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

Requesting Edit Prevention: Impersonation of an Admin by technopat

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

---

In summary, @75.162.179.246: any editor, admin or otherwise, may warn another for policy violations, edit warring, disruption, personal attacks etc. Admins will take those warnings into consideration when using their mops. @Technopat: is advised that edit warring over warnings is a bad idea. To the IP,, "they" and "them" can be used in the neutral genderless singular form as well. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)}}

Non-admin technopat (talk) seems to think you've given him/her some kind of "admin." privileges, even though there's a place on his/her talk page about admins that shows that he/she is not one. But she/he still thinks s/he can falsely accuse me of "vandalizing Wikipedia" by erasing her/his own so-called "warning" from my own talk page. I've been told by more than one admin. that erasing stuff from--even emptying--your own talk page is acceptable. So you need to stop this guy from acting all "admin" when he/she 1. isn't one, and 2. doesn't even know the right things to warn about in the first place.

I've written technopat up on his or her own talk page for this behavior:

user talk:Technopat#You're not an admin. 75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Any editor can leave a warning on your talk page over problems with your editing. The only difference between an admin and a regular editor is that an admin has been trusted with additional tools. The only thing Technopat shouldn't have done was restore the warning after you deleted it. But that isn't actionable because it hasn't reached the level of an edit war. —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the worst report ever to land at ANI. Technopat has done nothing wrong, any user can leave a warning. In response to that one warning, the IP has has done eleven edits to Technopat's talk page, six edits to WP:EF to complain about it and now ANI. All of them with absolutely no reason. The IP may be in good faith, but Ignorantia juris non excusat disruption of this kind. Give the OP a 24h block for harassment of Techopat to take some time to cool down.Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Jeppy, t'pat DID do some wrong things. See below: 75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I type slowly, so much of this has been said. However, Technopat was not acting as/impersonating an admin; any editor can leave warning templates. As I see it:

• You've been edit warring with 3 other editors at Acronym. Don't do that.
• You called another editor an idiot. Don't do that.
• Technopat warned you about it. Anyone can do that.
• You blanked the warning. You can do that.
• Technopat reverted your blanking. He shouldn't have done that.
• Technopat warned you for the blanking. He shouldn't have done that.
• You have blitzed his talk page and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports multiple times. Don't do that.

So this is solved by (a) you not calling other editors names, (b) reminding Technopat people can blank notices on their talk pages, (c) you blanking your talk page if you want to, (d) you leaving Technopat's talk page alone, and (e) politely discussing the issue at the article on Talk:Acronym. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We really need to have imposed 2 new policies, then: 1. that admins are all clearly identified (no "unmarked police cars"), and that 2. only admin-badged writers can give (even have access to--so you'd have to change the way the templates are accessed) any kind of official (or official-looking) warning.

That's because it looks like the artificial "power" that some experienced NON-admin writers seem to think they have gets to their heads! I really don't like the idea of thinking I'm having to bend under the pressure of someone who, at first, looks like an admin, only to later discover that they're just some bossy schmuck with no authority!

How would you like to be pulled over by dome dimwit with fake cop lights on their car, only to then find out that they have NO police authority? I don't know *anyone* who would tolerate that. EXACTLY my point!

The only kind of warning I want from a non-admin is one that carries no official markers of any kind, but could only be something like "If you keep doing this, then I might report you," to which I could then reply with the same little bit of force, "If you do that again, then I'll report *you.*"

• "You're not the boss of me!"

I'm still hoping someone will answer me about why technopat gets a pass for warring back, even if he technically "didn't break the 3RR"(/24H) rule! Why?

75.162.179.246 (talk)

No, that's the beauty of the community: there's no hierarchy. Every member in the community has the responsibility to teach and/or warn others when their behaviour is going outside community boundaries. Every member of the community likewise has the responsibility to respond to those warnings appropriately. You agreed to it when you arrived the panda ₯’ 10:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And technopat did NOT "get a pass" - they're now fully aware, and they know that action can be taken in the future should it recur. the panda ₯’ 10:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I've been asked to "admit" my error in restoring the warning I posted for the two insulting edit summaries left at the article where the user was edit-warring with several other users ([1] & [2]). Fine, I'll admit it's my error. Hope that makes everyone else happy, 'cos I'm left with the unpleasant feeling that while some folks can get to do whatever they like in terms of disruptive editing, including repeatedly restoring content that is plain wrong (this is an encyclopedia) and escalating matters by maligning and insulting users, even at this very ANI, others have to turn a blind eye and simply get on with maintenance. On top of which I been warned that "they know that action can be taken in the future should it recur". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, Panda? Well then why wasn't an edit-warring warning given to him/her (not "them," since that's a plural form--well, someone else suggested just "him" as if they already knew this was a guy) at the same time as I got one? If supposed "edit-warring" is only accused of to the *first* person who changes something repeatedly, but not to the one who edit-wars it back repeatedly, then what's the criteria for determining that only the guy with the *new* changes should be thrown the "edit-warring" warning? Just because the old version had been sitting there longer? Or just because there was a consensus for the old way but not the new way? Then why do we even *have* public editability if every older version is the one with the supposed "consensus" and it "should not be touched," and if it is touched repeatedly in a new way, then only *that* person gets the "warring" warning but the person assuming that the "only right version" is the old one does *not* get the same warning for warring it *back*?

75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring case you brought against them was dismissed because they did not violate 3RR. The solution to editing disputes when changing things like you did in Acronym is to solve them on the talk page of the article. Not act the way you have so far including filing this frivolous ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so now breaking 3RR is suddenly "the only kind of edit-warring"? What about the kind of edit-warring that doesn't break 3RR, which this page actually includes?

PLUS, nobody has, as of yet, told me why technopat did not get the same general (non-3RR) edit-warring warning as I did. Why is that? And then how was *my* report so "frivolous" if you're not considering technopat's as that way (remember, you can still be edit-warring without breaking 3RR)?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikibullying and disruptive editing

Admin intervention may be required to look into possible Wikibullying and a wide variety of disruptive edits and page move warring from the following editor: RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These issues have been going on for several months now, and the editor in question has received numerous warnings about her conduct on Wikipedia. On the 11 October, she posted this angrily worded message on my talk page. Other problematic edits include removing maintenance templates without stating a reason for doing so. Not using edit summaries, although that is a minor issue. Move warring on articles. I even offered to assist the editor so that she may learn what Wikipedia is all about, and an administrator has warned her a few times for her disruptive behaviour. However, she continues to take no notice and does things in her own way without taking into consideration of the consequences she may be getting herself into. So I would appreciate if an administrator would kindly intervene and take any action that is necessary. Thank you. Wes Mouse 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wes Mouse, please don't revert other people's user talk pages like this. Any warning message may be removed by those who received it which is seen as evidence that they have also read the warnings per WP:TPO. Only truly administrative notes like block messages and the like have to remain visible for their relevant duration. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had undone that, as I had clicked the revert by accident. Doing two things at once got me distracted. Sorry. Wes Mouse 17:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I had clicked cancel, and assumed it had done so. Oh heck! And now it won't let me undo it. Wes Mouse 17:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done it for you. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is ever so kind of you. Wes Mouse 17:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

After looking into the edit history of RebeccaTheAwesomeXD I wouldn't speak of bullying. A single note directed at Wes Mouse saying that Rebecca would get angry is hardly a case of bullying and I wouldn't even call it incivil. Still, Rebecca needs to communicate more with other editors and should try to learn more about Wikipedia's manual of style and procedures (article naming conventions, uploading of media, etc.). Given the multitude of warnings she has received so far by editors other than Wes, I would think that a tutorial is a good idea, but it takes two to tango and the future tutor should probably not be Wes Mouse. All in all I fail to see bad faith in Rebecca's edits and I'm wondering whether her edits have become so disruptive as to warrant a block, so what should we do here?

I do see a problem though with Wes Mouse's edits, too. E.g. this removal of a section that announced an uncontroversial YouTube video without hotlinking, or the frequent interaction at music articles started by Rebecca and the massive templating of her talk page which might look like haunting (for the record: I do template the regulars), even though I'm convinced that Wes is only trying to help Rebecca become a better editor. Perhaps a voluntary interaction ban for, say, a month would do the trick of getting Rebecca to cooperate with other editors. What do others think? De728631 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

An interaction ban might be more difficult than one imagines, as we both edit the same genre of articles as well as on the same WikiProject, plus I also write the newsletter for Project Eurovision to which Rebecca would be in receipt of. In regards to the tutorial, I had hoped that Rebecca would seek the adoption process, despite the fact that I also offered myself. Naturally I would not have forced myself to tutoring Rebecca in the event she did want to take that option. However, the matter is a lot more complexed than one may be aware of. Discussions have taken place on several user's talk pages regarding the editing pattern - and a few editor's including an administrator agreed to keep an eye on Rebecca's contributions for a period of time. Such discussions include one in my archive and one in CT Cooper archive. Don't get me wrong, as some contributions that Rebecca has made are excellent, and shows potential of becoming an outstanding Wikipedian. But others that have caused problems and tensions between some project Eurovision members, have been worrying. For example, media related incidents, not abiding to verifiability, changing dates of birth on BLP articles without checking sources. Also removing speedy deletion tags and other maintenance tags for no apparent reason, nor using the edit summary or article talk pages to explain her reasons. When she gets asked about them, she just ignores people - and yes that can be frustrating at times. Wes Mouse 18:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As for seeing a problem with this removal, I see no problem whatsoever, as it was done based on the guidance at WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. Plus Rebecca added the entire chuck without any citations to verify what she added. So challenging unsourced material is now problematic? Isn't sourcing content the core policy that binds Wikipedia together? Wes Mouse 18:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Making comments like this one is by far more problematic and again removing maintenance tags that are there for a valid reason. Wes Mouse 18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca often edits constructively, but this overshadowed by inappropriate behaviour and a general unwillingness to communicate and work with other editors, even if I wouldn't go as far as to call it wiki-bullying. Responses to Rebecca's edits may not have been perfect at times, but an interaction ban is over-the-top at this point and probably wouldn't help matters. I think the best strategy going forward is compassion and patience. I understand why people find Rebecca's actions frustrating, but my impression looking over her edits is that she is slowly heeding warnings. If there are further problematic edits then non-templated warnings should be issued, with a block only given only as a final resort in the event it becomes clear that she isn't listening. CT Cooper · talk 14:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment, CT. That sounds like a good solution to me. It may take a while and a lot more patience but in the end it will probably work. That said, I don't see a need for immediate administrative intervention either. By the way, Wes, I don't think there was anything wrong regarding WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos because Rebecca didn't embed a video file nor post a link while that project guideline even allows for linking to official releases on Youtube. And imo you only need inline citations for controversial content. Verifiability can be a quick search at Youtube or Google. But then that's my personal preference. De728631 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The bullying here does not seem to come from Rebecca, and I think Wesley should remember the spirit of WP:BITE and think twice before reverting constructive edits, even when imperfect. I've restored the music video info and sourced it/linked to the official videos, following the guidelines at WP:SONG#Lyrics. I'm also deeply troubled by Wesley's comments on CT Cooper's talk last month: he concluded from some "profiling" methods that Rebecca's probably a minor, which leads to this tasteful quote: "It is becoming well-known these days that females under a certain age start to behave nastily and will go to any extreme to cause distress to people who "target" them". Beyond the underlying sexism that our friends over at the WP:GGTF will no doubt appreciate, I think this form of thinking goes 100% against WP:AGF and drives many editors away from his area of expertise/control around the Eurovision project, if not from Wikipedia altogether. For these reasons, I would ask uninvolved administrators to warn Wesley Mouse that such an attitude will lead to sanctions. 82.236.1.237 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly why has 82.236.1.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) poked their nose in something that they have no involvement in or not even connected with? And secondly, the comments at CT Cooper's talk page were in an observational context, so why twist such remarks out of context, when you have no clue in what context they were being made. Thirdly, the spirit of WP:BITE, means not to bite newcomer's; Rebecca isn't a newcomer; she's been a registered user for almost a year, and should at least have a basic knowledge of what Wikipedia is all about, including its rules, policies, and guidelines. If content is added without citations, then it may be challenged by adding {{cn}} or removing the content. On a few occasions, I would add sources myself, only because I had recently read such a source connected to content that had not been sourced. When adding new content to an article, the onus on citing their content with verified and reliable sources, is really on the editor who adds the content - not on other editor's to follow behind with a dustpan and brush sweeping up the crumbs left behind. And that attitude to strongly urge admins to ban me is unacceptable, as you do not know me, nor know the full in's and out's of the entire conversations or situations that involved other editor's and not yourself. Wes Mouse 12:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer your points in order:

• When you come to ANI, you're looking for uninvolved editors. I think my opinion (or any other uninvolved editor's) is valuable precisely because I have no prior involvement, and the principle of this encyclopedia is that can anyone can poke their nose as long as it is constructive and leads to improved articles.
• Secondly, I read the whole discussion, and I don't think the context (Rebecca's sometimes clumsy editing) excuses your assumptions and sweeping statements about "females under a certain age". I stand by my point: by repeatedly reverting her and warning her for policy violations when such violations actually don't exist (both WP:SONG#Lyrics and WP:DABSONG do not say what you thought they did), you have impeded addition of worthwhile content to the encyclopedia and driven her to frustration and resentment, emotions that I can fully understand.
• Third, except in BLP cases, you never have to remove unsourced content, especially when it appears uncontroversial and can be sourced by a 30-second Google/Youtube search, as in the case of the music videos.
• Finally, I in no way want you to be banned. I would like you to be warned for your specific behaviour in that case, so that you can improve your interactions with other editors. I know you do a great job around the Eurovision project, but it should not give you a free pass to bully others. We all have shortcomings, and the collaborative nature of Wikipedia allows the community to help us be more conscious and overcome them. 176.182.46.248 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (different IP, same person as above)

And I'll clarify further to your points in order:

• People come to ANI for uninvolved admins to intervene; and for any other "uninvolved" editors who may have had dealings with the user's concerned to pass comments if necessary.
• To say "repeatedly reverting" is over-the-top. For crying out loud, both Rebecca and myself, along with 76 other members of WP:ESC edit the same genre of articles, most of us will have most, if not all, on our watchlist. The fact that I am first to act cannot be see as "repeatedly reverting", just the fact that I'm more active and one-the-ball. Other user's have "repeatedly reverted" her actions, yet I don't see them being accused in the same manner that I am being done so. And my comment regarding females of a certain age is not sexist, nor your so-called view-point that you stand by. The issue alone has been and still is being covered in the media, and I am probably not the first Wikiepdian or living person to have come across issues of that nature. As I said at the time, that it is becoming a well-known factor these days - that isn't being sexist, just stating an opinion based on the nature of current day things. I have a niece of young age, and even she has behaved in similar ways with other people - so fact is evident. However, I'm not downgrading people just because they chose to do something in that manner, I merely comment on what I have read and witnessed. I am entitled to assert my opinion. That is why we have freedom of speech. Wes Mouse 14:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Project Eurovision pride's itself on making sure all content is sourced and verified. One only needs to read the fifth object for WP:ESC to see that sourcing is vital - purely because there are a lot of fan-made websites that report on Eurovision content, most of which is unreliable. That is why for Eurovision-related content, the project's members prefer that all' content be sourced, so that we are portraying across near-accurate details in an encyclopaedic manner. For example, Rebecca has on numerous occasions changed the date of birth on BLP's but not provided citation to verify these changes. Rebecca has been challenged several times by Jjj1238 over this, and the pair of them have got into heated arguements over it - some via edit summary comments, and one on Rebecca's talk page in which she was very uncivil towards Jjj1238. And if it is so "quick and simple" to find a source on Google/YouTube, then it would be just as quick for whoever adds content to add the citation too. After all they will have viewed the source in the first place, in order to have knowledge of what new material to add to an article. To half-do the job is bone-idleness. To put it more bluntly, we don't go for a shit and expect someone else to wipe our backsides for use once we've finished - we'd do the job ourself.
• And I do not need to be warned for anything. My interactions are perfectly normal. I don't beat around the bush, mince my words, or tip-toe around just to get a point across. I call a spade, a spade. There are Wikipedian's that use a more harsher tone than I have used, yet it is perfectly acceptable for them, yet not acceptable for me? If you knew me, and knew what I have been through, then you'd understand why I don't beat about the bush and say things as they are. Wouldn't you prefer someone spoke to you with utmost honesty, rather than bubblewrap their comments? Because I prefer honesty, regardless of whether what a person has to say may be harsh or hurtful. Most people on here know about the loss of my mother, the abusive and physical attacks received from my now ex-partner. All that life-experience has caused me to gain a backbone and toughen up.

Like I also pointed out, some of Rebecca's edits have been excellent and show potential of her being an outstanding contributor. However, some have been repeated errors, errors which she has been told time and time again not to do, yet she still does them. I'll happily cut her some slack, but someone needs to also tell her that she seriously needs to pay attention to what other's say, respond to people when they make a comment and/or question. I know people say that ignorance is bliss, but purposely ignoring user's is damn-right rude. Wes Mouse 14:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wee Curry Monster's topic ban lifting

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned from editing articles related to the Falkland Islands on May 2013 for "making discussion to reach a consensus almost impossible"[3] In that period of time, work on the main article began to flow again, eventually leading to a successful FA drive, a status that had been pursued for years. To see that period of trouble-free collaboration, see these edits.

6 months later, Wee Curry Monster appealed his topic ban[4], agreeing "to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics". As a result, the ban was lifted.

Right away, several new articles were created: Esteban Mestivier, Antonina Roxa, José María Pinedo. However, shortly after these efforts were concluded behavior problems started to arise again, reaching its climax in the past few weeks.

Wee Curry Monster has at least three times broken his 1RR condition for ban lifting:

• Top Gear controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revert 1: [5] 21:27, 10 October 2014

Revert 2: [6] 21:40, 10 October 2014

• Ian Gow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion at ANI: [7]

Discussion at talk page: [8]

WCM's uncivil summaries/edits were conveniently cleaned-up, so we can't really see them: [9]

The proof of the 1RR violation can be extracted from the following conversation: [10][11][12][13]

• Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revert 1: [14] 20:00, 11 April 2014

Revert 2: [15] 21:34, 11 April 2014

As I anticipated in the topic ban lifting, he continues to push for the self-published source Getting it Right by Pascoe & Pepper in his arguments,[16][17] while at the same time admitting that self-published sources are not reliable.[18] At this point, he doesn't really use this source in articles, but he uses it to back dubious theories at talk page, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE of the normal consensus building process.

Wee Curry Monster excels at article creation, but as a former British soldier his WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior prevents him from editing collaboratively on nationalistic subjects. --Langus (t) 08:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at this: WCM has clearly not violated 1RR at Ian Gow - he made one revert in November 2013 and one in May 2014 (page edit history). He has reverted more than once on the Top Gear controversies article, but it's clear from the talk page that the editor he reverted is in a minority of one as far as the opinion on their additions go. He also did revert more than once on the Falkland Islands article, but that was nothing more than a spelling issue - hardly anything controversial. As the latter was in April, I'm wondering why it's being raised now. Number 57 08:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"As a former British soldier his WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior..." - did I read that correctly? What on earth does his status as a former British solider have to do with it? StAnselm (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Number57, given the admin deletion involved in the Ian Gow incident I was under the impression that the article history isn't really showing the whole picture, specially since editors who were involved at the time noted that there was an edit war and that WCM broke its engagement. (Please do follow the links [19][20]). On the Top Gear article, I don't know if I'm following you correctly... are you saying that what the other user was doing was WP:VANDALISM? Because that's one of the few exceptions of WP:3RR.

Regarding the Falklands revert, I disagree on it being uncontroversial as I remind how it sparked this comment from the reverted editor, who was there helping us reaching FA. Revertions tend to feel like a slap in the face, specially when they come with 30 minutes in between. I'm raising it now because at the time I thought it would be fair to give WCM the chance to prove he had change, or even to do so in the following months.

StAnselm I take that back, I am generalizing. But WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior is still there. In the past few weeks WCM has been an obstacle in reaching consensus through normal discussion of sources. --Langus (t) 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about re the Gow article. The discussions are about incivility on the talk page (largely an IP using the c word). There are no deleted revisions of the Gow article that I can see as an admin. Also, please ping me if you respond to me again - I can't keep track of various discussions all over the place. Cheers, Number 57 21:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party I've reviewed Langus-TxT's concerns regarding Wee Curry Monster and they seem to be solidly founded. An unnecessary battlefield mentality is at play that does not belong on WP. Wikipedia should not be about trying to get in the last word or advance a particular worldview, while negating others, but that seems to be exactly what is occurring. It seems like offering Wee Curry Monster an opportunity to pursue other topic interests for an additional period of six months would be beneficial both to him and to WP. DocumentError (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

I am in two minds about responding, I'm not sure this warrants any response. None of the edits referred to above are problematic and I have avoided making the mistakes that lead to the topic ban in the first place. I would note, however, this is not the first time Langus-TxT has presented diffs in a misleading way seeking that sanctions are placed upon me.

1. Ian Gow is completely unrelated to the topic ban but I didn't violate 1RR.
2. Top Gear controversies was a clear WP:BLP issue but the option I chose was not to edit war but alert the issue of WP:OR and WP:SYN at WP:NORN [21], per WP:BRD I started the talk page discussion. John can confirm the WP:BLP issue.
3. Falkland Islands [22] and [23] are both minor corrections to grammar. They were done in collaboration with editors working toward achieving FA status. Really after nearly a year of editing the best example he can find of a 1RR violation is collaboration to improve the article to FA status.

The only person who has been edit warring on Latin American topics recently is Langus-TxT on both David Jewett and Juan Manuel de Rosas.

Langus is one of a group of three editors who at one time were haunting my every edit on Falklands topics, constantly accusing me of misconduct. I acknowledge my mistake was to vociferously defend myself against their attacks, since this gives the appearance of a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and I acknowelged it deterred others from commenting. I haven't repeated that mistake (I just ignore them) but have to note this is not the first time Langus-TxT has made a provocative reference to my service in the British Army.

WP:SPS does allow an exemption for recognised experts but I haven't proposed an edit using Pepper & Pascoe as a source, since I know Langus-TxT will revert on sight mention of their name. The comments referred to are A) helping another editor find information, B) a response to Langus falsely claiming only one historian had commented on a particular issue and finally C) removal of a distinctly unreliable source http://www.malvinense.com.ar/ (feel free to check it out).

I don't enjoy the drama boards, currently my plan as discussed with my mentor Nick-D was to take a break and I have discussed with another editor offline moving to a different topic area. I'll leave to others to judge whether there should be a WP:BOOMERANG to go with this frivolous complaint. WCM_email 12:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And how on earth would Pepper & Pascoe be recognized experts if they never published anything? The comments were made in the context of A) determining whether or not Vernet sought permission from both Britain and the United Provinces and B) determining whether or not David Jewett had orders to claim the Islands in 1820. Hardly the innocent reasons WCM claims. Here are the full conversations: [24][25] --Langus (t) 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As noted by WCM above, I've recently suggested that they take a break from either Wikipedia or Argentina-related topics, which I think remains a good idea given that they seem to keep getting involved in heated disputes at the moment. Regarding this report, it seems rather overblown and hard to take seriously as a result. WCM clearly reverted more than once in Top Gear controversies, which wasn't a good idea regardless of circumstances. The edits in the Falkland Islands article were very different, so I don't see how they'd be a 1RR violation (except in a technical sense). Moreover, these two edits were made 6 months ago, so it's silly to bring this up now and outright misleading to place this under a statement implying that the edits took place "in the past few weeks". Ian Gow is clearly out of the scope of the topic ban, and I can't see any sensible reason for it having been raised here (the topic ban is rather specific) especially as it's blindingly obvious from the article's history that WCM's reverts were 6 months apart! Taken together, these examples clearly don't illustrate a series of 1RR violations and two of the examples seem to have been provided in bad faith. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

“ "WCM; I concur that the topic ban was not imposed for incivility per-se. I have to agree that you violated the 1RR arrangement here though: the IP's behaviour wasn't helpful, and I note that they appear to have a seriously problematic history, but their edits weren't vandalism and you should have asked an admin to intervene or waited for other editors to respond". ”

Signed: Nick-D 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are your words Nick-D.[26] Maybe I should reciprocate you groundless accusation of bad faith and denounce that now you're just trying to help a personal friend of yours as WCM is.

Note also that it isn't my intention to imply that these edits are recent; I've put the date next to them! By "reaching its climax in the past few weeks" I'm referring mostly to WCM's behavior in the talk pages and articles he has cited (e.g. [27][28][29] and his recent idea of banning a whole bunch of sources without considering them in context). None of the 1RR violations involved me in any way. --Langus (t) 11:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(coming from Nick-D's talk page) Are you though, Langus? The majority of the space in your opening post is devoted to the alleged 1RR violations. In fact, you even conflate the two, I assume unintentionally: "... behavior problems started to arise again, reaching its climax in the past few weeks. [break, no transition] Wee Curry Monster has at least three times broken his 1RR condition for ban lifting ..." On reading that post, I saw no reason to assume that your primary goal was looking at talk page behavior.

Furthermore, you're quoting Nick-D from a 1RR violation on a different article, one you haven't even mentioned here, and one he doesn't talk about! What's the end goal here? What is this section really about? Very confused. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - the article I was referring to in that quote was Argentine Military Cemetery, where WCM went to two reverts in August. To present my comment as somehow contradicting what I said above is rather dubious: I think that WCM should take a break from this topic area, but it isn't because they're regularly breaking their 1RR restriction. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well now it makes much more sense... My bad; I apologize. As I said, I wasn't directly involved at the time and I'm really not sure how those deletions work, so I assumed there was something in the Ian Gow articles I couldn't see. Number_57 there's the explanation.

The ed17 talk page behavior is complex and requires A LOT more time from you than just looking at three 1RR breaches. When you have a behavior problem it doesn't contain itself to either talk pages or articles. The 1RR are the tip of the iceberg that's easily seen. --Langus (t) 16:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a mud-slinging exercise. Most of the evidence is several months old, and in the single case where it isn't, Curry Monster's reverts were not causing any problems - removing clearly inaccurate text that was later removed again (in much larger quantity) in an administrative action because it violated WP:BLP. I see no basis for the objections to behaviour on talk, other than that Langus disagrees with WCM on content. There is ultimately no need for admin action against Curry Monster here, and I suggest we close. Kahastok talk 17:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The best action to take here is to close, as suggested by Kahastok. Having taken the Falkland Islands article to featured status with the aid of several editors (chief of whom, during important steps, was WCM; which is why he is credited for it), disagreements within that article were a norm. I don't think any major editing conflict has happened since then (the discussions seem to have drifted to other articles).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Fearofreprisal again...

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

---

Someone wanna indef this guy? He gets a TBAN[30] on the historicity of Jesus, makes about 3 edits in basically unrelated areas, then after less than a week posts[31] an request for arbitration on the historicity of Jesus article, repeating the same personal attacks and non sequitur arguments that got him banned in the first place. He insisted just before his ban that I was a "Christian apologist" (I don't blame him for not knowing my actual theological convictions, but given my own history of arguing with Christians on here when they try to push an agenda, it was highly offensive), and continues to do the same to other users. He made an attack page that was all but speedied under the circumstances. It also appears to be a near-certainty that he was the one who posted the off-site canvassing that led to the article completely exploding just as we had finally reached a reasonable consensus. I'm not going to specifically notify him other than the above WP:PING, since his TBAN technically forbids him from responding here, or on his talk page, and posting on his talk page about this seems like it would be poking the weasel. If he wants to appeal the ban on his talk page after getting blocked he can do that, but frankly I think self-confessed POV-pushing sockpuppets should be blocked on-site and never unblocked until they disclose their main account's username.

(Sorry if Fearofreprisal already has done this -- but if that's the case then why wasn't the sock account already blocked.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn I hadn't noticed TParis's addition of an "except for ArbCom" clause to the TBAN, so my initial request is all but moot. It's indisputably the case that his earlier creation of a user subpage attacking a select group of other contributors was in violation, and his use of a sock account (that appears to have initially been created years ago with a good justification) just to troll a page by propping up a fringe conspiracy theory, as well as the continued personal attacks ("X disagrees with me, therefore X must not only be a Christian, but a Christian apologist" -- note that in roughly half the cases X isn't even Christian), probably atill merit a site ban, but we'll see how arbitration works out first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that Fearofreprisal (FOR) created the account because of his/her fears of reprisal, hence the name. This was presumably because the editor intended from the start to make edits that might have negative consequences for the account. Another editor has indicated that FOR already has another account, though as far as I know it has not been disclosed (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Jeppiz). If FOR were to be indeffed would this, in practice, make the other account a sockpuppet? Paul B (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As a statement by me was mentioned, I provide the diff on which I based it [32].Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As for whether FoR's Arbcom filing constituted a breach of his topic ban: unfortunately, the original statement of the topic ban [33], formulated by TParis, did include an explicit exception "to appeal this topic ban or to seek Arbitration". If that hadn't been the case, I would have blocked him already. Incidentally, I think it was a very poor decision on TParis' part: when we topic-ban somebody because his involvement in a field of conflict has been persistently unhelpful, then the last thing we should invite him to do is to seek a way of escalating the conflict further by continuing to fight on yet another, even more high-profile level, such as Arbcom. Other than appealing his own ban (which he explicitly said was not what the Arbcom filing was), and except for defending himself if challenged by others, such a user should have no business getting involved in further dispute processes at all. But given the poor wording of the ban decision, unfortunately we can't hold this against him now. The thing about potential sockpuppeting is a different matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, he said that it was because of fear of reprisal from Joe Arpaio, which checks out with his edit history. I completely sympathize with hiding one's identity from Joe Arpaio, but if one does not want their actions on a page like Talk:Historicity of Jesus associated with their main account, they should not make those edits. If unmerited/unevidenced/attacking requests come up again, it may be worthwhile to extend the topic ban to include seeking arbitration on Historicity of Jesus, on the grounds of WP:POINT. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal's request that the ArbCom impose discretionary sanctions on Historicity of Jesus is the only reasonable edit that I have seen from Fearofreprisal. Discretionary sanctions are needed as a way of controlling disruptive editors, such as FOR, on that article and related articles. Based on the wording of the topic ban, his Request for Arbitration was not a violation of the ban (and actually was reasonable). There seems to be a lot of idle discussion of whether this editor is a sockpuppet, but there is a procedure for dealing with sockpuppets. Can we close this ANI thread while any sockpuppet investigations and the Request for Arbitration run their course? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "idle discussion". The issue was raised by me as a question about the consequences for the other account should FoR be indeffed. As far as I know the other account is not currently a sockpuppet as such, since its edits do not - as far as we know - overlap with those of FoR. Ian is correct about FoR's declared motivation: see User_talk:Fearofreprisal#Topic_ban. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, back in February 8, 2013, I filed an SPI on FearofReprisal, as his behavior matched not 1, but at least 4 other id's.

I'd love to share the link with you, but the case was not only not investigated, but it was rev'deled by a clerk (now a checkuser ). SO yes, I agree FearofReprisal is socking. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As I understand the topic ban, FOR had every right to file the request. However, FOR also made a very pointy table at his own page over all the main editors at Historicity of Jesus and that was certainly a breach of the topic ban. An admin deleted the table [34].Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, based on the wording of the topic-ban, FOR had a right to file the RfAR. He didn't have a right to compile the table, but he may not have understood that the topic-ban applied in user space as well as in other spaces. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it depends on how the arbs handle the case filing. If they close it as a frivolous filing, a case could be made for a site ban. However, they appear to be taking the proposal to implement discretionary sanctions seriously. I'm leaning against a site ban, unless a persuasive case can be made that filing for arbitration was intended to be an escalation of the previous dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

BLP-related dispute at BLPN, with associated edit war at the article

This discussion is going nowhere, and the article (The Federalist (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) has seen edit-warring for a couple of days now [35]. This is very much about an external dispute being imported into Wikipedia; I suggest some intervention should be considered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe delete and salt the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Bugs, that would not be a solution worth discussing. From my perspective, the issue in the present BLP/N discussion is that a handful of editors do not like the factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content that has been added to The Federalist (website) article regarding the recent Neil deGrasse Tyson "quotegate" controversy, and demand that such content be removed as a BLP violation, but are completely unable to articulate any specific violation of the BLP policy or related guidelines. Yes, it's a problem, but unless an uninvolved administrator is willing to block discussion participants for having a talk page argument (as we are supposed to do when a content dispute is involved), I don't see what administrative remedies are available. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Have fun fighting the battle, then. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

LOCKDOWN URGENTLY NEEDED!!!! (Just kidding. But seriously, you may want to consider filing a request for full protection.) – Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Already requested and awaiting action. Amortias (T)(C) 19:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been locked... a couple hours ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As an editor that was completely uninvolved with this prior to noticing it on the BLPN, I looked into it. I simply can't reconcile the "rm per BLP concerns" with the actual content in question. I just can't find any issue with the content that justifies such claims. That said, I'm not sure what type of admin intervention Nomoskedasticity is wanting to see. Blocking of specific editors? Page protection? This request for intervention is very vague, and the lone "response" generated (from BB above) is quite unhelpful. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought this thing had already been deleted as "not notable", and was surprised to see it back in discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The result of the RfD for The Federalist (website) was keep. [36] --Obsidi (talk ) 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I would like to point out that Obsidi appears to be WP:NOTHERE to contribute to Wikipedia. In the seven years since he has activated his account, he has not created a single article nor contributed any significant content.[37]. His account is primarily used to disrupt the Tyson BLP. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I would like to respond to this personal attack. As you said, I have had this account for many years, but usually Wikipedia does a fine job of editing things and I don't disagree. Sometimes I might make suggestiosn to people on how to improve or in other ways try to help make the articles better. Its true I have gone on a hiadus and not edited much for a while over the 5 years I have been here. But that doesn't mean I am WP:NOTHERE see Wikipedia:Sleeper account I am actively editing at the moment because of what I saw as attempts at Wikipedia:Gaming the system. All of my posts have been policy based. Can you provide a diff the where I was disruptive Viriditas (talk)? This is now the 4th time by my measure that Viriditas has personally attacked me (to the point that I was about to go to WP:ANI myself before Viriditas removed his attacks). Including entering discussions on unrelated topics just to personally attack me. If the administrators wish to discuss my behavior I am happy to do so. All I ask that it be given its own section and that Viriditas be considered if WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate. --Obsidi (talk ) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I have alleged you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In the context of ANI, this is not a personal attack but an observation about your contribution history and a concern with moving forward. The majority of your edits concern Neil deGrasse Tyson, mostly on talk pages and noticeboards. Within those discussions, you have shown a penchant for IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and you have focused solely on defending and pushing through fringe attacks against Tyson at all times. Since you're not here to build an encyclopedia, I propose that your account be temporarily blocked until you decide to contribute in a constructive fashion. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Feel free to create a section to talk about my behavior (make sure you add diffs of all the bad thing you think I have done!). My only comment so far on here was about the RfD that was decided as keep. --Obsidi (talk ) 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• The editorial behavior at this article and talkpage is abysmal even by the generally poor standards of Wikipedia political articles. Edit-warring and combativeness are rampant and are drowning out reasonable voices. I am strongly considering blocking Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs), Cwobeel (talk · contribs), and Obsidi (talk · contribs) as the most egregious edit-warriors, both to create some breathing room for discourse and to send a message about appropriate editing norms.

  While poor behavior is not limited to these three, they are the most active edit-warriors at the article and thus represent a reasonable starting point for administrative intervention aimed at promoting more appropriate editing norms. Both Cwobeel and Factchecker have previous blocks for edit-warring on partisan political topics; Factchecker's approach stands out even on that talkpage for its combativeness and vitriol; and Obsidi is a single-purpose agenda account whose last hundred or so edits are dedicated solely to litigating one side of this partisan political dispute. I'm open to other suggestions to promote a better editing environment on this page and article, preferably from people not already neck-deep in the battle. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish that you displayed similar concern for willingness to avoid content policies and abuse social policies as an end run around content disputes. Were that your standard, you'd just block Cwobeel and then see where things stand. Also, you ought to get another admin to do the block, otherwise it'll look like you're lashing out at me in retaliation for arguing with you at Joni Ernst. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have not edit warred unless you consider a single revert to be edit warrig, just check the page History. And from all the contention, I have been one of the few editors making efforts to find content for the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that I have been very active in this topic recently on the talk page. I have tried to make almost all my posts policy based (including answering as many of the questions from the editors who disagree). I would hope that just being active editor in the talk page alone doesn't qualify one to be blocked. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @MastCell: Please tread very lightly. I entered this purportedly BLP-related discussion only in the last 24 hours, as a previously univolved editor, and I can say with complete candor and honesty that Cwobeel and Factchecker are not the only discussion participants who have crossed the line rhetorically in the last 12 hours. Singling either or both of them out for special treatment would be nothing more than selective enforcement. Speaking as a previously uninvolved editor, I am disappointed by the degree of rhetoric employed and the attempts to wield BLP policy as a club to obtain a desired outcome in a matter where the alleged BLP violations are tenuous. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Any enforcement is going to be selective on some level. I attempted to make my selection criteria clear. I recognize that you may not agree with them, but I don't view status quo as a workable option here. I am avoiding comment on the application of WP:BLP; I think there are principled and compelling arguments to be made on both sides of the BLP question, but those arguments are not being made because strident, rapid-fire posts and edit-warring are drowning them out. However, regardless of the BLP question, edit-warring is a major part of the problem and the basis for the proposed sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As long as we recognize that blocks are preventative, not punitive, I will leave it in your hands. Everyone has now been warned. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

With the page being protected (see below), blocks would be solely punitive and thus inappropriate, so I'll withdraw my proposal above. MastCell ^Talk 00:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One possibility would be to stubify the article, protect it for a month, and allow tempers to cool. RFCs can be then initiated to find consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I'll be happy to not to touch that article or the talk page for a few weeks, if that would assuage your concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I will start right now and voluntarily avoid editing that article and related pages until Nov 1st. - Cwobeel (talk)

How would that be different then the RfD that failed recently?[38] --Obsidi (talk ) 22:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That was an AfD discussion. RFCs are useful to attract uninvolved editors to weigh in in a content dispute. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I saw you making attempts at finding a middle ground earlier, but "stubbifying" the article is not a good idea. Any way you slice it, only one paragraph/section is in dispute. I also saw that your attempt at inserting third-party criticism of The Federalist was quickly deleted; if we are going to argue for inclusion of a brief statement of the "quotegate" controversy, then, to my way of thinking, there is little room for excluding reliably sourced and balanced criticism of the online magazine itself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever works, Dirtlawyer1. I am taking myself out of the fry for a while with the hope that cooler heads will prevail and a middle ground can be found. One thing is clear, the current environment, vitriol, and contention is getting us nowhere fast. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Protecting it would be a good way of forcing everyone to go do something else for a while. Hopefully this would help calm matters somewhat. RFC's should if listed correctly draw in outside input through the request for feedback service. Fingers crossed a greater range of input will help build consensus. Amortias (T)(C) 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree protecting it would calm matters down. I would suggest picking the current page, the current page with removing the "Neil deGrasse Tyson controversy" section, or replace that section with the compromise section in the "proposed NPOV edit" in section 30 of Talk:The Federalist (website), and then lock the page. I have explained my reason for what I think should be included or not on the talk page, and will accept any of the 3 above if that is what an admin thinks the page should be. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Now have IP's jumping on board to remove the content. Will try to bump the page protection Amortias (T)(C) 23:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Im apparently better than I gave myself credit for. Page is now protected before I even had chance to chase. Will need to be taken to the talk page to discuss Amortias (T)(C) 23:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article due to edit warring. I've also removed the material identified as a potential BLP violation. Work it out on the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 23:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

[ NPA redacted ] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting interaction ban with Hijiri88

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

---

User:Hijiri88 has continuallly attacked and harassed me.

• He recently started a section here on ANI requesting that I be indefinitely banned. [39], based upon my having filed a request for arbitration.[40]. Hijiri88 is not a party to the arbitration request. This appears to be an attempt to do an end-around run on ArbCom.
• He nominated a page in my userspace for deletion. This page contained statistical data supporting the request for abitration.
  • He did not sign and date his nomination of the page at [41]
  • He did not notify me of the nomination, as required by [42]. As a result, there was no discussion, and I discovered the deletion only by accident, after it happened.
  • The deletion has interfered with the arbitration process.

These interactions have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. They are simple harassment. While Hijiri88 has attacked and harassed me in a number of other posts, these two incidents should be sufficient evidence to show that he should be banned from interacting with me, to prevent future incidents, and further interference with the arbitration process. I do not believe that any other form of dispute resolution will be effective in this case. I will not address any comments having to do with anything related to my topic-ban, or the subject of the arbitration request. Any such comments should be directed to ArbCom, at [43]. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Notified other involved party as I am of the impression Fearofreprisal wants to have no interaction with them. Amortias (T)(C) 00:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did notify him, but I was a little slow.[44] Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this seems like its going to be difficult for anyone to discuss. The first part relates to an ongoing ANI thread (which should be dealt with there) and ArbCom which you won't discuss. The second part relates to an unsigned nomination (unhelpful but not actionable), a lack of notification (unhelpful but unlikely to result in action) and ArbCom which you won't discuss. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Hijiri88 made a bad mistake by not notifying Fearofreprisal about the MfD request for a subpage of Fearofreprisal (see permalink of how it looked—that page does violate WP:POLEMIC despite its subtlety). An interaction ban should only occur after a series of problems, and it is likely that the current issues will soon be over as FoR is topic banned and the Arbcom case request will probably be resolved in a reasonably short time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't notice that Arbitration requests were an exception to the TBAN until it was pointed out to me in the section above. Se ems like a uncharacteristically bad judgement on User:TParis' part; several other users agree that this exception probably should not have been allowed in the first place , but I accept that it was a failure on my pa rt to review the specifics of Fearofreprisal's ban before posting the above thread. This was a good-faith mistake on my part: Fearofreprisal's "mistakes", on the other hand...
2. I did not ask for Fearofreprisal to be "indefinitely banned". I asked for an indefinite block. The user was TBANned for disruptive behaviour, and then flagrantly continue d his disruptive behaviour in the exact same topic area almost immediately afterward.
3. The very fact that I am "not a party to the arbitration request" is interesting. I have indeed been one of the major contributors to that page over the last few weeks. I largely withdrew once the only editor engaged in disruption was TBANned, but engaged in off-site canvassing making the page almost impossible to save. Fearofreprisal apparently saw my response to him earlier and decided it best not to include me in his "list of Christian apologists trying to insert theology into a history article", and since I was already clearly not a Christian apologist, he saw it as expedient not to invite me to participate in the arbitration discussion. At least two other users have since expressed equal uneasiness at Fearofreprisal making bad-faith (and incorrect) assumptions about their religious convictions, forcing them against their will to make theological professions of faith (or lack thereof) as prerequisites for editing a Wikipedia article.
4. The claim that my request for a block "appears to be an attempt to do an end-around run on ArbCom" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF: Fearofreprisal has flagrantly violated his TBAN in the creation of a user subpage attacking editors who disagree with him on the historicity of Jesus article. Re questing that he be blocked for this and his other offenses (off-site canvassing, sockpuppetry, constant personal attacks, etc.) can not be taken in good faith as an attempt to disrupt an arbitration request.
5. I requested that his TBAN-violating attack page on various users who disagree with him be deleted. I "did not sign" my request because I was editing from a phone and so apparently failed to see the part in the MFD page where it specified that my op comment would not be automatically signed like on page-move requests. I apologize for this extremely minor oversight on my part. I do not apologize for not informing Fearofreprisal of the MFD, though, since despite Fearofreprisal's above misrepresentation this is not a "requirement" but a "recommendation"; indeed, like in the thread above, a direct response from Fearofreprisal would almost certainly have itself been a TBAN violation, so informing him would have been meaningless to begin with.
6. Virtually everyone else thinks the page was created in bad faith and was a direct violation of the TBAN. That is no doubt why it was deleted without discussion on such short notice. The closing admin made no comment to that effect, though, so I can't be sure. It should be noted that, again in violation of his TBAN, Fearofreprisal requested that the deletion be reverted.
7. I clearly don't deserve an IBAN, since the only things I did wrong were minor for matting errors and a slight oversight on the nature of the TBAN (Fearofreprisal did violate the TBAN anyway, so the fact that the ArbCom request was not technically a violation is irrelevant). Fearofreprisal posted ridiculous personal attacks against me on the Historicity of Jesus talk page, on my own talk page, and on this noticeboard: the claim that by responding to these personal attacks I am engaging in "harassment" is laughable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you were disappointed, but Arbcom is a normal exemption per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions.--v/r - TP 03:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment: This is a circular mess. Filing for arbitration is allowed as a condition of Fearofreprisal's topic ban. Therefore, a request for an indefinite ban in the ANI report noted above must convincingly demonstrate that filing for arbitration was done in bad faith. So far, the evidence is inconclusive. It should be resolved there rather than through an interaction ban here. I recommend this filing be closed without prejudice as premature. It may become necessary later if the conduct dispute cannot be resolved by other means. Ignocrates (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates: Please disclose that you are an involved party, who has had substantial conflicts with me. Your "oppose" vote is inappropriate.

Fearofreprisal, I would if I was truly involved. I have barely interacted with you. I don't recall what those "conflicts" might be other than a comment at previous ANI and a statement I just made in arbitration. That is the extent of our "involvement". Ignocrates (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that "substantial conflicts" might mean with you using an old username which is your real name. Nod if you agree (kidding). If that's the case, I apologize for not making the connection sooner. Ignocrates (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri88 had the opportunity to make a statement in the RfA, but instead chose to post an incident here. He did so with the explicit expectation that I would not be able to respond. Quoting him:

I'm not going to specifically notify him other than the above WP:PING, since his TBAN technically forbids him from responding here, or on his talk page, and posting on his talk page about this seems like it would be poking the weasel. If he wants to appeal the ban on his talk page after getting blocked he can do that, but frankly I think self-confessed POV-pushing sockpuppets should be blocked on-site and never unblocked until they disclose their main account's username.[45]

While Hijiri88 has provided no evidence of sockpuppetry, in seeking to disclose my "main account's username," he actually seeks to discover my real life name - "outing" me in the process. (See [46]) Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has withdrawn his request that I be indefinitely banned, after discovering that his request was baseless and inappropriate.[47] Yet, he continues to call my username a "sock", despite the fact that I have used it for over 6 years to make almost a thousand edits on over 90 different pages,[48], and despite the fact that he can not provide a single piece of evidence to suggest that I've engaged in sockpuppetry. Further, he continues to make accusations which he knows I can not answer without violating a topic ban.

Beyond this, Hijiri88 continues claim that my statements and supporting evidence in support of a request for arbitration merit me being site-banned. He's trying to use ANI to usurp the authority of ArbCom.

Hijiri88 has not acted in good faith. My request for an interaction ban is both reasonable and justified. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BS. I already pointed out that your claim that I requested for you to be indefinitely banned was wrong (you already are indefinitely banned -- I asked for a block). Additionally, of the four rationales I provided (your ArbCom request violating the TBAN, your user page violating the TBAN, your continued personal attacks, and your self-confessed use of a sock account to troll the historicity of Jesus article), only one has been disproven. I withdrew my request for you to be indefinitely blocked at the soonest opportunity (as opposed to after the ArbCom case is closed) because circumstances convinced me that it would be easier to sit back and watch you dig yourself a bigger hole. The Fearofreprisal account has made a little under 1,000 edits in six years (an average of roughly one edit every two days), and virtually all of these edits have been in a relatively small group of pages, virtually all related to Joe Arpaio or the historicity of Jesus; 529 of these edits have been made since July 2014, and 520 of these have been related to the subject of the TBAN.

As for your continued requested that I be "indefinitely banned": what good will it do? I have only ever interacted with you on the article you are already banned from editing, and have never once edited the Joe Arpaio article. The only effect that could possibly come from an IBAN is you going around vandalizing a bunch of pages on Japanese classical literature just to spite me. Go ask any of the admins involved in this thread to find out what will happen with you if you try that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You continue making inappropriate and baseless allegations. I think further sanctions are appropriate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose A two interaction ban requires,in my mind, a history of disputes that go back quite a ways. Mistakenly asking for an indef block for a violating a topic ban, when it wasn't a violation plus forgetting to notify a user of a deletion of one of their pages is not sufficient to show a history of harassment or the like. The page that was taken to MFD could not be taken as anything but a violation of WP:POLEMIC or an attack page. A simple list with diffs associated to a user would have done just as well, but starting to categorise editors is a no-no. Blackmane (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that an Iban does not require a history of disputes that go back "quite a ways," but rather requires a current conflict. Per WP:IBAN: "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others." I do not believe that this conflict can be otherwise resolved, and it has already gotten out of hand. And, to be clear, the conflict has not stopped: Hijiri88 is continuing to accuse me of violating a topic ban, either intentionally ignoring WP policy, or out of ignorance.

Speaking of policy: You called my userspace evidence page a polemic. Here is what WP:POLEMIC says: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The page in question is a "compilation of factual evidence", and it is currently being used in a request for arbitration. Per Arbitration policy: "Evidence may be submitted privately, but the Committee normally expects evidence to be posted publicly unless there are compelling reasons not to do so."

You also called the the page an WP:Attack page ("a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.") The page exists as evidence in a request for arbitration. It does not in any way disparage or threaten anyone, is neutral in tone, and is sourced to actual Wikipedia editing data. If there is any "attack" in this page, feel free to point it out to me in the talk page, so I can fix it.

And you suggested that a "simple list with diffs associated to a user would have done just as well." I'm not going to discuss the details of my arbitration request here, but will explain why the data is in the form it is: What is now represented as an easy to read table of summary data and links would require tens of thousands of entries to represent as a "simple list with diffs." I suspect that ArbCom would not find this particularly useful.

If I've sufficiently made the case that my userspace evidence page is not a polemic or attack page, and is in accord with policy, I'd like to get back to the issue of an Iban with Hijiri88.

There is a continuing conflict that cannot otherwise be resolved, except by a mutual Iban. My request is reasonable and appropriate, and will result in no damage to Hijiri88. All it will do is prevent him from harassing me. There is no reasonable basis for anyone -- even Hijiri88 -- to oppose this request. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

FOP, you and I have only ever interacted on the historicity of Jesus article. You are already TBANned from this and all related articles. What chance is there that you and I will have disruptive interactions in the future, unless you plan on violating said TBAN? Or do you plan on getting me to agree to a mutual IBAN just to shut you up, and then developing a sudden tremendous interest in Japanese classical literature? Also, I'm pretty sure it's technically impossible for me to have an interaction ban with a two-article sock account. If you want you can publish the name of your main account, and indicate where I have had negative interactions in the past with that account; but bear in mind that this would mean your historicity of Jesus TBAN would also be applied to your main account. Also, note that I have not demanded that you be forced to reveal your main account's username, merely that your sock account be blocked; but if, as you claim, your main account's username is your real name, it would not strictly speaking be "outing" to connect the two anyway -- you would have already outed yourself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as a ridiculous request. Hijiri88 made an understandable mistake in requesting that Fearofreprisal be blocked for posting the RFAR. FOR had a right, based on the exact wording of the TBAN, to post the RFAR, but Hijiri88 had reason to think that it violated the topic-ban. One mistake does not require an IBAN. This request is ridiculous and vexatious. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Separating the "Proposed Site Ban of..." subsection into a separate section. The incidents are distinct and independent. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing request for IBAN without prejudice

Moving issue to ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposed Site Ban of User:Fearofreprisal

User:Fearofreprisal has become a vexatious litigant. I recommend a site ban. I would recommend a limited ban from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk space, except that the editor in question is a sockpuppet. (It doesn't matter that he hasn't engaged in any of the usual reasons for sockpuppetry, but he is in violation of the one person, one account rule, and doesn't pass any of the legitimate alternate account justifications, which require declaring the association.) Fearofreprisal has, for about a month, been engaging in general disruption (sometimes known impolitely as shit-stirring) associated with Historicity of Jesus, first consisting of disruptive and confrontational editing (often interpreted as trolling). User:Wdford ignored FOR's confrontational attitude and made a bold shortening of the article. I posted an RFC to request acceptance of the shortened article. FOR then demanded that the edit in question be reverted, and posted a frivolous and confrontational Request for Mediation, referring to the shortening with links as "blanking", knowing that an alternate form of dispute resolution, the RFC, was in progress, and knowing that some of the parties would not agree. The RFM was of course rejected. FOR then was topic-banned. FOR then requested arbitration. The RFAR is still awaiting acceptance or rejection. Now FOR has requested an IBAN on another editor. This disruptive use of dispute resolution processes should be stopped. Since Fearofreprisal is an illegitimate alternate account, the appropriate way of stopping the disruptive use of dispute resolution is a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Use in question has shown a clear inability to work with others. Using this account because he fears reprisal of his other account is used isn't a valid reason to sock puppet. Rather, he's using it to avoid scrutiny. -- Calidum 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Robert McClenon and Calidum. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

user:Robert McClenon is a party to a current request for arbitration that I have filed.[49] This proposed site ban appears to be payback for my having filed that case. I have requested a temporary injunction at ArbCom. This ANI should be closed as improper. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I sympathize with using a sock account for edits relating to Joe Arpaio and am willing to look the other way on that. If someone doesn't want edits associated with their main account because they'll get in off-site trouble, that's fine under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. That said, if someone doesn't want edits associated with their main account because it will get them into on-site trouble, that's a problem under WP:BADHAND and WP:SCRUTINY. For all we know, FoR could have already been topic, site, or interaction banned under another account.

Yes, Robert's part of that ArbReq filing, but I'm not, and that's not the point. Yes, Hijri88's views on the ArbReq filing were jumping the gun, but that's not relevant either. I'm not a part of the ArbReq filing, and the behavior I've seen from FoR for several months before ArbReq filing is still problematic enough to jsutify a siteban regardless of one's views on the ArbReq filing. Also, Hijri88 was right about the (now deleted) stats page, which others have said violated the topic ban. It's not like FoR has really changed since the topic ban.

If we do not site-ban FoR, we need to at least establish two-way interaction bans between FoR and Hijri88, possibly between FoR and other users as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Fearofreprisal appears to be misstating the facts, either due to ignorance or in order to confuse. First, I added myself to the RFAR in order to support the RFAR and request its expansion. It is the only thing that FOR has done with which I agree. Why would I be seeking payback for a filing that I supported (and added myself to)? Second, FOR requests that this ANI be closed as improper. This main ANI thread was opened by FOR. This subthread, requesting the site ban, is the incoming boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Opposing a daft, bold edit shortening the article into some weird disambiguation page is not 'shit stirring'. It's common sense, and multiple other editors, included myself opposed such stubbing of the article. That was a bold solution to which no one is favorable; it's not a compromise in any sense of the word. There was a good amount of content in the article and in which should not have been blanked or whole heartedly removed. FOR then demanded that the edit in question be reverted, and posted a frivolous and confrontational Request for Mediation, referring to the shortening with links as "blanking", knowing that an alternate form of dispute resolution, the RFC, was in progress, and knowing that some of the parties would not agree. The RFM was of course rejected. FOR then was topic-banned. FOR then requested arbitration. The RFAR is still awaiting acceptance or rejection. I like the use of 'demanded' as if he was literally pounding on the table. No, he just was very blunt in saying that the article should be reverted to the state before the bold edit. (And which the current version now is.) It wasn't supported by consensus and shouldn't have been edit warred over. Also, mediation is supposed to be used in cases like this and is a form of dispute resolution that should be actively encouraged. This is a very contentious topic to which editors have very strong viewpoints on, and should not be decided just so meagerly by edit wars, shouting, incivility. The heart of the issue needs to come to hand. Mediation can do that. A RFM can be rejected based on some simple circumstances, like not everyone who's involved agreeing to it would be an immediate fail, which is what I believe happened in that instance. Now FOR has requested an IBAN on another editor. This disruptive use of dispute resolution processes should be stopped. Well, that's a first for that I believe. An interaction ban might actually be useful given if it's two way. Some editors I just can't get along with, but I mostly avoid their topic area so I don't often have issues with them. At the top of the section, the editor was proposing that he be indefinitely blocked, which I think qualifies. However, given that if I might not be able to get along with another editor, and have tried intensely to solve our differences and focus on content yet it keeps coming up, I might even propose such a thing given if enough disruption happens. The filing for request of arbitration was deliberately excluded from the topic ban and he's seeking that out; Let the Arbitrators decide whether it was frivolous or not. Since Fearofreprisal is an illegitimate alternate account, the appropriate way of stopping the disruptive use of dispute resolution is a site ban. Well per WP:CLEANSTART, A wiki policy it's allowed but it has some careful qualifiers. A user who is not under current restrictions or blocks may stop using their current account and start using a new one. Clean start does not guarantee the two accounts will not be connected, and a user who uses clean start to resume old habits of editing may be identified and seen as trying to evade scrutiny. Given the lack of history of a possible alternative account, I'm going to assume innocent until proven guilty under the alleged sockpuppet remark. Do start a WP:SPI if you see fit. But given the background information I know, since you didn't provide any diffs, there is room for other remarks or sanctions. A full site block/ban should only be used as a last resort against purely disruptive editors. I don't see FOR getting on that end of the stick given what you've told me. You should also provide some diffs, as other editors may wish to see the background info/other WP:ANI's and their results, the RfC, the result, and all of it to provide an informed way to look at the material. Tutelary (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• 'Comment - I didn't say that opposing the shortening of the article was shit-stirring. That was an opinion. Filing the RFM, when the RFC was already in progress, was shit-stirring. Also, the demand that this thread, started by FOR, be withdrawn as improper is shit-stirring. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment - I wouldn't call it "shit stirring". I call it trying to enable a POV Fork, which is not an acceptable WP policy. There is not one piece of information in the old article that is not covered in other articles. What @Wdford: did, on the other hand, was to transform the article into a Spinoff, which is a is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment Based on this, I would assume User:Fearofreprisal would not use their main account to repeat problematic behaviors on this account, since having the two accounts linked would be a Very Bad Thing. If a ban is required (and I don't know enough about the issue to say if it is) I don't think a site ban is needed on the basis of Fearofreprisal being a secondary account. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have a good enough handle on Wikipedia policy or on the background of the case to say if any sort of ban would be suitable (I have to admit, as someone with no investment in the issue I kind of hope the case is accepted by ArbCom so I can learn more from it) but I would strongly oppose the checkuser idea below except with the condition that FoR's real name is kept hidden. I don't think any incident on Wikipedia should lead to an editor being threatened in real life, maybe unless the edits constitute actual crimes. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:TROLL, WP:FRINGE, WP:BATTLEGROUND... you name it, he's done it. I also want to see a CU so that his main account can also be blocked. He claims that a CU would "out" him because his main account uses his real name; he should have either not chosen to edit under his real name in the first place, or not continued to troll other users via a sock account. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Fearofreprisal has some extraordinary conflict with this subject, Historicity of Jesus. His contributions to other subjects were indeed helpful. Maybe it is too soon to site ban, but I hope he has learned something. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Is it proper to initiate a ban !vote on a party to an ArbCom case? At the moment, it looks like the committee is likely to accept the case. Would it not be more appropriate to have the ban be tabled under the proposed motions at ArbCom? Of course I understand that it gets listed then as an ArbCom ban rather than a community ban. I'm just thinking out loud in terms of reasonable fairness of process. Blackmane (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support a Block I feel a block is more appropriate here, given the editor's other good edits I do not think a site-ban is best but a block will give the user time to think things over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a misuse of the purpose of ANI. It should be handled in arbitration. A remedy of a site ban can be proposed there at the appropriate time with the evidence to support it. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Here's are problems with what User:Robert McClenon is saying:

• This account is not a sockpuppet. It is my main account, used to post over 1000 edits. If anyone were to run a CheckUser on me, they'd find no sockpuppetry. McClenon's claims that I'm a sockpuppet are baseless lies.
• His claims of my disruptive editing are full of emotional language, but are not backed up by diffs or evidence.
• His claims that I've misused the dispute resolution process don't hold water. McClenon has himself abused ANI to make this baseless proposal that I be site banned.

Because there is a request for arbitration and a request for temporary injunctions pending before ArbCom, I'm not going to get in any protracted discussions here. This ANI should be closed, as no one has provided any evidence that I've engaged in bannable/blockable behavior. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I corrected spelling of Mr. McClenon's name in the above comment. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Chesivoirzr regarding psychology articles or articles that include psychological perspectives

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

---

Administrative help is needed concerning Chesivoirzr (talk · contribs). He or she keeps engaging in WP:Disruptive editing at psychology articles or at articles that include psychological perspectives, usually adding poor sources, asking questions in the text and/or engaging in other WP:Editorializing, as seen here, here, here and here. I can see that the editor means well, but his or her edits are usually bad additions, and psychology topics are a WP:Med aspect (an aspect that usually requires WP:MEDRS sourcing). Chesivoirzr has been warned a lot on his or her talk page (mostly by a bot, sure), but has yet to respond to the warnings or to those who have reverted him or her, which is why I didn't post anything to the Chesivoirzr talk page regarding Chesivoirzr's recent WP:Edit warring at the Erikson's stages of psychosocial development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. When a Wikipedia editor is editing disruptively like this, and is not responding on that matter, it seems that a WP:Block is the best route to take regarding that editor. A temporary one at first, so that the editor hopefully gets the point. But if someone here thinks that I or a different editor should first try explaining to Chesivoirzr what he or she is doing wrong, I don't mind. I will alert Chesivoirzr to this thread. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Since no one has yet to weigh in on this here at WP:ANI, and since if Chesivoirzr continues to edit psychology articles, or Wikipedia in general, I am not confident that this WP:Disruptive behavior will stop, I have alerted WP:Med to this section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED. The diffs above show someone writing on-topic education-oriented questions. For example, s/he inserted "How do researchers learn to understand differences in intelligence, cognitive development, affect, motivation, self-regulation, self conflict, and the role of students in learning?" before the older sentence, "The field of educational psychology relies heavily on quantitative methods, including testing and measurement, to enhance educational activities related to instructional design, classroom management, and assessment, which serve to facilitate learning processes in various educational settings across the lifespan."

This isn't encyclopedic style. It's more like a lower-level textbook writing style. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the user was a teacher. But I don't think it really meets any of the usual criteria at WP:DE, and it certainly doesn't deserve being called vandalism, despite tripping ClueBot repeatedly.

Flyer, I think that someone ought to try talking to this brand-new editor. Before you started this, 100% of the messages on the new editor's talk page were templates, and your message might as well have been a template. Talk page formatting is confusing, and the lack of communication may be nothing more than a sign of not knowing what or whether to reply. (Nobody even suggested that a reply was possible, so it hardly seems fair to ding the user for not magically guessing that replies are possible or desirable.) Maybe an invitation to the Teahouse would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I see and deal with editors like Chesivoirzr all the time; I mean editors who continually edit disruptively (and, yes, Chesivoirzr's editing qualifies as WP:Disruptive editing), no matter how many messages they get, even the messages that a person (such as yourself) might consider "more human." Chesivoirzr already has a Welcome template on his or her talk page; I see that template as very human-like. And I believe that the message I left on Chesivoirzr's talk page about this thread was human enough for Chesivoirzr to get the point. If Chesivoirzr continues to edit disruptively after that, and/or after I leave another message on his or her talk page about their inappropriate editing, then I really don't see any rational defense of Chesivoirzr's behavior. I barely see a good defense for Chesivoirzr's behavior now, given the Welcome template on Chesivoirzr's talk page, and that a lot of new editors understand that a person is talking to them when reverting them and telling them to stop. A lot of new editors figure out how to reply soon enough (even though they usually do not initially sign their usernames). The problems with Chesivoirzr's editing has been addressed in this thread, and, if Chesivoirzr is not able to grasp that, then I don't see how I or anyone else can help Chesivoirzr become a better Wikipedia editor, aside from meeting with Chesivoirzr in person and explaining Wikipedia ways to him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog has helped out on this matter in a way that I very much appreciate. Flyer22 (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks flyer! i agree with WAID. nobody has tried to have a discussion with this editor. I very much see flyer22's point as well - there are editors who refuse to talk, and if he/she doesn't respond to our efforts to open discussion, but continues editing, it probably will take a block to get him or her to pay attention to the importance of discussion. Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

and we have a very apologetic response from this editor. this thread can probably be closed. hopefully another won't have to be opened. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User forcing edits though

Editor User:86.155.189.126 keeps re-adding gamecruft to this[50] article despite being told that it's against WP:GAMECRUFT. It doesn't seem like they read edit summaries. Eik Corell (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no attempt to explain on the IP's talk page in plain English - just several reverts with some alphabet soup in the edit summaries, and then a report to ANI. I agree the content is inappropriate (and I've reverted too), but you should try talking to people before asking for admin intervention. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now offered an explanation at the IP talk page. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it continues, maybe you can take it to WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Just created an entry there. Eik Corell (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, don't forget that edit-summaries are NOT intended as a means to communicate with someone - they merely describe the edit. Communication takes place on Talkpages. If someone says "they don't read edit-summaries" that that's your fault, not theirs the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkpages are preferred for further discussion if necessary, but an edit summary should be enough in many cases. If someone isn't reading the edit summary to see why something they did was reverted, then they aren't using the system as it's set up. Now, understanding what is said in the summary is a different matter -- and that's another reason we go to talk. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Most newcomers don't even know what an edit summary is, never mind where to look for one. They read that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so they do, then they find their changes are gone, and they have no idea why -- and they haven't the faintest idea of any of the arcane policy and procedure details that experienced editors know about. That's why an edit summary is never the place to discuss something, especially not problematic edits - if a newcomer makes repeated errors, the correct place is always their talk page, which at least gives them a notification that there is something they need to read. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of IP Vandalism at Hannah Arendt because of German Google doodle

There is a lot of IP Vandalism at Hannah Arendt because it's today's German Google doodle. Please watch or maybe it should be protected against IP editing for a day. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 24 hours. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Legal threat at the BLP noticeboard.[51] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It qualifies, but he might have a point, as someone is speculating at Talk:Joe Vitale (ice hockey) as to whether he might be related to mob figures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - I deleted the contentious question from the talk page - it was 2 years old and unanswered, I hope that wasn't inappropriate of me. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I was debating whether to reply to the question or just delete it; it's probably better in the long run to just delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A question like that is better researched offline, and to only bring it up (if at all) if there is irrefutable evidence. Even then, it's not fair to label an innocent party as being related to a mob boss, unless that fact is already well-known. As to the one making the legal threat, an admin could advise him that in future he should pursue a more appropriate tone of voice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dawn Bard has already left a template note at the IP's talk page. De728631 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Midnight Rider (film)

User:138.229.220.3, User:MHBDCS and User:DavidGroveCam are all single-article accounts that only became active in the last few hours. They appear to be the same person, who has taken an interest in Midnight Rider (film). As seen with this dif, DavidGroveCam wrote this line in his edit summary: this is a legal matter that will result in action against Gothicfilm if they persist in this libelous posting. The article is well sourced, as anyone looking into it can see, and I was not the one who originally put in the text being edit-warred over on the page. The third account was created after I posted WP:3RR warnings at the Talk pages for the first two. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a legal threat. You may want to ask for semi-protection for the article. The admins can handle the SPA's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This becoming a problem, Semi protection may be required. A "new" editor called User:GoyaLover is chopping text about with the same capricious abandon as DavidGroveCam and MHBDCS. The editor is refusing discussion. Paul B (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware this attempted manipulation of facts pertains to a current ongoing Involuntary Manslaughter criminal case in the state of Georgia, serious disputed OSHA citations, as well as ongoing Federal Railroad Administration and National Transportation Safety Board Investigations. DFinmitre (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As this diff reveals User:138.229.220.3 is clearly not only sock puppeting with User:DavidGroveCam but trying to impersonate a real life person, David Grove who is a well known proffessional cameraman, that those familiar with "Midnight Rider" may be aware of as he has been referenced in national articles related to the tragedy. David is part of a large group protesting the criminally indicted producers attempts to continue with film after tragedy. The edit history for User:DavidGroveCam, as this relates to a criminal case, clearly should be retained, although the username is clearly inappropriate, especially given what has been stated above of it being used to make legal threats. It is obvious, but also has been verified, that it is in fact an impersonation. DFinmitre (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked all three accounts (MHBDCS, DavidGroveCam and GoyaLover) for  Confirmed socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales

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

---

A while back, User:Jimbo Wales banned User:Eric Corbett from his talk page after a number of disagreements. However, in recent times he has been taking advantage of this ban to launch an number of attacks against this editor, the latest of which, today, can be seen here. In normal circumstances, when an editor bars another from their talkpage, it is generally assumed that they do not want to interact with them, and that is usually the purpose of such a ban. However, it is clear in this case that User:Jimbo Wales intends to continue to be incivil to this editor who, of course, has no right of reply. This is quite ironic (and indeed, hypocritical) given that User:Jimbo Wales appears to be criticising this editor for reasons of their supposed incivility. Please note; on October 3, User:Jimbo Wales was warned about this behaviour by another administrator; see [52]. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

• A two-way interaction ban be enacted between these two editors which includes mentioning each other on their talk pages.
• Support as nominator. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per nom, and per this diff, in which Wales was earlier warned about this type of behavior. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, I hereby lift the ban on him editing my talk page for the sole purpose of responding to my opinion that his long track record of abuse of other editors should result in a ban. I very strongly dispute the absurd accusation that offering my opinion on the need to have a civil environment in Wikipedia amounts, in itself, to incivility. A civil, loving, and kind discussion of issues of abuse is both possible and desirable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you are going to do that, it would be helpful if you actually substantiated your numerous accusations with diffs, as Giano asked you to do recently. Eric is not the only editor whom you target in this manner and quite often you use phrases such as "some people should not be here" which are quite obviously references to Eric and a few others. It is the height of incivility, it really is. There is nothing loving or kind, either, about what you have been doing in this regard, Jimbo. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to supply diffs, but the ArbCom case is the best place to find them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You really can't have it all ways Mr Wales. Banning somebody then commenting critically with no right of reply was ok until you were called out on it. Saying he can edit now it suits your purposes is just not on. The diffs you are being asked for regard your allegation that he has driven away countless editors, nothing to do with the Arbcom case. J3Mrs (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per nom, and the fact that Eric is worth something around hare, Jimbo, not so much. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. Given the standing the community has given to Mr. Wales, it's indeed ironic that he would effectively gravedance on another user (something that is by its very nature uncivil and against what he claims to support). Intothatdarkness 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no gravedancing. It is time to have a serious discussion about whether abusive users like Eric should be allowed to continue their actions at great expense to quality editors of the encyclopedia. He is free to attempt to justify his behavior - but since he has had many opportunities to do so, I doubt that he will.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Jimbo, just by referring to Eric in a negative tone when he has no right of reply is wrong. Being civil to one another comes second to article development in my opinion. You really must practise what you preach. Cassianto^talk 19:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

He has a right of reply.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is utterly disingenuous. When you posted that claptrap above, he had no right of reply. You only rescinded your "ban" after you were brought here. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not on your page he didn't; you banned him. Cassianto^talk 19:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Only after this appeared here. Intothatdarkness 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, he could reply or complain anywhere else. But I haven't seen him complain, and I would be surprised if he did. It is my opinion that his behavior in the past towards many editors has been unacceptable. He is free to defend it here or on his talk page or - now - on my talk page if he likes. But to pretend that he has been somehow silenced is not really accurate. He's been given a rather absurd degree of latitude.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Opt to close with no action based on Jimbo's redaction of said topic ban given this WP:ANI post. Makes the nomination moot, in any case. No longer necessary to have an interaction ban between the two in any context, one way or two way. Tutelary (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:JimboWalesIsGodOnWikipedia (just kidding about the reason :) ). Yes he's banned Eric from his page, which is his right, that doesn't stop Eric from replying to Jimbo, just not on his talk page. Just like, if Jimbo banned me from his talkpage and he said stuff about me, I could reply anywhere else (appropriately, of course ) except his talk page. Oppose and shut this down as unecessary KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, this must be a joke. JW is entirely within his right to comment about an editor in his own talk page just like EC comments on him in his TP (go take a look), either one can use its own TP to respond if they so feel like. The diff presented as evidence of an "attack" is ridiculous, it is nothing more than the opinion of an editor. WP:CIVIL does not mean editors should be censored about discussing the behaviour of other editors. Gaba ^(talk) 20:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. User talk:Jimbo Wales is much more of a community discussion board then a user talk page. The fact that so many people raise issues about Eric there (and numerous other things) means it is unfair to silence Jimbo on the topic. A much better solution would be to completely ban all mention of Eric on the page in question. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Jimbo's comment: "[Eric Corbett has] been given a rather absurd degree of latitude". [Redacted] and for whatever reason he has enough "followers" that he seems to be ban proof, which is a very bad thing for Wikipedia. I will never understand why he is so respected. He is [redacted] and a proud opponent of basic civility. No one editor is ever worth this much drama. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Good grief. Are you seriously talking about imposing an interaction ban on Jimbo?? Shouldn't we try to handle this privately and on an informal basis. I can only imagine how this will play in the newspapers. I would think a certain measure of sensitivity is required in these circumstances. Could Eric not be persuaded to spend time on another talk page, and could we not ask Jimbo not to refer to Eric directly? This is a potential public relations nightmare. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? Jimbo is not some sort of messiah and should be treated like anyone else. Cassianto^talk 19:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course I should. And opining that a user with a long track record of abuse of others should be banned is quite normal and acceptable. If we cannot have an open discussion about abuse, we are lost.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though that editor is the creater of many excellent articles? The "abuse" as you term it, is the result of a user coming to Eric's page or an article his writing, to simply poke the bear. Half of Eric's trolls wouldn't know a featured article if it came up and slapped them on the face. Cassianto^talk 20:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, perhaps you should be speaking in terms of hypotheticals and not in terms of specific named individuals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes that is true. But sometimes a specific example is worthwhile to encourage a vigorous and honest debate. Those who really think that content contributions justify abuse need to defend specific abuse.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. And I believe that it is important that the "founder" and public face of WP be seen as playing by the same rules aas everyone else, as you acknowledged above. Right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly not the messiah, Cassianto, but he is the "founder" and the public face of Wikipedia. I'm all in favor of encouraging everyone to play nice and by the rules, but I am not in favor of giving Wikipedia a black eye in public. Please consider carefully. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never directly been involved with Jimbo and I respect him for the whole Wikipedia concept, but I disagree with his civility ideas and his obsession with Eric. Just because he founded the project, doesn't mean he can go about and flout the rules; Jimbo himself agrees with this above. Cassianto^talk 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Would appreciate diffs on this and precedent situations - i.e. after regular posts on editor (1)'s Talk page, editor (2) is banned from editor (1)'s Talk page. Later other editors regularly raise editor (2) on editor (1)'s Talk page and editor (1) sometimes comments, then ANI... AnonNep (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• I am not sure if an interaction ban is the best way forward. I warned Jimbo a week ago that he must not continue issuing insults against a respected user who is forbidden to reply to them, and without providing any evidence. If he has continued this deeply uncivil behaviour and shown no sign of understanding what is wrong with this, I'd be asking for a block at this stage. That this recent incivility is ostensibly in support of greater civility is an irony which is not lost on me. --John (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• This ought to be a public relations nightmare, not hidden away. Jimbo is unfit to be the public face of Wikipedia, and the more people who know that the better. Eric Corbett 20:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior

Hello, Sorry that it has come to this point, but I require assistance with a user (User:LRD NO) who is hounding me and has been changing almost every single edit I make on Wikipedia. It has become so excessive and it is seriously disruptive to my experience here on Wikipedia. I have been getting along fine for years, and am an auto-patrolled user. I have contributed countless articles to the website but I am seriously tired and annoyed by the aforementioned user who has been revising almost every single edit I make on Wikipedia as of late. The user's handle of the English language is not better than mine, nor is their knowledge of the subject matter as evolved as mine, yet he acts as if his way of wording sentences is superior to mine, and is acting as if he has some type of authority over me. The user has been revising all of my contributions as of late, which are not necessarily beneficial to Wikipedia and is seriously infringing on my user experience.

I know the user is tracking me (probably using a bot) and I feel this is over the top and exaggerated behavior. I have raised the issue with the user in the past, in which case he denies any wrong doing. We have also had a dispute based on the same issue before. The user was asked to give me space, which was ignored since he continues to crowd me and change my contributions, sometimes only minutes after my edits are saved. I am seriously tired of it and would like for this user to leave me alone. It is infringing on my experience here on the site and has me considering leaving the site for good, since I do not enjoy my contributions being altered in this systematic fashion, nor do I find it justified behavior at all. I hope someone may possibly review this users behavior and hopefully get this parasitic behavior to stop.

I hope to no longer be tracked, so I may go about making my contributions to the site, without having every single edit I make changed by this disruptive user. Thank you in advance for your help with the matter and I hope that this can be resolved in a civil manner. Should any examples be needed, all you need to do is review my contributions and you will see this user has been badgering me and altering almost every edit I make for some time now. There are also previous conversations which have been removed from the users talk page. Should that be necessary for review as well. Kind regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

Hi Subzzee, couple of things that might help progress this a bit quicker, if you can provide diffs to show these calims it would make any intervening admins job so much easier. It's quite possible they are just viewing your contributions (something anyone can do) by searching for your name in the contributions link on the top of each page. You might also want to break the text above up to make it easier to read. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi I can list diffs, there are so many of them, But, if I must I will do my best to list all of them. I think it is important to recognize the scope of what is actually taking place to fully understand how excessive it is. I will go ahead and try and list as many as I can conjure up. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

5-6 should be more than enough to show a pattern of beahaviour that can be evaluated. Amortias (T)(C) 22:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Examples: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. It goes on and on and on, but I will stick with six examples as you requested. Thanks. (Subzzee (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

Response

The edits were done in accordance to policies, guidelines, project consensus and convention, and the reason were clearly explained to Subzzee in his talk page[59] and a summary indicating the reason involved were included with every edit. He was advised, a few times, to bring it up at the relevant policy/guidelines/project pages if he disagreed with them and wanted a second opinion but did not do so. Despite being asked to do so on a few occasions, Subzzee has yet to give a reason why he should not be subjected to policies, guidelines, community consensus and convention (PGCC for the rest of the post).

Contrary to the editor's claims, I have not been revising "almost every single edit", only those with clear violations. Take, for example, the most recent edits.[60][61]. The edits violates WP:SURNAME, WP:OVERLINK, WP:PEACOCK and the necessary changes were accordingly.

The last revision by the editor was:

Serhat Çakmak is a product of the famed Ajax Youth Academy. In 2014 he left the club to join Trabzonspor signing a 3-year contract with the Turkish club having raised interest from the likes of Beşiktaş J.K., Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray as well, but opting for the club from Trabzon instead. Following the departure of Trabzonspor manager Hami Mandıralı, Çakmak was cut from the squad under newly appointed manager Vahid Halilhodžić, returning to Amsterdam and joining the Ajax Zaterdag team competing in the Topklasse.

My last revision was:

Çakmak is a product of the Ajax Youth Academy. In 2014 he left the club to join Trabzonspor, signing a three-year contract with the Turkish club after rejecting interest from Beşiktaş J.K., Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray. Following the departure of Trabzonspor manager Hami Mandıralı, Çakmak was cut from the squad under newly-appointed manager Vahid Halilhodžić. He returned to Amsterdam, joining Ajax Zaterdag competing in the Topklasse.

I leave the good people on here to assess the editor's claim of "The user's handle [sic] of the English language is not better than mine".

Due to the less than civil response to the discussions,[62], ([[63] ],[64]) User:Chillum asked to give the editor some personal space. I accepted his request, ceasing further correspondence with the editor, working only on improving the articles. I have stuck to my word, and it was only recently that when the editor posted in my talk page did I reply to him.

In response to other specific claims made by Subzzee:

• has been changing almost every single edit Only those edits in clear violation are amended to reflect PGCC
• is acting as if he has some type of authority over me I have never claimed to be an authority on any issue. All the edits were based on PGCC.
• change my contributions, sometimes only minutes after my edits are saved If memory serves, there was only one occasion in which that was made, and that was because I have the article on my watchlist and happened to be around at that moment.
• previous conversations which have been removed from the users talk page The conversations were archived. All relevant conversations have been included here for assessment by fellow administrators and editors.

What the editor is exhibiting is a case of ownership of articles, as seen in his behaviour and replies during discussions, and a previous exchange with another editor,[65] which is indicative of ownership behaviour.

Ownership actions

• An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether.[66]

Ownership statements[67]

• "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of that).
• "I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your help; however, I am an expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."
• "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
• "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalising my work!"

Required action

While every opportunity had been taken to explain the reasons behind the edits, the editor continues to violate policies, guidelines, consensus and convention without a valid reason. I would also like ANI to note that the editor had been engaging in threats, uncivil behaviour and personal abuse:

• seriously F off, fall back a little and know your place [68]
• 'For years longer then you. You are practically a newbie', extremely petty and incessant, I need you to respect the AP ruling (no such thing, mediation at best) absurdity of your actions etc.[69]

Thank you. LRD 01:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Response back

I am so tired of this guy. This is not what I come to Wikipedia for. I come here to share my interests and to hope to use it as a platform to inform and educate. Not to argue with some know it all who feels the need to patrol my every step and act as some sort of school teacher. I don't claim ownership over these articles, but I spend weeks, sometimes months, and in a few cases (articles that I have been working on locally that I have yet to publish) even years, and a little respect would go a long way. I can't make a single edit as of late without this new guy making changes and waving around some policy he/she feels the need to enforce. When he/she first started this behavior they were even quite aggressive at posting it on my talk page every time they deems it necessary to make changes to my edits.

I go to great lengths to make sure the information I add is factual and add reputable references to back the information. I have had other editors (i.e. GiantSnowman) give me a hard time regarding adding some references in the past, which this user then removes. Ignoring the fact that it was deemed necessary in the first place (proof for players of Antillean or Surinamese descent for example). I have had debates with other editors in the past which is fine. I make the necessary adjustments and am left back to my work in peace. LRD has even tried to tell me how Dutch team names need to be abbreviated, when he is fact speaking to a Dutchman and his interpretation is incorrect. Even though he was then proven wrong I am then told that he is free to interpret and abbreviate names as he sees fit because it isn't set in stone on Wikipedia as it apparently is for German football clubs.

I come to Wikipedia because I enjoy writing and formating articles, but this constant badgering is really wearing me out as of late, and I would prefer it stopped. If LRD knows so much about Dutch football I would like to see him/her write their own articles and stop piggy-backing on my contributions to the site. This person is extremely condescending which has lead to some agitated responses from my end in the past, and I apologize to the community for that, but I really don't see these petty changes as necessary when it does nothing for the content of the article. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

Seeing as I have been mentioned - I don't "give you a hard time", and neither do other editors; you frequently use POV and flowery words and seem incapable in editing in a neutral manner. This is not a fan website, this is an encyclopedia! You think that just because you are Dutch you are an expert, and display ownership issues as a result - well you're not, there is a way of abbreviating club names which has been established through community discussion and consensus. Just because you don't like it - well, tough. You need to abide by our rules if you want to continue to edit here. GiantSnowman 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy. You were mentioned merely because you were adamant about adding certain references on multiple occasions, all of which this user has removed. So you can take that up with them. You also seem to have misinterpreted my statement. I can list several instances in the past where you have given me a hard time regarding reference tags, which is fine. I usually add the necessary references and the case is closed, which is exactly my point.

I do find it humorous when someone who knows little about my culture wants to educate me on what is considered notable (such as our past disputes over subjects pertaining to places like Curaçao or Suriname for example) or how things need to be spelled out as in the example mentioned above pertaining to the consensus. There is no consensus set for clubs in the Netherlands on Wikipedia, which was the point raised by LRD in our previous argument. He then suggested that we establish such a consensus, since Dutch clubs tend to follow Germanic trends, rather then accepted Anglo or Latin based abbreviations. Which is fine. By all means I hope members of the Dutch task force participate in creating such a consensus.

I also think you have twisted several statements into your own interpretation above. Just because I am Dutch doesn't make me an expert. But I can interpret and explain things which pertain to my language and culture better then an outsider and find it somewhat strange when it occurs. I also do not claim ownership over all articles pertaining to the Netherlands or Dutch football. That is an accusative and rather nonsensical statement in my opinion. I am also fine with the rules and regulations on Wikipedia. Whether you take a liking to my writing style or not, there is also policy on Wikipedia which protect the contributor from harassment, and given the excessive scale of these revisions does lead me to take it as a tendentious case of hounding. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

Sigh, what do you mean "this guy" - yet another example of your general crummy attitude to other users, which is a real hindrance to you trying to work in a collaborative environment. As for your comment that "adamant about adding certain references on multiple occasions" - what you really mean is that I have, in the past, reverted your edits where you have introduced unreferenced material about living people - you seem blissfully ignorant of that policy. Your 'culture' is irrelevant, seeing as Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I can do that just as well as you from the comfort of England, just as can our friends in America, Africa, Asia, Australia, anywhere. Just because you are Dutch gives you ZERO extra special privileges or rights to edit Dutch-related articles. GiantSnowman 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy, because you are always quick to jump down my throat. Again, you are missing the point. I don't have an issue with being corrected. If I am wrong then by all means show me what needs to change, and I usually exhibit an healthy attitude towards making the necessary changes. The example I am raising from the past was in fact pertaining to news articles which had been deemed non-credible, when I then had to bring the fact that it was from a reputable Antillean publication to the forefront before it was deemed acceptable. These were deemed necessary for the articles in order to add specific information, which have all been removed by our friend here. My attitude is not what you think, but I do not take well to false allegations, nor do I feel the above mentioned behavior is justified.

Funny that you would find my behavior unacceptable or blissful even, when I have in fact been quite militant about reference tags in the past few years or so, simply to keep you off my back, which I have learned to accept since my early years on Wikipedia to enhance the quality of my contributions. You were right, I was wrong. Simple as that. Me raising the fact that I am Dutch pertains to lingual criteria and not subject matter. I would like to stay on topic and not make this about you and me, or anything other than the issues that I have raised above. But by all means, if you feel there is anything else left to discuss feel free. Thank you for contributing. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

To clear some of the claims:

• When he/she first started this behavior they were even quite aggressive at posting it on my talk page every time they deems it necessary to make changes to my edits. The first discussion (24 August) I posted on the editor's talk page advised him on the PGCCs and was in no way aggressive. After the editor chose to ignore them,[70][71] (1 September) a second message was dropped at his talk page which he replied in a "I do it my way" manner.
• ...stop piggy-backing on my contributions to the site. If you know how Wikipedia works, you wouldn't even make this claim. Doing so only goes to show you have ownership issues.
• This person is extremely condescending... I would like you to point out where I have been so. I wasn't the one consistently harping on "You're a newbie, I've been here longer so my word is bigger than yours". (You might want to note that, going by your logic, GiantSnowman has been here longer than you and is an administrator.) Being on this site earlier has no relevance in the implementation of PGCCs. And if you haven't already realised, "this guy" is quite the condescending term.
• ...I really don't see these petty changes as necessary when it does nothing for the content of the article. Policies and guidelines are not petty and do contribute to making an article better. Look at how application of WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL and correction of prose could do to these articles.[72], [73], [74], [75], [76]
• ...I am then told that he is free to interpret and abbreviate names as he sees fit; There is no consensus set for clubs in the Netherlands on Wikipedia, which was the point raised by LRD in our previous argument. He then suggested that we establish such a consensus, since Dutch clubs tend to follow Germanic trends, rather then accepted Anglo or Latin based abbreviations. Incorrect. I pointed out that the project consensus applied to all clubs, and that if you disagreed, you could discuss it at the project talk page, which you didn't.

I had been more than respectful when talking to you and neither was I the one engaging in insults and accusations. Wikipedia relies on community input from various editors and not one person alone. The behaviour you have exhibited is definitely indicative of ownership of articles when you refused to comply with PGCC and do not allow other editors to correct the issues.

For the record, do you think you should be exempt from policies, guidelines, community consensus and convention, and if so, why? LRD 01:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)'

In response to my supposed ownership of articles portion, I would like to point out that -> even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. I am not claiming ownership of these articles, but with a large majority of those that I contribute, update and maintain, I am the primary contributor, an expert in the field and have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy.

I do not feel the need to be exempt from policy at all. I do however feel crowded by excessive policing. I find the manner in which you choose to enforce policy a bit over the top,, often petty and sometimes rude and condescending, which has evoked an unnecessary reaction from my part at times. I find that the consensus reached for clubs in the Netherlands for example is often incorrect and should be discussed, since there are many errors in how Dutch clubs are named and abbreviated on the English Wikipedia and there is no point in replacing the correct form with an incorrect one. I feel like I am being shadowed and it is not pleasant to be constantly followed around when working on the site. In some cases the revisions might have been an improvement, and I generally don't mind, but I don't like being corrected every step of the way. Often finding revisions occurring only minutes after an entry which to me is too much. You are over doing it. It is rather uncomfortable and disruptive and I would like if you would give me some space. Thank you, (Subzzee (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)).

Odd conflict at Listen (David Guetta album)

There is a dispute I'm not quite sure how to describe at Listen (David Guetta album), specifically its track list section. I came across the page in reverting an unexplained section blanking from an IP editor, who later claimed to represent Warner Music and who said (to me here and on the article talk page) that the track listing is unreleased and that the Wikipedia version is incorrect. I first re-blanked the section, but when I was reverted I did not contest that, since there was sourced information there that I had erroneously deleted. Later, when I took a closer look at the iTunes sources provided (which of course I should have done immediately, that was my mistake) I noticed that only a small portion of the tracks on the Wikipedia page were actually listed there. I trimmed the track listing to include only what I saw in the sources, but since then it seems to have become an edit war involving quite a few editors (most of them IP editors; none of them have violated 3RR to my knowledge). I'm completely at a loss as to what I should do to help resolve this, if anything. Help is appreciated. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• TL;DR Big multi-sided edit war over whether or not to include a full track listing (that as far as I can tell is not given in the sources provided), made worse by me being careless, no idea what to do. Also, for the record, I am not notifying anyone regarding this post since I can't even say who I'd consider "involved" enough to notify. I would appreciate if someone else would take a look at that. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick deletion request

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

---

Can someone delete User:Fvaok/common.js? I don't have javascript editing rights so I cannot list the page for speedy deletion under the criteria that the author is indefinitely blocked as an attack account aimed at Koavf, the first million-edit Wikipedian. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Links to some social network pages not being displayed?

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

---

I edited Simone Biles and as part of that added [[Twitter]] to the text. When I preview or save the links to [[Twitter]] and [[Facebook]] they are not displaying. Adding pipes did not help.

Here's a test of <Twitter> and <Facebook>. I see <> and not the links between the angle brackets. Also, I first bracketed the tests with xx and discovered that the second "x" was not being displayed. Wikilinks to other articles are working fine. It does not seem to be a CSS issue. I copy/pasted the test text and the HTML it is "a test of &lt;&gt; and &lt;&gt;" implying a server side issue.

I'm using WP:ANI as I don't know of a better forum for announcing a potential system-wide issue that can cause confusion for some editors. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. Maybe a technical issue with your browser? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Some sort of browser hijack maybe? --NE2 05:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. It works fine in IE on this machine. I closed down Firefox, restart, and when I view this thread I saw the Twitter/Facebook links for a little under a second. They then were removed and I'm seeing <>. That implies client side JavaScript at work. I'll debug that for a bit and post the results here. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(post-close explanation of root cause) I use Adblock Plus on Firefox along with Fanboy's Social Blocking List. That list includes two rules, ##a[title="Facebook"] and ##a[title="Twitter"]. I don't know if there was a recent update to the list or I failed to notice that some text has been missing from Wikipedia and other sites. I checked the list of rules related to link titles and most of them are for phrases such as "Become a Fan on Facebook!", "Follow us on LinkedIn", etc. The rules will block the following social media mentions when used as a single word in the "title" tag: "Facebook", "Google+", "LinkedIn", "Pinterest", "Twitter", and "Youtube". --Marc Kupper|talk 06:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(another post-close comment) I was seeing this issue too, but it disappeared after I updated my Adblock Plus filter list. You can do this from the "Filter preferences" option on the Adblock Plus menu in Firefox (and probably other browsers too). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Stradivarius. Shortly after I figured out the issue I reported it on the Adblock Plus forums. They immediately fixed the filter rule lines I had reported the issue with. The lines used to look like

linkedin.com,mail.google.com#@#a[title="LinkedIn"]

and now have

linkedin.com,mail.google.com,wikipedia.org#@#a[title="LinkedIn"]

with the change now disabling that rule for the wikipedia.org sites. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Threat of blocking

User iNic has threatened me twice that I would be blocked if I continue to revert his deletions. The incident has happened in the revision summary of this history page on 14:28, 14 October 2014‎ and on 19:18, 2 October 2014‎. The reason provided by INic is the 3RR rule which clearly doesn't apply to my case because I revert his deletions at most one time per day. I believe that he acted like that on purpose to frighten me and to stop me from reverting his deletions. I believe that this case is categorized in the harassment - threats section. Caramella1 (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:EW. You can be blocked for edit-warring which doesn't reach 3RR. DeCausa (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Both editors are on the verge of violating 3RR at that article, I have warned them both. GiantSnowman 12:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban on page moves for Hemant Dabral

Considering his unwillingness to discuss any edits, and lack of understanding of page moves, this user has left me with no other option than to seek topic ban on page moves.

He is not willing to make any discussions about the controversial page moves he is doing. He won't even talk about normal page edits. At least 30 of his page moves had been reverted.

Here are some examples of his page moves:-

• Bhagat Singh Koshyari moved to B. S. Koshyari — Despite there are only 800 mentions of B. S. Koshyari and over 5.5 million mentions of Bhagat Singh Koshyari.
• Meena Rana moved to Mina Rana — Despite there are only 10k mentions of Mina Rana and over 1 million mentions of Meena Rana. Her name is indeed Meena Rana and "Mina Rana" is some music artist.
• Anti-India sentiment moved to Indophobia — There are only 8,000 mentions of Indophobia but 140,000 mentions of Anti-India sentiment. Indomania is a popular term though, but that's about admiration.
• Surjit Singh Barnala moved to S.S. Barnala — But he is actually known as Surjit Singh Barnala.
• Narendranagar moved to Narendra Nagar — Although Narendranagar is 100 times more common.
• AIIMS, New Delhi moved to All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi — Let's put this way, no one knows what is All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi, at least 99 out of 100 people don't know! Just like no one knows what is Dalsey, Hillblom and Lynn (DHL) We have to use common name.
• National Institute of Technology, Durgapur moved to National Institute of Technology Durgapur — Removal of comma, Durgapur is a location.
• Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha moved to Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha — Despite the name of this organization is Dakshina and not Dakshin.

I had warned him,[77] [78] he called me a cyber bully and asked that I should not post on his talk page.[79] Surprisingly he would come up today for telling me that Haha dude don't talk like a child.[80] Now he has started page move war.[81] Pretty much, we can consider that he's going to revert to his preferred page titles on every other page and refrain from any type of discussion about the page moves. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple issues with editor Bobi987 Ivanov

I've been trying to (initially) help an editor and (later on) explain what's wrong with his edits. However, the editor in question Bobi987 Ivanov (talk · contribs) refuses to acknowledge any advice. He's been doing everything in an non-encyclopaedic and rather biased manner. Here is a list of only a few of the problems with his editing:

• Spamming articles with a multitude of quotes aimed at proving a point he wants to make ([82], [83], [84], [85], [86] etc.). Pretty much every edit of his has been an introduction of long, mostly unrelated and poorly sourced quotes in bold text.
• Using misleading edit-summaries ([87], [88])
• Introduced and re-introduced unreliable sources, like blogs, various depreciated websites (like promacedonia.org), and photos of possibly scanned text (there are many examples mostly found in the articles Todor Panitsa, Boris Sarafov, Yane Sandanski)
• Intentionally misinterpreting sources - I've outlined one particular case at Talk:Todor Panitsa, but he seems to be doing it all the time, evidently without giving a second thought - he has been reverting the article to his preferred version again and again.
• Excessive use of bold text in order to stress on points he likes.
  

My attempts at explaining that he's doing things wrong do not seem to bother him one bit. Initially, I thought he was a new editor and tried providing him with advice. Only later did I come to realise he was an experienced user who should know better. Additionally, he sometimes edit while logged off ([89], [90], [91] etc) from an IP-range involved in persistent vandalism (which might or might not bear a connection to the user). He does not seem willing to learn or even read any basic rules or guidelines of editing. He's active on another wiki-project where he seems to be doing the same thing he's doing here. Additionally, his, I am sorry to say, poor grasp of English evidently prevents him from understanding some messages. It also makes it hard to understand the text he adds to articles and the edit-summaries he sometimes leaves. --Laveol ^T 17:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"without giving a second thought"?? I am giving the second thought. These articles have been managed by the Bulgarian paid propaganda, and they are not even a little bit objective. There are so many Bulgarian falsifications and manipulations, that I wouldn't know where to to start to explain. But, I never delete anything, I just add some more information, and provide the source, as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobi987 Ivanov (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't see that much of a problem, but I will have to look into it more. Can you explain what kind of result you are looking for Laveol? --Obsidi (talk ) 01:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that the editor might be willing to listen to some of my notes, if reiterated by another editor. He seems willing to take advice which he thinks comes from a position of authority (based on that edit-summary). Since my initial post here, however, he went on to perform at least four reverts within 24-hours on Yane Sandanski. And this, after I warned him. I am guessing it might be a continuation of his conflict with a user from mk.wiki (see this). I am now more inclined on a block. --Laveol ^T 08:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The user in question is clearly here with an agenda. His POV is that of a Macedonian nationalist, that much is clear, but that does not mean that he could not contribute constructively. The main problem is not only his polemic behaviour, as evidenced in his revert-warring, but more worryingly, IMO, the blatant misuse and misrepresentation of sources, as shown in Talk:Todor Panitsa. The user obviously knows enough Greek to pick out the stuff that suits him from a source, so he knows enough Greek to understand that the rest of the text he cites claims the exact opposite of the claims he deduces from it. I too would advocate for a stern warning, perhaps along with a short block over revert-warring (this is WP:ARBMAC territory, although a warning to the effect has not been issued yet), in hopes that he will remedy his behaviour. Constantine ✍ 15:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments

I'm not sure this is the correct place for this notice, but I couldn't find one that fit exactly what was going on. On Talk:Sandra Morgen, an anon editor made some disparaging comments about another editor, although not by name. The editor who was ill-spoken of then deleted those comments. The comments in question have been restored several times, and either deleted, edited, or hidden [92] [93]. User:Thebrycepeake has been warned, and yet persists in the behavior. I understand this was part of a larger issue between she and anon, but do not believe that justifies deleting this comment, however uncivil, unkind, or even unfair. --Briancua (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL explicitly states: Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. If Thebrycepeake has objected to this information appearing on the talk page, and has explained why, do you think it's WP:CIVIL to repeatedly insist on reposting it? What purpose does this serve? Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at what it says just before the sentence you quote, Ivanvector: "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." Also, I will quote again what I wrote on Thebrycepeake's talk page: Take a look at what the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have to say on the subject: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection..." Under the heading of personal attacks, they can sometimes be removed if the comments involve " personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." As you can see, you have to rise to the level of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in order to justify deleting a comment, and still then it is a "borderline case." This comment does not even come close to being disruptive.

I've removed the comments again. There is no reason to force them to remain there. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The anon can take his accusations to an appropriate noticeboard if he has a problem with an editor. --Onorem (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Depending on one's viewpoint, it could be argued that referring to the subject of the article as a "low level academic" could be construed to be a BLP violation. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for weighing in. I'd like to provide some context for Briancua's harassment/protests. He had been reverting edits made on various university and college pages that had been added after consensus, and supported by three other editors. See [[94]] for more context on that. After trying to provoke an edit war, he was told to stop because the content he was deleting was supported by a score of reliable sources and List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations, which is an article that I originally wrote. He then nominated that article for deletion [[95]]. Additionally, he went through my contribution history and undid a couple of edits, including the initial erasure of the uncivil activity on the Sandra Morgen talk page. It feels very much like I'm being harassed by this user simply because he disagreed with edits that I had made on pages he patrols. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I, naturally, feel differently about much of what was said here, but won't respond to that in an effort to keep this conversation focused on the issue at hand, the deletion on comments from this particular talk page. I would, however, like to apologize to Thebrycepeake if she feels harassed. That certainly was not my intention. --Briancua (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology @Briancua:, and hope the Admins will close the thread with no other actions needed after deleting the comments on Talk:Sandra Morgen.- Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting block on NicholasJudy456

NicholasJudy456 is a persistently disruptive editor who has been vandalizing pages pretty much nonstop for some time now. Examples of his "handiwork": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nickelodeon&oldid=629713229
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nicktoons&oldid=629650240
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lalaloopsy&oldid=629710218
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ren_%26_Stimpy_Show&oldid=626485470
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Litton%27s_Weekend_Adventure&oldid=625729765
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTV2&oldid=629713276
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Channel&oldid=625730544
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricburst1996 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're required to notify the editor. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I did so in lieu of Electricburst, pointless as said notification can be. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I see the first one as putting in a list of Broadcast affiliates, it looks like he took the MTV2 list of affiliates and added them to the Nickelodeon (appears to be a purposeful vandalism). The second one seems to be a spelling correction (this doesn't seem like vandalism to me). Third is something about Lalaloopsy's that I cant tell is accurate, but most of the article isn't even sourced at all. Adding Kabillion as one of the original channels of the The Ren & Stimpy Show (this appears to be inaccurate, although it is a "channel" I cant find any evidence that the ren and stimpy show was on there). The third one was about Weekend Adventures Disney Junior section on it (I cant find any evidence that this is accurate and they are two separate companies that seems unlikely this would occur, but I guess its possible). The 4th seems to be removing the MTV2 current stations, this doesn't seem accurate. The 5th is about adding Lalaloopsy to the list of shows on Disney Junior, this seems at least plausible given this [96]. The worst is the pure cut and past from the MTV to the Nick page, and I cant find anything to substantiate that actually occurred. I would strike the second one (can you explain why it is vandalism?) --Obsidi (talk ) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"May 2014, the year that was a facebook page and July 2014 Now The Teenage Versions of Lalaloopsy's Come to Life." is not something a proper editor would add, and it doesn't belong there. And no, Nick isn't broadcasting on MTV2's over the air stations. It hasn't gotten to the point where a block is needed, but the user needs to understand our policies and hoaxes will not be accepted. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yea it doesn't make any sense to me (but then it doesn't make any sense at all, I don't know why someone would want to vandalize that in). Totally agree about that last sentence. --Obsidi (talk ) 02:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Article "Bangkok" vandalism

I have the page "Bangkok" on my watchlist. Can someone please look at the following diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangkok&diff=629826444&oldid=629826174

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangkok&diff=next&oldid=629299242

Are these users the same person? Is this sockpuppetry? Please check and investigate. Thanks. TChemB (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are related to a few other accounts listed on one of those talk pages. Maybe a passing checkuser will take another look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we protect the page "Bangkok" from vandalism (silver-lock/allow only auto-confirmed users)? TChemB (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If no one does anything here, you could take it to WP:RFPP and see if you get better results. And I wonder if the juvenile who posted that has any clue how old that lame joke is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Incumbent article is a mess

Currently our incumbent article is a BLP nightmare, however it has been a mess since at least February of this year, and probably much longer. I am not sure where to go with this article. Any assistance would be appreciated. VViking_TalkEdits 12:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First, get long-term semi-protection. Go to WP:RFPP if no one jumps on it here. Then, revert the page back to its last good version and see if there are any intermediate edits worth re-adding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Bugs, did you review the edit history for this article? This innocuous perma-stub has been a long-term problem over several years, with no one apparently watch-listing it and deleting garbage content as it's being added. I have posted a notice on the WikiProject Politics page, asking them to watch list it and monitor it, but I have no idea if WP:Politics is active. I suspect a lot of this goes on in the largely un-patrolled back alleys of Wikipedia -- I have found a half dozen pure hoax articles in the last year, at least two of which survived New Page Patrol. Wikipedia really needs a better system for dealing with such problems in a more timely manner. Wikipedia's anti-vandalism systems are being tested daily, and it is apparent there are huge gaps in our safety nets. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

So it seems, yes. The article is being treated like a sandbox. Not good. At this point, permanent semi-protection would seem to be in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've found a fairly decent and more complete version from 01:18, 4 February 2014 and have restored that one. Maybe now that it no longer looks like a stub, it will be less attractive. Semi-protection is probably a good idea for a while, though. It's very odd how such an innocuous topic seems to have attracted so many frankly weird people. Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, in my personal experience, it's the backwaters that attract the most long-term vandalism because no one is watching them. I have over 3,500 articles on four different watch lists, and one thing I have observed is that when vandalism is quickly deleted/reverted, the vandals move on to other targets. I have several watch-listed articles that were previously problematic but no longer experience problems. Poorly written articles are also vandalism magnets. Vandals gravitate where their edits survive. Some of these folks are long-term problems, and I believe that at least some are intentionally testing our systems to see what they can get away with. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No question about it. I don't know what the solution would be. Maybe some bot program which uses an algorithm to figure out how many active non-vandals are watching the article, and to put it up for re-review if it's a low number, like maybe 5 or less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ip in a personal campaign of revenge

During the last days an unlogged editor reverts every single edit I perform [[97]] & [[98]] 85.179.xxx.xx. He is not limited in a specific topic but reverts virtually everything whether this is about Cyprus [[99]] or Illyria [[100]], considered it's edited by me. From the ip's location I can assume he is the permablocked Skipetari [[101]], while at the same time he displays a similar pattern in the German wiki [[102]] (editting as logged user there since he isnt' blocked in de:wiki).

Maybe a short-term range block can solve this, since he is really busy reverting 'everything' that's seen in my contribution log.Alexikoua (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days, let me know if the problem recurrs or go to WP:AIV. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive and abusive editing, excessive abuse etc by User:FleetCommand

• FleetCommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of The Big Bang Theory characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At List of The Big Bang Theory characters, FleetCommand is being aggressive and confrontational in such a way that rationally disussing disputed content is not possible. He has also been edit-warring and attacking me in edit-summaries in the article. It is not presently possibly to make constructive edits to the article because FleetCommand would rather edit-war than discuss and refuses to respect WP:BRD, also demonstrating a degree of WP:OWN over the article.

FleetCommand visited my talk page a month ago. Discussion seemed to be progressing until he decided to call me scatterbrained.[103] He was called out on this by another editor,[104][105] and from there the discussion went downhill. (see archived discussion) More than a month after last editing List of The Big Bang Theory characters he returned to the article, leaving an edit summary that read "Repaired damage inflicted by User:AussieLegend".[106] The "damage" was a deliberate choice to use {{anchor}} instead of {{visible anchor}} for a non-credited name. After that edit, I fixed a template name leaving an admittedly childish summary, as a way of hinting to him that he isn't perfect either.[107] That was reverted with the summary "Reverted tendentious violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. {{tl|Official}} redirects {{tl|Official website}}. Only AussieLegend is interested in conflict. I went to his talk page in peace but he kept stonewalling me and playing dumb". Seeing that as clearly going overboard, I left a note on FleetCommand's talk page.[108] I don't believe I went too far in addressing the situation, although I was (naturally) a bit terse. At this point Codename Lisa inserted herself into the discussion. Despite attempts to give her some background (We have had prior amicable dealings at Windows XP) her posts became more and more accusatory and hypocritical. She even criticised the editor who had called out FleetCommand on my talk page, simply because he said "fuck", even though he was not part of the conversation. Eventually I chose to withdraw from that discussion, and concentrate on the content issues by moving the disussion to the article's talk page.[109] However, that didn't stop her unjustly accusing me of being a liar.[110] Discussion on the article's talk page continued but Codename Lisa continued to question my conduct so I left what I feel was an appropriate post on her talk page[111] (several times she admonished me for addressing FleetCommand's conduct but, hypocritically, continued to criticise mine[112]).

FleetCommand's involvement in the article talk page discussion had been minimal, essentially consisting of a single paragraph, to which he added a trivial question and a baseless claim of sockpuppetry.[113] Since then he has only announced that he made an edit that hadn't been properly discussed,[114] followed by an attack.[115] FleetCommand has made aggressive and inappropriate edit summaries in the article, edit-warring as he did so:

• "Deleted {{verification failed}}. Per talk page, verification passed the test at 3:54. Actually, I did know that. I just wanted to see if AussieLegend resorts to this combative action. He did"
• "Deleted {{weasel-inline|date=October 2014}} because it is a peacock term, not a weasel word. Of course, because AussieLegend only seeks warfare, he doesn't care. Also replaced the term." - This is of particular note because {{weasel-inline}} wasn't added by me. It was added by an IP.[116]

In addition to the inappropriate summaries, FleetCommand has edit-warred. Because of threats by Codename Lisa,[117] I decided to document the warring instead of fixing the errors that were introduced. I did this here for anybody who wants to look. The edit-warring continues. Today, FleetCommand made some unexplained changes to the article, which I partially reverted, explaining why in each summary.[118][119] Note that I did not revert all of his edits, as there was some constructive editing.[120] In fact I deliberately did not restore two notes that have been added to the article because of prior problems with other editors. In today's edits I also made two changes so that the article reflected what is in the sources (the previous version contained significant WP:SYNTH).[121] FleetCommand's actions were to revert most of the changes that I made,[122] leaving just this portion remaining. He graciously "consented" (his word, not mine[123]) to that edit. And there is still no attempt by him at discussion on the article talk page. I am not claiming total innocence, but I believe that I have tried my best to collaborate with this editor, only to be abused for my efforts. This is not a simple case of edit-warring. A break from the article for whatever reason has been shown not to work. After a month away FleetCommand returned to the article and with his first edits he chose to attack me.[124] While content is an important part of this, the main problem here is FleetCommand's continued aggressive editing and abusive edit summaries. He has been blocked in the past, multiple times, for his attitude to other editors and edit-warring. There are even concerns about his actions at WP:AN right now. This is an editor who needs to be reminded that he has to collaborate with other editors, and fully justify his own actions, not to rely on somebody who seems to have a rather strange off-wiki relationship with him. I'm asking that he be given some firm direction in this area, and reminded that he can't edit-war. Even after he was convinced in an IM to revert an inappropriate reversion,[125] he has continued edit-warring. He also needs to respect the BRD process and not discount edits made by other editors. Given that he's editing just as he was when he was blocked I don't have a lot of hope though. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:FleetCommand: Hey, quit talking about the editor. Calling people warriors in edit summaries is going to make them warriors. Your causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Quit being a dick. Okay, let's close this and everyone move on.--v/r - TP 19:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If only it was that easy. FleetCommand only seems to be taking advice from Codename Lisa, and then only when it suits him. In this edit he self-reverted because she told him to, but in his very next edit, he effectively reverted himself, removing a ref and completely changed the context of one statement, turning a sourced statement into nonsense.[126] that had to be fixed.[127] --AussieLegend (✉) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are content issues, we can only address behavioral issues here, sorry.--v/r - TP 21:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I was addressing behavioural issues. My point was that he is unlikely to take notice of your comment. The edits I referred to were examples of his inconsistent behaviour. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone wants to pay me to write an article

On my talk page User:GKKelly997 is offering to pay me to write an article - something of course I won't do. I don't even have time to write my own articles! But what should we do, if anything, about this? Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's related to his Draft:Police, which started on his userpage, I'm guessing we've got a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take up his offer if you won't. But I'll insist on pre-payment before I tell him whether or not the article can be written within policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a troll. As for payment, maybe they should be advised to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. That will probably put the brakes on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegation of Racism at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

By the user here: [128]. Yesterday I warned about misrepresenting my position (slander) on the user's talk page [129], and explained why I find a Malaysian source to be unreliable here [130], along with links to other places where it had been explained previously. User responded by calling me a racist today because I "don't like Malaysian sources". Geogene (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

[131] appears to be a legal threat, you might want to retract/modify it before you get blocked under WP:NLT CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol. USchick (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The above editor has been here 6 years and should know better. The OP needs to pull back from the legal threat language, but unless USchick can provide proof to back up his/her personal attacks on the OP, USchick should be put on ice for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that CombatWombat, you have a point. I have no interest in any kind of legal action. I'll modify that comment however people want so there's no misunderstanding, at the same time I don't want to be accused of altering the record too much. Geogene (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

From: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#RfC: Should a tag be placed at the top of this article?

• And New Straits Times was dismissed as unreliable simply for being Malaysian. USchick (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Prove it.
• Direct quote from User:Geogene: "But I only oppose using NST in this particular article, I'm sure most of its uses elsewhere are fine." [132] At the same time, a discredited social media comment is still in the lede simply because it was "widely reported." Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Social media from Igor Girkin. My proposal to remove speculation out of the lede was also shot down with no good reason. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Proposal to remove all speculation out of the lede USchick (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• In case it's not clear, Geogene is saying that a Malaysian news source can't be trusted to choose the right side of the argument because sometimes they actually have an independently Malaysian viewpoint. Then he proceeds to cherry pick when NST can be trusted, and it turns out, only when they agree with Geogene. USchick (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Followed by slander accusation.
• There are other things being reported in RS, but since you don't like those particular reports, that information is being censored in this article. When I point out this discrepancy you accused me of slander on my talk page User talk:USchick#Slandering other editors in MH17. USchick (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, I most certainly have. Geogene (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC) USchick (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If the New Straits Times is effectively an arm of the Malaysian government, then it can't be considered independent and hence can't be considered reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New Straits Times is Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print since 1845. I'm not aware of any evidence that it's "an arm of the Malaysian government" formed in 1957. USchick (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The article says it's "pro-government". Do they ever criticize the government? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. "The Selangor government has slammed the New Straits Times for reporting that water from former mining ponds now being pumped into Sungai Selangor is toxic." [133] USchick (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

All that is beside the point. Geogene was NOT saying that an article from NST can't be used because it's Malaysian. S/he said that it can't be used because it was based on a crazy conspiracy site (global research). USchick then began accusing Geogene of being racist. They were effectively lying about the reason given for why this was not a reliable source, and doing so in quite an odious way (which is what accusing someone of racism is). Volunteer Marek  20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Talk about the edits and not the editor. If USchick has any confusion about that, they can be blocked until that confusion is straightened out.--v/r - TP 19:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I was accused of slander, and then I was accused of being a liar (twice). Does anyone get blocked for that? All I said is that discounting Malaysian sources simply for being Malaysian is racist. I stand behind my comment. I'm sure there's a policy to back this up. USchick (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's your response, I'm tempted to block you right now. You literally called someone a racist. Are you actually saying that you expect someone to not accuse you of slander for that? You didn't at all say "discounting Malaysian sources simply for being Malaysian is racist". You said "your racist friend". That's about a person, not sources. Seriously, your next reply needs to acknowledge how you escalated this issue dramatically and how you retract your accusations and in the future you will address the edits and not the editor.--v/r - TP 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I was accused of slander, then I was accused of being a liar (twice). In response, I called someone a "racist friend" and didn't name anyone in particular. Block me, right NOW if you wish, I'm not scared. I will be a martyr for justice. :-) USchick (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you will be a martyr for name-callers and 5 yr olds everywhere.--v/r - TP 19:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to start somewhere. Seriously, I see where it escalated and I said this needed to stop, and then I offered to be the first one to stop. And then i did stop. I can find the link if you want. USchick (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw where you said you'd stop. That isn't enough. You really need to remove the part calling OP a racist. Then OP needs to remove the parts calling things slander (which I think may have already happened) and then this thing is settled.--v/r - TP 19:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. USchick (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And sorry, I should not have come into this so aggressively, but this comment by you really irked me. It felt dismissive and cavalier.--v/r - TP 20:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, I remember you being cavalier before on a Jewish Bolshevism article. You were awesome then, and you're still awesome! Here's where i crossed out my comment. [134] USchick (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I only try to stay true to Tom Paris.--v/r - TP 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Live long and prosper. USchick (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

But the best defense against personal attacks by other people is to completely ignore that. If someone calls me a liar, then at that point that person is the one who is frustrated. So, that other person has a problem and if I don't fall in the trap of responding in kind, I can still continue to argue based in the relavant issues. The other person may get frustrated even more, resort to even more personal attacks, but why would I care? I've won the argument, that the other person has problems with that shouldn't matter to me. Count Iblis (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree! Unfortunately this is not always obvious at the time, especially when you're talking about content and lots of editors gang up on you and attack. They're waiting for you to say something, so they can take you to ANI and get you out of the way, so they can continue to do what they were doing before. I was assuming good faith, even when pepole were discounting Russian language sources (not Russian government), but when Malaysian sources were attacked for no good reason, that was a little too much. USchick (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

They're waiting for you to say something, so they can take you to ANI and get you out of the way, so they can continue to do what they were doing before.... but when Malaysian sources were attacked for no good reason, that was a little too much. ? So I'm still a racist? Geogene (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because accusing others of racism is "assuming good faith". Riiiiigggghhhhhttttt...  Volunteer Marek  21:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP/N topic- Debito Arudou

For your convenience here's a link to it [135]. Arudoudebito had prior taken this matter to ARBCOM. They did not take the case but did recommend it be taken to BLP/N. NYB had mentioned that this would probably benefit from the eyes of Admins and more experienced editors. The wall of text in BLP/N is much larger than the article it's complaining about so it probably would be helpful to have more eyes on it. There are also a number of claims about conduct and request for topic bans.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Buster Hatfield

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

---

Hi

User is claiming to be an administrator on his Userpage, also making personal attacks at my talk page[136].Amortias (T)(C) 21:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for this and other reasons. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Theres also an edit summary we could do with loosing on my talk page. Amortias (T)(C) 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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