're reading too much into a very simple and common moniker, Undid revision 595568445 by JorisvS (talk))
• 11:00, 15 February 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,134 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (→‎top: it's "Krk" in the entire language, not just in the Croatian standard register; saying "Croatian" suggests things to readers that are false)
• 19:45, 14 February 2014‎ Joy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,147 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (gratuitous use of genetic linguistics terminology on an article tangentially related to that language - unlikely to attract anything other than trolls, Undid revision 592676462 by JorisvS (talk))
• 20:08, 27 January 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,091 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (entire lang)

JorisvS (talk · contribs) is one of the linguistics editors who regularly uses the term Serbo-Croatian, a piece of genetic linguistics terminology that is nowadays considered démodé, and a non-trivial part of the speakers of that language consider it offensive, annoying, flamebait, whatever, because in the real world practically all you hear about is Bosnian language, Croatian language, Serbian language. The Serbo-Croatian terminology is maintained on the linguistics articles, because the linguistics editors have an organic consensus that it's the right thing to do, that the right sources support it. It is nevertheless done with a considerable amount of effort, as this issue appears to be very contentious for a bunch of people, and it comes up in the topic area almost constantly - the reverts and discussions about it are practically incessant.

That uneasy consensus is in turn propped up by another organic consensus which is that there's no normalization of linguistic terminology across the entire set of articles that mention those languages - for example, in an article about a Serbian village, we don't replace "Serbian" with "Serbo-Croatian". This is mainly because the encyclopedia describes, it doesn't prescribe - if the preponderance of sources about a topic are using the "Serbian" terminology, and there's no real reason to use something else as there's no reason to force the controversy to spill over into another topic area.

Tuone Udaina is a biography about a person who was the last speaker of a neighborly language; it's not a core linguistics article and it's not an article about Serbo-Croatian. The changes above are problematic because this could be a slippery slope into encyclopedia-wide changes from "(Bosnian|Croatian|Serbian)" to "Serbo-Croatian". That would be most unhelpful, because I would posit that it would lead to nothing constructive, just more vandalism and more endless discussions, and any perceived benefit to readers would pale in comparison. In effect, the main effect of such changes would be to create more work for everyone, because after all it'd be a lot of fiddly little changes and a lot of diffs to read for recent changes/watchlist watchers.

I believe that this falls under the anti-advocacy provisions of WP:ARBMAC, but I don't want to enforce that because it hasn't escalated and because I'd be easily perceived as involved.

I've warned JorisvS previously about similar kinds of changes at User talk:JorisvS#Croatian. Sadly, there was little effect.

I'm looking for explicit community consensus here that we're not going down this slippery slope, and a nod from other administrators that they'll be on the lookout for excess contentious search'n'replace in the topic area. Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is clear consensus at the English Wikipedia, per the reliable sources, that there is a common language of Croatia, Serbia etc. and that it is called "Serbo-Croatian", the POV-motivated influx of emotional locals notwithstanding. This consensus is reflected in the articles about the standardized languages (Croatian, Serbian etc. and in the main article itself, Serbo-Croatian). Aside from misguided emotions of locals (which would make a rather silly reason), why would one specifically indicate a "Croatian" or "Serbian" term for something if it is the same in the entire language, i.e. Serbo-Croatian. I can't think of one. In fact, I'd say making explicit reference to the standard forms makes naive readers (for whom it is all too easy to think of a one-to-one correspondence of language and country) think that these are somehow distinct, or at least consider that there exists an independent "Croatian language" (which is incorrect). Maybe they'll be somewhat surprised seeing "Serbo-Croatian" and think 'what is that?', but that is what the link to the article is for, and in the end this will better inform our readers. --JorisvS (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruption of discussions by Ronz

Ronz (talk · contribs) keeps disrupting discussions at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming by diverting them to things which are only peripherally related. In the latest incident he is terminating a discussion at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Put in something about the notability of the topic by insisting that a discussion about renaming the article Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Rename and refocus to List of scientists that the media have used to inappropriately "balance" discussions of climate change is a continuation of it by putting its title in three ='s rather than two. My split [145] his turning into a subtalk [146], my revert [147], he does it again [148]. He has been warned just recently that one should avoid disruption there [149] so could someone tell him a bit more forcefully to just stop it thanks and allow just one discussion to actually come to a conclusion on thee page without jumping onto something else. Dmcq (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Gundulić

I am getting overrun on this article by several Croatian nationalists. Gundulić is listed among "100 Greatest Serbs" (100 најзнаменитијих Срба, Београд,1993.г.) by the Serbian Academy of Sciences, and his works (as are the works of other Old Ragusan writers) are considered part of Serbian literature by Matica srpska, which is the chief Serbian cultural institutions and has recently included Gundulić (among others) in their 200+-volume series of the most prominent Serbian writers from the earliest days to present. I've categorized added him also as a Serbian poet, and his language as Serbian, but my edits get reverted all the time [150] (also see the entire edit history). Gundulić himself to my knowledge never professed his ethnicity/nationality because at that time Croatian nation wasn't yet "constructed" and Republic of Ragusa was an independent entity. Older sources categorize him as a Serbo-Croatian or Serbian writer (such as 1911 Britannica), but after the dissolution of Yugoslavia Croatian side claims exclusivity on the entire Old Ragusan literature on the basis of territorial coverage (Dubrovnik is now in Croatia), while the Serbian side simply continues as it did before. This is simply POV-pushing by Croatian editors. Also: Croatian Wikipedia article claims that he was ethnic Croatian writer, while Serbian Wikipedia article claims that he was an ethnic Serb. Those two POV-s can be reconciled easily by dual categorization and dual language used in the infobox like in many other articles on writers of e.g. both Croatian and Serbian ancestry (or Serbs living in Croatia, or Croats living in Serbia), but Croatian editors insist that he's exclusively Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)