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

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

There is a full-scale edit warring in the article involving multiple users. I am not suggesting (yet) that the users be sanctioned, but I would appreciate if someone takes a look and takes some action like e.g. page protection or discretionary sanctions. I did edit the article long time ago, so that I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• 6 edits yesterday, 1 today, 1 the day before. Looks like they are sticking to 1RR. I don't see the need for any drastic action yet. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of content that had references being repeatedly removed for what appears to be WP:I just don't like it reasons. 20 pages of talk archive! And really, how many times does Volunteer Marek have to repeat the link WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before someone starts to scream? He's done it 14 times so far in the active talk page and it is no substitute for actual discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, indeed I guess they self-oganized to stick to 1RR. There was some attempt on the action a week ago, but it was suddenly stopped by TParis (who was afraid that an intervention of an American admin could be unwanted).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be some tag teaming, hard to prove, I'm just saying the article edit volume is manageable and I can't see any action to take there. As for the talk page, that is a mess, but better the talk page than the article. Being an American (and ex-military to boot), I'm not sure my input is any more welcome. Dennis - 2¢ 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Dennis. I know we have an admin teaching English in China right now. Perhaps they'd be the least biased here. Or an Australian admin? Do we have any sysops from South America maybe?--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia lost a lot of people in the incident and imposed sanctions on Russia. China, Latin America, India, Pakistan, or South Africa would be the best locations for an admin willing to do anything there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am South American. I think I could help then? → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your intervention will be certainly welcome in any case, but what I mean is that a South American users run considerably lower chances to be accused in affiliation with one side of the conflict than Americans, Australians, Europeans, or Russians.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently a user wanted to report this matter to WP:AE (where it belongs), but changed his mind [1]. Given that, I think reporting this here (or anywhere) was not such a good idea. And yes, I agree with Dennis. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion. I personally have no problem with an American admin. I would have a serious problem with someone who claims that tag teaming is "hard to prove" when there is very obvious and very serious OWNership by editors who insist they know "the truth" even though there's an ongoing investigation. Do they know something the investigators don't know? USchick (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If so, how many "tag teams" do you think operate here, who exactly are members of each "team", and what exactly proofs of "tag-teaming" (as opposed to collaborative editing in good faith) do you have? My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting a new sanctions request about this. Do you think now is a good time? USchick (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I think that casting aspersions is a very bad idea, unless you have evidence to support your claims. I do not really see anything except a few people acting in a good faith. I think you should either remove your comment above (this is my suggestion) or provide your evidence at WP:AE, which would be a proper noticeboard for such case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will think about it. USchick (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the process. To ask for Sanctions to be enforced, can I ask on the talk page or somewhere else? USchick (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ask an advice from any administrator who you think would be knowledgeable and uninvolved in editing pages on Eastern Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The admins here have acknowledged that there's a problem on the talk page. Can you please provide some guidance on how to proceed? Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. When it's time to block people, admins have a lot to say, but when it's time to offer constructive advice, there's no one to be found? I bet admins would get a lot more respect if they were wiling to take on a leadership role instead of acting like jailers. Just saying. USchick (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are three avenues you may want to take. First, if one of the editors behaves disruptively, he or she can be reported here or at 3RR Noticeboard, depending on the situation, or eventually even at arbitration enforcement. I would say there is very little chance for smth to happen - for example, once I was trying to deal with the editor who was adding {{fact}} templates to figure captions, and wanted to get references for the Constitution of Russia (you know, with ISBN etc), and I could only get him blocked from the fourth attempt, and my first attempt resulted in someone lecturing me that this is a proper behavior, and I am attacking a good-faith user. Furthermore, if this is a purely content dispute (and if you ask me, I would say it currently is), WP:DRN is at your service, and then mediation. I am not really looking forward, since you are in minority, and the majority can simply ignore the dispute resolution attempts, but you can try nevertheless. Finally, the most difficult route, which so far nobody tries to take, is to take every single source and get consensus elsewhere on whether the source is reliable in this situation. For example, if you think RT is a reliable source - take it to the corresponding noticeboard, insist that it gets evaluated, and if it is concluded to be a reliable source as far as Ukraine is concerned, info from RT can be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a bad idea about the RS noticeboard. Thanks!!! USchick (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But always do the search. This particular source was discussed numerous times, most recently here and becomes less and less reliable every day. Disputing questionable sources on the RS noticeboard is enormous waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that RT is generally fairly trustworthy, and is most trustworthy where it reports on things that are not directly connected to Russia, and most useful when those trustworthy reports concern news stories that are deliberately under reported (or not reported at all) by media sources in the US (or, in Britain, by the BBC). It quite clearly delights in pointing out the biases and untrustworthy nature of some US and European reporting on some issues, which sometimes means it misses the point in its reporting, emphasizes the wrong things, and gives that reporting an unprofessional and rather amateurish tone. I think the idea that a blanket "trustworthy" or "untrustworthy" label can be given to a major media source that reports on many different subject areas in many different countries is always going to be unsustainable, which is why that particular discussion was called "a giant waste of time". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

People are arguing about what information they want to include, so the argument is not about the source itself. Time magazine is reliable, but there's an entire argument about what the article actually says. Any advice about what to do when editors cherry pick information to support one side of the story and ignore the other side? USchick (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Here is the official advice. You are obviously uncomfortable with editing these subjects. Edit something else ("may wish to restrict their editing to other topics"). My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear My very best wishes, if I wanted to have a personal conversation with you, I would have it on your talk page. Since this is an admin page, I was hoping for admin advice. Still hoping. USchick (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually this page isn't intended solely for admins, the header itself says that. There's no real way to get the advice of admins only, since there's no real reason. Admin have an extra set of tools, but their opinion doesn't count more than that of an ordinary editor. And an admin not acting in accordance with the communities wishes (as expressed by our policies, guidelines and ultimately consensus) will find their actions reversed and themselves possibly even desysoped. And editor who asks for action which is clearly supported by such will generally find an admin willing to take whatever admin only action may be needed, sometimes even if the admin themselves isn't happy about it (although often it's best if the admin has no set opinion). In fact, if you are demanding admin attention when there's no reason, it wouldn't surprise me if some admins are more likely to ignore you because they don't think it's healthy to encourage such behaviour which goes against sensible and expected editing practice. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. Actually, the article doesn't look as bad as it used to. USchick (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for UrbanVillager

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains#Pincrete_behaving_like_he.2Fshe_owns_this_page for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban; the ownership and promotional editing have continued despite all attempts by other editors to intervene. I have long since given up trying to improve those articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sadly, I can simply copy&paste my previous response: I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly a tendentious and promotional single-purpose account with a massive conflict of interest. We don't need to tolerate such editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have not decided on this issue yet but an editor from 2010 who had contributed to a variety of topics does not seem to indicate a SPA to me. Chillum 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The topics edited on all relate either to the filmmaker, to the documentaries themselves or to the people interviewed in the documentaries. I'm not seeing a large variety unless you're including some edits years ago related to Serbia generally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE 5th November, UrbanVillager, today made 7 edits on subjects not related to Malagurski, these are almost the only non-Malagurski edits in the last 3 years, even edits on subjects such as Serbian Canadians, or on talk-pages are almost ALWAYS directly connected to Malagurski (see also global edit histories below). Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A few very close calls. Most recent edits are mostly in the topic area of Boris Malagurski, however there are enough old edits in other areas that I am not willing to push too hard on the SPA side of things to a topic ban (I would need more evidence of actual promotion/advocacy that I haven't seen yet). [2] gets very, close to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point." Which I think applies in this case. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The two ANI's referred to by Ricky81682 above are examples of ACTUAL disruption. Having made these accusations, UrbanVillager, offered no further evidence, (but still repeats the accusations in his response below). Every editor substantially involved in the WoC over the last two years has been a target of UrbanVillager's specious accusations. I have created a section below detailing disruption[3]. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:Ankit Maity made a relevant comment in the discussion further down this page, which I'm going to go ahead and quote:

I don't get this All SPAs are bad concept. Come on, this is not some satanic cult promoting their ancient religion of Sabbatic craft. It's simply a user who is interested in editing a specific topic. Unless the user displays really poor knowledge of policies, has COI or fails to maintain NPOV, he shouldn't be classified as a bad SPA. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

--Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, it needs a showing of "has COI or fails to maintain NPOV", although if it is a SPA that suggests that such a NPOV/COI argument is going to be stronger, but it needs to actually be made. --Obsidi (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Plenty of evidence has been given about the tendentious and promotional nature of UrbanVillager's editing. Given the previous history of disruption and self-promotion by Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets, we shouldn't tolerate very similar behavior by UrbanVillager, even if he's not Malagurski himself. (And why should we care?) No such user (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban per Obsidi, Ankit Maity, and Richard Yin's comments. Yes, there are some tendentious edits here but it is not all UrbanVillager's doing. As an example, see this recent revert war between UV and Pincrete: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable. Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway. There is clear POV-pushing here from both sides. Warnings are deserved all around but a one-sided topic ban does the encyclopedia no service. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, names 5 editors above, one of them (NinjaRobotPirate) has never edited on Malagurski pages, nor (as far as I know), inter-acted with any 'key' editors, it is therefore unfair to make NRP in any way responsible for what has or should have happened or not happened. I will reply to IV's comments about me if he wishes. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary, Pincrete, my point is that I don't think there's anything actionable here. My apologies to NinjaRobotPirate, I thought I saw a comment from you in one of the sockpuppet investigations but I was mistaken, and it was sloppy of me to have named you in my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's alright. No harm done. Like I mentioned earlier, I came into this long-running dispute rather late. I think that I did post to a talk page once or twice, but I quickly gave up. I'm not especially concerned with whether anyone here is a sock puppet or SPA; instead, my concerns are the unending drama, edit wars, and POV-pushing. While it's true that neither side has been purity itself, only one editor has threatened to disrupt the article. I understand why some people are opposing, but it's just going to drag this drama out even longer, and we'll be back here again in a few weeks. I think it's better to resolve it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per User:Ivanvector and because I believe that Ricky abused the tools. Caden ^cool 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As editors have asked for evidence of 'disruptive behaviour', I have created a section below [16], I will attempt later to include evidence of NPOV editing. The two together, combined with edit history, constitute a WP:DUCK argument for a COI. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Reponse

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be. … … (I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 ) … Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [17]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago.) Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) … … Further comment on response, UrbanVillager, above refers repeatedly to 'a few other editors', but (apart from me), does not name them (he cannot, there ARE only a few others). He repeatedly says that I and other editors have openly said we 'despise Malagurski and his work'. He accuses editors of canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Two quick questions - Chillum, are you still considering this? And UrbanVillager, can you please provide diffs supporting your statement that other relevant editors said they despise Malagurski and his work. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No I have not considered this further. Chillum 17:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It would take a while to gather all the diffs, but here are a few: Opbeith saying "'Malagurski's work is crap ... and it's knowingly deceitful crap" [18] (Note: Opbeith stopped editing Wikipedia November 2012, but Pincrete continued Opbeith's mission and gave the following thoughts about "The Weight of Chains", Malagurski's film:

"I'm personally thinking of making an alternative view of the Second World War, I'll start off with some cute film of some Jewish people telling the world how nice the Germans families always were to them, I'll have lots of stories of the rape and slaughter of Germans as the Russians advanced and as the Western Allies bombed .... I'll of course devote much time to the terrible conditions imposed on Germany by the 1919 Armistice ... I can probably find many individual Germans who did - throughout - act heroically and humanely. This won't be a difficult film to make, since all these things are true. I won't of course bother to mention Auschwitz, the invasion of 20 countries, the suppression of any dissenting views within Germany .... Why should I? "It's a movie .... It's an alternative view" ... put your feet up, get some popcorn watch my movie." [19]

Pincrete also presents his POV of Malagurski's film, instead of discussing the quality of the article, not the content itself: "Anyhow, many of the claims made in the film are NOT from verifiable sources ... or are from sources that a MASSIVE weight of evidence contradicts." [20], Also, he said: "those who made, watch and attempt to whitewash this film are painting themselves into an intellectual and moral corner." [21]

Bobrayner calls Malagurski a "minor film-maker" here: [22], and discusses "Malagurski-spam" here: [23]. That's only a part of it, unfortunately I don't have time right now to look for more. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager's quotes are ALL from remarks I made on the talk page on my FIRST and SECOND DAY as an editor in late 2012, I plead guilty to becoming involved (with UrbanVillager and Opbeith) in a somewhat esoteric discussion about intellectual honesty in documentaries, which - green though I was - I quickly realised was going nowhere. Even then UrbanVillager robs my quote of context as much of what I wrote that day was a direct response to HIS remarks earlier in the page. UrbanVillager also fails to note that Opbeith's and my primary complaint in 2012 was that the article was simply a copy/paste of the film's own website and press releases (I didn't know about copyvio at that time, nor what to do about it).

The fact that UrbanVillager needs to drag Opbeith into this (who made few article edits during 2011 and RETIRED in 2012), advertises the poverty of his 'conspiracy theories'. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for further information

Obsidi, User:Ankit Maity, Ivanvector,Richard Yin have, variously, left comments or requested further information above. The subjects of there requests are (again variously), lack of evidence of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour, or of NPOV editing. This section is a response to those requests. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

The two ANI's UrbanVillager recently initiated are examples of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour. In the case of the SPI, brought against me :[24], about which the 'closing clerk' JamesBWatson, later modified his comments :[25]. This SPI is especially absurd, since even if I WERE Opbeith (or his pet monkey), not a single comma was changed in any article as a result of the 3-4 weeks (two years ago) during which we overlapped as editors. Opbeith was not banned nor censured and if Opbeith had chosen to retire and re-appear as Pincrete, no WP rule would have been broken. UrbanVillager has himself been involved in enough SPI's to know that a check-user would be so stale as to be pointless. UrbanVillager initiated this SPI because he had, been repeatedly warned about clogging the talk page with accusations and disruptive comments . If Admin don't object to having their time wasted by SPIs that have neither suspicion of any 'crime' nor any hope of success, and don't see such SPIs as 'disruption', I'm afraid I do.

The earlier ANI (against myself and bobrayner) was almost equally spurious.[26] While the matter was on the ANI, UrbanVillager made this edit on 17th Sept :-[27]. The first review he inserted,(VICE) was already the subject of a RSN here:[28], where it was rejected (editors concluding that this was an advert, not a review). The second 'review' (Elich), was actually from an interview between the director and one of the people in the film. The third review's intro is altered by describing the reviewer ('teaching assistant'), and source ('blog') in a way which UrbanVillager KNEW to be incorrect. The fourth 'review' (Pečat) has ultimately been accepted in the article. That UrbanVillager's changes did not have consensus, is shown by going to the 'next' edit. This happened at a time that UrbanVillager had recently been warned about making non-consensus changes to this section. All of the objections to the reviews (except Pečat), had already been made clear, including here[29], where a threat is made, which is executed the next day. [30]

UrbanVillager's edit reason on 17th Sept, is itself perverse ("re-adding valid response, as per User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's explanations of Wikipedia policy:[31]"), a relatively novice editor had left a comment on the ANI, which UrbanVillager chose to interprete as a statement of WP policy. Having not 'got away with' this edit, UrbanVillager then offered no further evidence on that ANI, replied to no questions, but 'disappeared' for several weeks, having wasted an enormous amount of my, bobrayner's and Admin time and goodwill.

Ivanvector, refers to an edit war between UrbanVillager and (chiefly) myself during the summer (In my own defence I say this, I have NEVER previously been involved in an edit war, I was defending a majority viewpoint, I repeatedly offered compromises which were consistent with what RSs said (which were not even discussable to UV), and I ultimately called a 'truce' voluntarily BEFORE we were both reported and censured). I don't want to clog up this ANI with 'content' matters, but whereas I attempted to de-escalate matters, UrbanVillager escalated the edit-war by removing/re-writing the entire 'criticism' section. Whereas I have since then been extremely cautious about modifying this section, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to insert dubiously sourced and misrepresented 'reviews'.[32] [33]

The first of these two 'reviews', turns out to be an artist's private website, the second (when a source was found, the given ref is simply a mirror), turns out to be a very brief account of a 'panel discussion', written by a student, and Markovic is not a 'Professor', (the word means teacher in many European languages). However despite reservations, neither I nor other editors have ruled out using the quote, as long as it is not given undue weight. UrbanVillager, when reverted by another editor, then attempts to appeal directly to Ricky81682 [34], again misrepresenting both Markovic and Kilibarda(Markovic = "Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received". Kilibarda = "teaching assistants at a Hamilton university"). UrbanVillager characterises me as 'His Royal Highness Pincrete', (because I have dared to ask for a source/author), accuses Somedifferentstuff of disruptive behaviour, and signs off "Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up", a remark presumably directed at me.

I have strayed from 'disruptive behaviour' into NPOV editing, however the two are connected, the behaviour appears intended to retain WP:ownership. I finish this section by referring to interaction with other editors. During the 2+ years I have been (on and off) involved with The Weight of Chains, there have been about 8 editors who have been involved for more than a few weeks, '(additionally a few only on the talk page 'inc.Whitewriter), every one of them has at some point been accused of collaborating/conspiring etc. with the purpose of degrading the article (except recent editor Ricky81682 and Whitewriter), most of them repeatedly accused on ANIs.

Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse (I don't have a brain, can't speak English, can't read, know nothing about film's or festivals, don't know what a film credit or synopsis is, and shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit … as well, of course, as being 'His Royal Highness Pincrete' and various other things … does anyone actually want the diffs?). Enduring this stuff is mostly tiresome, however it does create a toxic atmosphere, which in itself is 'actual disruption'.

I intend to add the case for NPOV editing, when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Yes, every time you make a claim about another editor attacking you, you need to provide proof in the form of diffs. I see in one of the discussions you linked to that other editors have pointed that out to you before, as well as advised you not to put up walls of text like what you wrote above. You could summarize: "here's UV re-adding sources [diffs] that were rejected by consensus at RSN [diffs]. Here's UV throwing personal attacks: [diffs] Here's where 700 editors have tried to reason with policy arguments [diffs] but UV reinserted material anyway [diffs]."

We've discussed above and elsewhere how being a SPA is not forbidden, if editors are not disruptive. UrbanVillager is a disruptive SPA, based on what diffs Pincrete did provide, but not the only editor misbehaving in this topic area. However, the extended detail of UV insisting on using sources deemed unacceptable by RSN and repeatedly reinserting material against consensus are more problematic. But is this enough to support a topic ban for a user who only wishes to edit that topic (effectively a community ban) when they have never been sanctioned previously? (except once for editing against an inappropriately applied topic ban - quickly reversed)

I'm not an admin here and I may be punching above my weight, but I would like to propose we try a block, for edit warring against consensus and (if diffs are provided) personal attacks. UrbanVillager will be free to edit when the block expires but if they continue the same behaviour that led to the block, it will be very easy to support a WP:NOTHERE ban as the next step. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, the paragraph above, beginning: "Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse", do you dispute that my record is accurate regarding remarks directed by you against me since approx. April 2014? Can you cite any abuse or accusations made by me against you that might have justified your remarks, EXCEPT my saying that you seem to look upon the film maker himself as the only reliable source of information? (which I don't believe was ever phrased abusively). Do you also dispute that I, and others, have several times asked you to stop making such abusive remarks?

Ivanvector, I really don't have time to assemble diffs for personal abuse and consider NPOV editing more important, however the above para gives UrbanVillager the opportunity to contradict me. Should it prove important, I will assemble such diffs. Regarding bans, I have no opinion, except that those extolling 'assume good faith' should be willing to get their hands dirty by staying involved with the pages, because those who HAVE been involved, even briefly, have all had their patience exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no such requirements for assuming good faith - we expect it of everyone. You've made some serious accusations of wrongdoing above with your "lion's share" comment, but I'm not going to just take your word for it - show your work. Or be prepared to retract. I could go look myself but we're talking about an alleged pattern of abuse going back years over dozens of pages. I don't have time either, but I'm also not the one making accusations. I'll suggest to you that if maintaining NPOV is your primary concern (which is good) and you see UrbanVillager as the primary impediment to that, then you should make time to find those diffs. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Global edit histories

These diffs show the edit histories of UrbanVillager: … … Commons [35] … … German [36] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [37] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [38] … … Italian [39] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [40] nb complaints about block [41]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [42] … … Romanian [43] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [44] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [45] … … Serbian [46] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … …Global[47] … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently (which caused it to be in breach of copyvio, nearly 4 years after its first warning). Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [48]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret

This user has more or less become a single purpose account. There editing has become not very produce such as:

• The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless.
• And we all [k]now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous.
• They have also been involved in a fair bit of WP:CANVASSING. For example he recently put these notes on a couple of users talk pages requesting their participation [49] and [50] and others. They earlier requested the support of one of these users after having made some controversial changes [51]

Does this rise to the level of a temporary topic ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where you were remanded for inappropriate notification[52]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, let me mention that he requested mere participation not support (except in the last one where he added his own opinion). Doc James, you've been warned for 3RR along with Ferret, I believe this is just not enough for a TBAN. Doc, you're in it too. I believe you all should quit this battleground mentality. A self-imposed TBAN will go a long way. Just my two cents. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [53][54][55][56][57] This appears to be allowed according to WP:CANVASSING. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does.[58][59] After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[60] The editor was referring to this this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a 10 hour difference between when the first two editors were notified and the other five were notified. Does that qualify as canvassing? I wouldn't think so but perhaps I'm wrong. If the post on the village pump is considered canvassing (is it? I don't know), then bringing it up now, a week later, seems a little late. Ca2james (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussions were long that day and I needed some sleep, there is no time limit on when editors need to be notified by, I got up and notified others. But even if I only notified the two editors you point out, they are active on the article and had both edited the article. Informing them of the RFC, and all I did was ask them to look at the RFC, is allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk)

I will address all these false accusations.

• The so called canvasing was going back a week or so in history and notifying every editor of the article that wasnt an IP of a rfc. Including ones I knew would probably disagree with my position like Yobol.
• #85 is out of sequence and happened the night before the rfc was made, all I ws doing was asking another editor to look at the edits I had done to see if a NPOV tag/banner she had placed could be removed. This distorting of the timeline to suggest something wrong is intentional. It has been pointed out the Doc James before. As such it, in my opinion the retaliation is a continuation of the war Doc James was warned to stop but has not. These accusations were addressed in the report on Doc James linked to here. I was warned for edit warring, resuscitating them here is a desperate ploy.
• My opinion of the WHO (World Health Organization) is just that my opinion, and I have a right to it. The WHO is treated like some kind of God on the article. While he has me saying my opinion of the WHO on a talk page, he doesnt have diff's of me removing statements of the WHO from the article.
• The third was a sarcastic response to a well known edit warrior QuackGuru with a long ban list history calling the additions of another editor ridiculous.

This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on Doc James. Perhaps its time for a boomerang. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You disagree? You restored the tag of shame to the lede without explaining what is wrong with the lede. Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That tag was placed by Kim, you removed it with an open RFC on it, that is still open. I replaced it because it is the subject of an open RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you want to keep it in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be wiser to keep content related stuff to the article talk page. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it appears that a few editors want to exclude the position of the World Health Organization and a review article published in Circulation (journal), one of medicines most respected journals. They instead wish to replace these with the position of a single author review published in a 1 year old journal with an impact factor of zero.[61] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your true motivation, a conflict over content, and silencing those that disagree with you. The boomerang should hit hard AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure it will. My motivation is to accurately reflect the best available sources. Personal attacks are unfortunately becoming more common [62] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you proved personal attacks are becoming common by coming here. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doc, but do you really think that fighting over content issues is appropriate for AN/I? Noone - None - Zip - Nada persons want to "exclude the position of the World Health Organization". The issue over a particular conference report from the WHO is significantly more complex than should be dragged out here, and certaintly not by misrepresenting peoples views. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

While we have this comment The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless, which sounds like a desire to exclude the WHOs position IMO. If some come to the discussion with this perspective it makes it difficult to edit health related content. And than we have the personal insults. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that sarcastic comment, at a person who made a negative comment on another editors edits using the same word. Who has been pointed out a few times for disruptive editing of the article #1 #2. Where can we find the entry on this page from you for QuackGuru who shares your point of view? Nobody has tried to remove the WHO from the article. There is a report they commissioned, that is used 36 times, its use needs to be scaled back, but its used more and more.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's note one thing. Doc, you've accused him of being an SPA, which I believe he is not. But the fact that he's made 786 (take away or give a few, I used Ctrl+F on his contribs) edits to E-cigarette related stuff is disturbing. And unless, he's been factually incorrect, has failed to maintain a NPOV or has some kind of a COI, there's really no problem if this is a SPA. Doc, you're certainly involved and the fact that you've not taken any actions is an excellent thing (in fact, if you felt you've been wronged and you came to ANI for that, it was a perfectly fine decision). Note to all: Please refrain from making personal attacks. It can be grounds for harassment. It's also time to quit all of your battleground mentality. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to comment on the number of edits. I rarely make single edits and leave. A majority of the time typo's, extra spaces, justification problems, and syntax errors pop up because the wysiwyg editor doesnt work quite right on my distribution so I edit source most of the time. I will add a word because it doesnt read right, or after reading the paragraph move the addition to group it. It usually takes about 5 or more edits on something before I'm done, even on talk pages. If you divide that number by 4 or 5 its not that bad. While its still over 100 it isnt that bad on an article that is constantly changing. AlbinoFerret 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral on topic ban (for now). Weak support for topic ban, definite warning needed and maybe X hours block for hounding to force them to take a break for a bit and come back with a clear head. A topic ban would alleviate some issues at the page, but the behavior issues mostly seem to stem from a misunderstanding of NPOV that is causing disruption at the page. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN could be helpful for this user, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem either. I've been watching the talk page from afar, and I will admit that there are issues that need to be resolved there, but I really can't put my finger on one single thing that's the main issue we can tie everything together with. Doc James, just my take on the points you listed:

1. I do think AlbinoFerret's comments on the WHO being treated as god-like appear problematic. This could be a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS with the degree of weight (usually quite a bit) we give statements from respected scientific organizations and WP:IDHT behavior to a degree. Not really actionable by itself though.
2. For personal attacks, even sarcastic statements should not be used in spiny topics because they will rarely be taken as sarcastic. If there are many attacks though, then there would be something to consider for action there. AlbinoFerret definitely appears to have a spiny attitude in some cases after skimming over the talk page. I'm not sure the case has been made for personal attacks with just one diff though (feel free to provide more diffs if I missed a lot going through that mess).
3. I can see how you are looking at canvassing considering that those requests you mentioned (while worded neutral) did result in opinionated editors entering the fray. That does pose the question on whether canvassing was going on, but is there anything to substantiate that AlbinoFerret knew what their stance would be already and was recruiting? An extremely dicey question to tackle, but that would seem to be the only way to demonstrate canvassing here.

Overall, SPA's are tricky to actually pin down as such. The core concept of an SPA is advocacy in some form, so maybe the better question is to ask whether AlbinoFerret's edits are grounded in advocacy for a particular point of view? Looking over how much they have been involved in the topic and the general vibe I get looking at their talk posts, this is a legitimate question to look into at this point, but advocacy actually being an issue here hasn't really been demonstrated yet (i.e., more concrete diffs). This would really have to answered before considering any kind of ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I recently edited the acupuncture article so what did AlbinoFerret write? He wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice."[63] AlbinoFerret also wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in."[64] Lots of sourced text was removed from the article[65][66] but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. He undid the removal of text later when an editor commented on his talk page. Now he deleted sourced text again. Please review the problematic RFC. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The RFC is unhelpful and the Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC goes against policy.[67] QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I hear you on deleting swathes of text while claiming no consensus though when saying order or section names haven't been decided. That is inappropriate, not to mention the Unknown (etc.) talk section is a plain silly premise and WP:JDL. You guys should be summarizing what the reliable secondary sources say whether the source says something does happen, doesn't, or is unknown. It looks like AlbinoFerret does need help understanding NPOV/due weight when it comes to their concerns about "negative bias", such as this diff [68], but that's not a matter for this noticeboard, but over at WP:NPOVN unless that behavior related to all this content discussion has become either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or advocacy. The acupuncture comment is threatening to WP:HOUND you in this context, no doubt there. Basically, I do agree now that there is a problem with this user.

So, the threatening to hound should get a warning at a minimum or maybe an order of hours block to get the point across that civility is needed to cool their jets. That's just obviously bad. Everything else? Still really ambiguous for me what exactly would justify admin action since there are so many different things that are in a gray zone for whether help in other noticeboards is needed or admin action for disruptive editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43, I think this is mainly a case of he does not like what the MEDRS compliant sources say.[69] I think he will continue to delete reliably sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

1. The "canvassing" does not seem to be an issue, other users were notified in time, and I'm sure AlbinoFerret is now aware of the protocol.
2. The comment about the WHO is not a big deal, and we should be able to accommodate different opinions without allowing it to chill discussion. OF course that does not mean that AF gets to veto WHO sources that meet RS/MEDRS.
3. The personal attack against Quack Guru is unwarranted, and should be struck by AF. AF should be warned about making personal attacks.
4. The suggestion that AF will follow QG to acupuncture is unhelpful at best. AF should be advised not to make these types of comments in future.
5. AF's comment "This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on ..." suggests that AF was deliberately edit warring. AF (and if necessary others) should be reminded that edit warring is not a good solution to disputes. However this ha already been done: AF was warned about edit warring here on the 7th. They seem to understand, though there is resistance to other advice offered.
6. There is no reason for a few hour cooling down block, this section is already several days old.

• I suggest a suitably worded warning/advice about personal attacks (2 above) and threatening to hound (3 above) by an uninvolved admin/editor would serve to resolve this section.
  

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

User:Bbb23 warned AlbinoFerret against further WP:EDITWARRING. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29. He was warned again. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is probably the root of the issue here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. AlbinoFerret is a straight-up WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:Single-purpose account who is engaging in disruptive WP:GAME-playing editing regarding the topic. AF joined the e-cig conversation on Sept. 30, with only a relative handful of edits before that and long gaps in Wikipedia participation. A review of AF's contributions shows 272 of his 284 article edits since Sept. 30 to the topic itself, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his 681 Talk page edits(!) just since Sept. 30 related to the topic. This does't take into account his User Talk page involvement, WP:DRN discussion, or WP:3RRNB and WP:ANI activity related to his behavior regarding his editing of this topic.

  For the game-playing, one example: AF was involved in this Talk page discussion regarding one source, it concluded with no consensus to include the source because it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS standards. It was added back anyway by another editor, which led to this DRN discussion that AF was involved it. It was closed as successful by the DRN volunteer against AF's position, with "no consensus to include". AF appears to have taken this as a license to open up RFCs at the article Talk page over content he doesn't like, and then use that as an excuse to removed lots of well-sourced content while stating "no consensus to include". For example, review this RFC AF started: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC, which asks "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" Several experienced editors pointed out that this is a flawed RFC from the get-go. Formerly 98, QuackGuru, Doc James, Cloudjpk, Johnuniq, FloNight, Alexbrn and myself have all stated that the RFC itself is at best unclear and at worst impossibly out of line with policy, particularly WP:NPOV; only EllenCT has responded in support. This didn't prevent AF from going ahead and removing a ton of well-sourced content with edit summaries like "remove non consensus edits": [70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]

  Overall AF's involvement at regarding this topic is very disruptive and a topic ban is warranted. Zad68 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - the travesty at Electronic cigarette has shaken my faith in the integrity of the Wikipedia medical editing establishment more than any other event. There are multiple very high quality MEDRS literature reviews which have been cited in the article for months, but the medical editor clique -- the same editors opposed to AlbinoFerret here -- are staunchly against including their plain language statements that e-cigarettes are helpful to smokers who switch to them, much less harmful if harmful at all compared to cigarettes, and that physicians should support smokers switching to them. Instead of expressing concerns rooted in policy or guidelines, this cadre is simply making up new rules from whole cloth, pretending that a WHO conference proceeding has been independently reviewed when it is not, and insisting that the uncertainty of inconclusive reviews be exclusively and prominently summarized in the article introduction when they know full well there are no alternative hypotheses contradicting the fact that millions of smokers lives could be saved over the next decade if e-cigarettes are only effective for a quarter of the smoking population (as one of the longstanding MEDRS reviews says) because they mitigate the damage from smoke inhalation. If I was not so demoralized by this sad state of affairs, I would have already escalated it through WP:RSN to higher level dispute resolution to call this formerly respectable cadre to account. Oh! How my heroes have fallen! Sic transit gloria mundi! I urge administrators to admonish the fallen cadre for their blatant disrespect and violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather a vast conspiracy you are positing here Ellen. Why do you suppose that a group, many of whom are physicians, and which has created for itself the most demanding set of sourcing rules of any project in Wikipedia, the Medicine Project would suddenly and en mass decide to conspire to cover up evidence supporting a health-promoting device? I'd urge you to think about alternate hypotheses for explaining the current deadlock.Formerly 98 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of bullies who have become so overwhelmed with WP:OWNership of an entire subject matter that they are willing to ignore policy and make up new rules to save face. I've repeatedly asked for alternative hypotheses on the article talk page, and none have been forthcoming. So what do you say they are? EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, Ellen, this ANI discussion needs to remain focused on editor behavior and not turn into a content discussion. You haven't made any behavior-based argument here against a topic ban for AF. We need to be able to have disagreements about sourcing and content without engaging in disruptive behavior, as AF has done. Zad68 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am complaining about editor behavior, and there is no way to explain that complaint without reference to the underlying content. That is just the way things are. AlbinoFerret should be commended for upholding the NPOV pillar policy in the face of so much willingness to disregard and violate it, and shame on your characterization of that admirable behavior as disruption. EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban, preferably in combination with a temporary freeze on editing by all editors By way of disclosure I have been somewhat involved in this conflict and on the other side from AF. I've personally felt concerned by what I perceive as a lack of understanding or perhaps a even a lack of regard for MEDRS by AF and some of his allies, who really seem to me less concerned with reliable sources and reflecting the extremely heavy emphasis placed on health issues in virtually all reliable sources on this topic than on making sure it presents a certain point of view. How one can take a topic in which so much of what is in the literature is about health and make suggestions such as splitting out the health issue discussion into a separate article is beyond my imagination as behavior of someone who is trying to build an encylopedia rather than advocate. But as I have admitted, I am to some extent a combatant here and so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

  I am also concerned about the effect this long running battle has on the culture of Wikipedia. The Electronic Cigarette article has been edited 272 times this week and the Talk page 508 times. We usually have at least one RFc ongoing. This is an edit war on the scale of WWI, with an equal level of deadlock.

  Its time for the United Nations to send in some peacekeeping troops. I'd urge a fairly lengthy freeze of the article contents. I think a two week or longer ban on ALL EDITS by ALL PARTIES would potentially have a saluatory effect at this point. This, combined with topic bans for those whose behavior is indicative of not putting the encyclopedia first might put us on the right track. I'd recommend both of these actions, but either one by itself might help. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support editing freeze - the cadre trying to omit the conclusive, prescriptive statements from the MEDRS reviews they otherwise support need to step aside and make way for editors who have respect for the NPOV policy. At this point I agree that a two week ban on edits by those who have previously edited the article is the only way to accomplish that. A topic ban alone would make things worse. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban It is obvious that the RFC mentioned above is formulated as a vague motherhood statement to be used as a pretext to revert unwanted edits. Contributors wanting to tell the world about the benefits of e-cigarettes will have to excuse the slow and methodical approach of the WP:MEDRS editors who correctly want to wait for suitable sources. AlbinoFerret has 272 edits to Electronic cigarette and 680 to Talk:Electronic cigarette, all made in the last 42 days, and the frenetic pace is not matched by improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Banning someone because editors with an opposing POV don't like the way an RFC is worded would be abhorrent. Issues with the RFC should be addressed within the RFC itself, not by begging admins to squelch the voice of its author. EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Three hours after my above comment, AlbinoFerret removed verified text from the article (diff) with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing". In other words, the RFC is already being used as a pretext to remove information verified by a reliable source. The point about e-cigarettes is that they are new and it will be many years before proper studies are available to provide accurate information. Until then, reliable sources will make many tentative statements such as the one removed on the basis that it was speculative. The big problem is that every statement about the efficacy and benefits of e-cigarettes is speculative (other than statements such as the one removed). The article talk page shows AlbinoFerret still arguing that the RFC is valid—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based on above comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The construction of an off-policy RfC and the subsequent mass deletion of content because of its assumed authority is damaging the page; the torrents of WP:IDHT text on the Talk page are similarly unwelcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What looks to me like a 3RR violation as well, at a minimum getting very close for someone previously warned against edit warring: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4 Another large set of reversions the day before, about 12 hours outside the 24 hour window. Diff 5 Formerly 98 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:HOUND & WP:DE by IP range

WP:DE behavior in reverting edits while tagging as vandalism, and WP:HOUND activity specifically targeting my edits. Behavior is exampled in multiple similar IP addresses:

• 85.255.232.198 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.232.213 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.232.214 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.232.216 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.232.217 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.233.108 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.234.33 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.235.79 (talk · contribs)

The IP user(s) continue to revert edits and tagging original edits as possible vandalism. User(s) are likely experienced WP editors based upon these talk page comments: [78] (responding to WP:HOUND allegations), [79] (knowledge of WP guidelines re: copyright). With one exception, IP user(s) are not targeting edits of users other than mine.

IP user(s) claim edits being reverted are "potential vandalism"; however, reversions have not been followed by warnings on my talk page or WP:ANI (per guidelines in WP:R Van), although WP:DE/WP:HOUND behavior continues despite welcome messages & warnings on IP users' talk pages. AldezD (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

AldezD continues to edit without leaving an edit summary (contrary to WP:FIES which points out that such edits are likely to be reverted as there are fewer reasons to assume good faith). Not leaving an edit summary is a frequent symptom of vandalism and such edits can be reverted as such. AldezD is also liar because has been requested twice on his talk page to leave an edit summary when he edits so that others have some sort of clue as to what he has changed (here and here both deleted without comment - often the sign of a problem editor). AldezD complains that discussion is not left on his talk page, but it is he that has made it clear that he is not going to discuss anything by summarily deleting any attempt at doing so. Yet he continues to refuse to leave a edit summaries. AldezD claims Hounding but he has not been singled out. I revert other editors who will not conform to Wikipedia's requirements and policies. Since he cannot know what other IP addresses my ISP decides to allocate to me, he cannot know how many other editors are not following policy that I (and several other editor's) are attempting to enforce policy.

AldezD has also not followed policy and procedure as he has failed to notify any of the above IP addresses of this ANI and it should therefore be closed on that ground alone. Leaving 'welcome' messages on talk pages for what is obviously a dynamic IP address (over which I have no control) is pointless as I will never be aware of them.

It's always interesting how the user not following the policy claims to be the aggrieved party. 85.255.233.123 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally, before we revert an edit for not having an edit summary we read the edit in question. Don't revert if you can't be bothered to actually look at the edit to see if it's legitimate or not. "Fewer reasons to assume good faith" does not equal "no reason to assume good faith." We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to delete 85.255.233.123's contribution above as s/he did not leave an edit summary for even one of the eleven posts it took. NebY (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• "AldezD is also liar"—Personal attack and futher WP:DE by IP user.

Statement of fact. AldezD claimed no comments had been left on talk page. Not true as comments left were linked. 85.255.233.123 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• "AldezD claims Hounding but he has not been singled out"—Please review IP users' edit histories; with one exception, all reversions within past few weeks are of my edits.

That would only be reviewing the edit histories of those IP addresses that you have provided. You would also need to review all those that you have not provided. Oh, but you have no idea what they are, do you? 85.255.233.123 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• IP user has clear understanding of WP guidelines, but fails to follow steps to create an account, yet continues WP:HOUND and WP:DE actions. Is the behavior of using multiple unassigned IP addresses a duck of another user account block? Can an admin WP:CHK the IPs listed above?

Now we are clutching at straws. I am under no obligation to create an account and am perfectly entitled to edit from an IP address. I have enough account names and passwords to keep track of without unnecessarily adding to them. Feel free to check the IPs. You should not find any link to any named account (though it is not impossible that the IP address has been used by some unrelated account holder). 85.255.233.123 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

AldezD (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And if you are threatening to delete my contribution because of a lack of edit summary then 1. Edit summaries are only mandated for article edits. Few editors leave summaries at talk pages and project pages. 2. You would also have to delete AldezD's response above because he did not leave a summary (or indeed for the original post). 85.255.233.123 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to ask where the restriction to article edits can be found in the recommendation for the use of edit summaries, because I can't find it at WP:FIES which was the link which the IP provided earlier. I notice, however, that the IP has now been blocked, so won't be able to reply until the block expires. David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes I can reply. You didn't read WP:FIES very well. WP:FIES states "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit ...". Edit implies editing an article. This for instance, is not an edit but a post to discussion, therefore no summary required. Or maybe it's just too ambiguous. 86.153.28.37 (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly you are reminded that to use a different IP address to evade a block is sockpuppetry, and secondly I see no justification whatsoever for your interpretation. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not used a different IP address 'to evade a block'. I used a different IP address because my ISP forces it upon me. In fact, until I noticed it in the above, I didn't even know that the last IP address had been blocked. You need to notify me somewhere where I will see the block (i.e. At the next allocated IP address). Looking at the vast numbers of editors who do not leave edit summaries at talk pages, it would seem that my interpretation in more readily accepted than yours. This is especially the case when the ability to leave an edit summary is not always offered (e.g. When creating a new discussion on a talk page etc. etc.) 85.255.232.78 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the latest IP, Special:Contributions/85.255.233.123, for harassment and trolling as displayed here in this thread. Needless to say, AldezD: you of course should in fact make it a habit to use edit summaries in the future. Please do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(Uninvolved observation) While not wanting to comment on the specific content of this ANI, I would like to make these observations.

Reviewing edits that are made to articles where an edit summary has not been left takes unnecessary time (especially when Wikipedia is having one of its many off moments and hangs while you are waiting for anything to happen - a frequent occurence).

Some of these edits are made in good faith but, in my experience, the majority are usually non-constructive in one way or another.

The solution to this matter is very simple. Always leave an edit summary when you make an alteration to an article. This is nothing more than a courtesy to other editors so that they can get an idea of what you have changed and make a decision as to whether it is worth reviewing (and if the edit summary is apposite, it is usually not worth reviewing). Further: it is not in any way time consuming to add such a summary.

Nearly all good faith editors seem to have no problem with leaving summaries, so I am curious as to what objection the OP has to doing so (If that is indeed what this is all about). –LiveRail < Talk > 17:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The objection wasn't to the process of leaving an edit summary, it was to the hounding behavior by the IP user. I have been (mostly) faithful in leaving an edit summary since the behavior by the IP users started, but sometimes click save before entering a summary. I plan to pace myself a bit slower to ensure an edit summary is left for future edits. AldezD (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional edits to this discussion by same user with another similar IP (85.255.232.78 (talk · contribs)), in an attempt to WP:BE the block on 85.255.233.123 (talk · contribs). This user is providing no constructive contribution and instead continues WP:DE/trolling. Can a range block be applied? The user's behavior and comments here show a lack willingness to edit constructively and still show a pattern of WP:DE/trolling. AldezD (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Further examples of the IP's WP:DE, apart from the blatant socking to evade the block, can be seen at User talk:Wtshymanski where the IP believes that he/she understands the rules on copyright violation better than Moonriddengirl (laughably suggesting that MRG "does not understand the complexities of the copyright situation"), and the IP in its various incarnations has been edit-warring on the topic. Not surprising, Wikipedia:Merging agrees with the advice of Moonriddengirl. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Having merged the occasional articles myself in the past, this aspect of the discussion caught my attention. I post as an oridinary uninvolved editor who tries his best to follow the policies and procedures. If I understand things correctly, Moonriddengirl was saying that adding the links to the talk page was 'best practice' and that it was also necessary to provide a link to the source article [of the merge] in the edit summary (though it was wordy and capable of misinterpretation - I had to read it three times). Have I got it right so far? It is clear from the current discussion on Wtshymanski's talk page and in previous discussions on the same page that Wtshymanski has interpreted Moonriddengirls's post as saying that only the link in the edit summary is required and not the tags on the talk pages. This is borne out because when Moonriddengirl made the post, she corrected Wtshymanski's merge by adding the link in the edit summary and adding the tags to the talk pages. From this point onwards, Wtshymanski has never added the tags to the talk pages upon performing article merges and repeatedly argued that Moonriddengirl stated that they are unnecessary (which she did not).

David Bidulph in the above post has said that WP:MERGING agrees with the advice provided by Moonriddengirl (which I initially interpreted as being Wtshimanski's interpretation mainly because this was what he claimed). Well: suspecting with that interpretation that I may not be doing it right, I had a look at WP:MERGING. For the benefit of others reading this: WP:MERGING states

Also remember that almost all article pages have a talk page. To avoid losing quick access to that historical discussion, a link to the source article's talk-page should be placed at the top of the destination article's talk-page, such as: Article merged: See old talk-page [[talk:PAGENAME|here]] or use Template:Copied: {{Copied|from=source|from_oldid=source|to=destination|diff=|date=}}

Further under "Perform the following steps to merge an article into another article:" Item 3 on the list states:

Tag the destination page's talk page with {{merged-from|source page|date}}, and the source page's talk page with {{merged-to|destination page|date}}. Place these tags at the top of the talk pages. As an alternative, experienced users can add {{Copied|from|from_oldid|to|to_diff|to_oldid|date}} to both talk pages. Place at the top of the talk pages.

It therefore seems that what Moonriddengirl posted agrees with WP:MERGING. It also seems that Wtshymanski's interpretation of what Moonriddengirl said does not agree with WP:MERGING. This would appear to make our anonymous IP contributor correct (at least on this point if not others).

With due respect to David Biddulph: I believe he has responded to what Moonriddengirl actually said and not how Wtshymanski has interpreted it. –LiveRail < Talk > 15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

LiveRail's reading of MRG's statement is different from mine. I have commented at User talk:Wtshymanski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@David Biddulph and @LiveRail, your posts appear to be related to copyright policy and commentary by two editors not involved in this ANI, and not the HOUND/DE behavior by the IP user. However, the user's further hostility can be seen in the edit to Wtshymanski's talk page: "I will continue to revert any merge or copy that you perform without properly attributing the copyright owner(s) of the text that you unlawfully plagiarised"—Rather than following WP:BRD or filing WP:ANI, the IP user states he she will continue to WP:HOUND/WP:DE the other editor. AldezD (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was giving it as another example of the IP's WP:DE. Any lengthy discussion of copyright policy belongs elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You are behind the times. The matter involving Wtshymanski was taken to ANI round about April(ish) of this year. The result of which, he was instructed to add the attribution tags to talk pages when he merges articles. So on that point I have already been declared correct. Your continued sniping is clearly desperate attempts on your part to gain a victory. 85.255.232.87 (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Further hostility exampled in the post above from an additional IP sock of the ANI subject. AldezD (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Typical wanker. You've just got to have the last word. Also malicious allegations of sockpuppetry. Provide proof of intent or shut the fuck up. No intent, I have no choice as I have no control over the IP address allocated. But I have already said this now THREE times so that is proof that you cannot even comprehend simple English. 85.255.235.62 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Where is the hostility in pointing out the result of an ANI? 2. Also malicious allegations of sockpuppetry. Provide proof of intent or shut up. No intent, I have no choice as I have no control over the IP address allocated. But I have already said this now THREE times so that is proof that you cannot even comprehend simple English. You want hostility (and god knows you've asked for it). You are typical of many of the wankers around here. You've just got to have the last word. 85.255.235.62 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That attack is a blockable offense. Meanwhile, what's stopping you from creating a registered ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

So I have to put up with malicious allegations yet you seem to think that I am not entitled to respond in the same vein. As for creating account - yet another user who cannot be bothered to read the entire thread before making points that have already been answered. 85.255.235.62 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If this is an example of the quality of your edits, you might need to take up another hobby. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all the IPs above are from the same small range, 85.255.232.0/22. Very few constructive edits have been made from it recently, so I've rangeblocked it for a couple of weeks. 86.153.28.37 is an outlier, and I'm leaving it with only an individual block. Unfortunately I'm not sure these blocks will really inconvenience the individual; one can only try. Feel free to post new IP edits from the same source here or on my page, and I'll see if anything else can be done. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC).

Deletion of talk page comment portion without notification

In this diff, User:Alexbrn deleted a portion of my talk page comment, ostensibly to remove a link which he considered to be a copyright violation, without any kind of notification to me or anyone else. WP:TALK#Others' comments says, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it.... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but.... If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: .... Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of copyright."

Because there was no explanatory note or any other notification, and because the courtesy link is needed to help resolve a difficult content dispute, and because we have no way to know whether the link in question is a copyright violation or a legitimate e.g. preprint or licensed author copy, I consider this to be a WP:TALK violation by a user with whom I was recently in a heated dispute. Therefore this seems to me to be a clear case of WP:HOUNDING harassment, and so I ask for an administrator to please tell Alexbrn to refrain from such harassment, or at the very least leave a clear notification whenever he might delete others' talk page comments in the future. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Though there was apparently no notification that the comment was modified, the link does indeed look like copyright violation. {{Redacted}} can be used to show that an comment has been modified, and there probably should have been some kind of notification or alert. But I don't think removing a link to an apparent copyright violation is actionable. Wiley-Blackwell charges $6 for temporary access to this content, and I doubt they would let random websites host it for free. Editors interested in academic journals can get free access to some of them through The Wikipedia Library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

How does a copyright violation look any different from a licensed author's copy or preprint? I always hand edit my publication contracts to retain a perpetual, worldwide, transferable right to distribute anything I publish commercially, and most if not all of my colleagues do too. The assumption that a link to external content is any sort of copyright violation without concrete evidence is mere paranoia. But more importantly, the lack of a notification of any sort is most certainly contrary to WP:TALK and the fact it was done by someone with whom I was in a heated dispute a month ago is infuriating. EllenCT (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is commercial content not available under an open license. I routinely remove such links from WP as they violate policy ("Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to") and have legal implications. Apologies for not notifying EllenCT however this change made no substantive alteration to her comment. If a user thinks it's okay to link to copyright infringements from WP because they hand-modify their contracts, and that we can assume something's okay unless there is "concrete evidence" otherwise, then I would suggest we've got a problem here.

Add: I see Ellen has now put the infringing link back. Someone should look at this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I consider it a substantive alteration, as I wrote above. Courtesy links to sources are included when they are available, with the assumption that they are not copyright violations when they are available, just as we make them available to editors at WP:RX several times a day on fair use assumptions. The deletion silently denied the aritcle's editors who have the same fair use right to view the original source the opportunity to read what it says, disrupting their ability to make informed decisions about how best to improve the encyclopedia. I consider the refusal to take responsibility for this willful and silent disruption to be a serious problem indeed. EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

IANAL so I'm not going to debate the law. I will however quote you our policy: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. [...] Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...". It is possible (but unlikely) there is a negotiated permission between tobonline.com and Wiley. However the material in question is generally only available under commercial terms and carries a copyright statement. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this is a case of anyone "knowingly and intentionally" doing anything. The study is linked from this article, which doesn't give any indication that they have permission to host that content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is made by the policy that this is not just made somehow okay by hand-waving at "fair use". In WP policy terms, EllenCT did re-link the copyrighted content after you had commented that it was unlikely to be free. She had, therefore, grounds for reasonable suspicion of it, and chose not to heed them. The link's there now. That's a problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

sure Alexbrn could have left something like (Redacted) in EllenCT's comment, but to me that would be further messing with someone else's comment which we should do as minimally as possible. He noted what he was doing in his edit note "redact copyvio link" I would note that it was EllenCT who violated our policy, WP:COPYVIO by posting the link and then reposting the link. It is a good thing Alexbrn fixed it the first time. Suggest an admin remove the link, close, and warn EllenCT not to violate COPYVIO policy again. Could take that a step further and make a 24 hour block for EllenCT to reinforce the importance of the policy. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That "further messing with someone else's comment" is exactly what is recommended by the WP:TALK policy, for which Alexbrn has apologized for neglecting, and which would have made it perfectly acceptable because interested parties could still find the link in the edit history. If the courtesy link is a policy violation, then so is every courtesy link in references to author preprints, and so is every response at WP:RX. That Jytdog, with whom I have also recently been in heated disputes, has chosen to jump in to this with such specious arguments just proves my point that this is WP:HOUNDING harassment. EllenCT (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, I came her a few minutes ago, before I saw Jytdog's specious tag-team pile on, to say that after getting a good night's sleep I feel like life is too short for citing misdemeanors, and I no longer want to pursue this. I'm ashamed that I was goaded into further outrage and I refuse to let the hounders get me down. So please close this. EllenCT (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I just re-removed the link and notified EllenCT. I hope this was OK. If I'm in the wrong I'll be happy to self-revert. Ca2james (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: "Jytdog's specious tag-team pile on" ← could you explain what you meant by this please? An accusation of WP:TAGTEAMING is pretty heavy, is that what you meant? If so, kindly strike or substantiate. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

His trying to justify what you had already apologized for, especially in this context when I've seen him include courtesy links to copyrighted content in his own sourcing. EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Days after my return to Wikipedia after months away, cursing editor returns to bait me

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

---

I've been a Wikipedia editor for more than nine years, and generally well-regarded by my peers, if my awards cabinet is even a small indication. I've tried to get help from admin Dennis Brown, but he told me that since people curse in real life it's OK for an editor to tell me "fuck off" and repeatedly use other versions of the f-word at me.

Back in June, the edit-warring Winkelvi got into an edit-war and used inflammatory language that admittedly got me upset. Both of us were blocked temporarily by User:DangerousPanda, who like Dennis Brown said the f-bombs against me were OK. I understand DangerousPanda may have some admin ANI issues of his own now.

Here are four examples of Winkelvi's incivility at the time, that helped lead to our mutual block:

• "(as if it's any of your fucking business). And if you keep this bullshit up on my talk page, I'll remove your comments as well. Simply because you're starting to really piss me off..." [80]

• Or this edit summary: "now stay away from my talk page and fuck off" [81] Please note this is a personal attack: It's not the adjective form of "stay off my fucking page" but the verb form "fuck you." Why did an admin let that personal attack slide?

• When an editor starts an ANI, he is required to let the other editor know. I had no choice but to post the ANI notice on Winkelvi's talk page. Despite this requirement, this is how he responds: "(→‎ANI: stay the fuck off my damn talk page)" [82]

• We're also required to post 3RR notices. So he falsely accuses me of harassment though according to Wikipedia 3RR reporting policy I had no choice put to post a 3RR warning: "(→‎3RR: already told you to stay the hell off my talk page, this is now harassment)' [83]. Shortly after that, Dangerous Panda blocked him. -

Within days of my return, that editor was back on my talk page to bait me: He could have made his point on the article in question's talk page, but chose instead to come poke me. I responded by pointing to an infobox template that contradicted his assertion and told him to stay off my talk page, explaining I considered communication from him to be harassment. He responded first by bragging about how he told me "stay the fuck off his page" in June, [84] and then began cursing me again with a brand-new "fucking" [85].

An admin who tolerates editors who tell others to "fuck off" is bad for Wikipedia. It engenders an atmosphere palatable only to angry, poorly socialized white guys in their 20s. It's disrespectful and a distinct turnoff to older editors, women, and many ethnic and religious groups, among others. And really: Do we want to create an environment hostile to anyone except guys who like say "fuck off"? To have Wikipedia be a disrespectful, uninviting place except for people like that?

Dennis Brown is OK with that. He told me "many people will occasionally say 'fuck off'," and goes to say that since he uses it in the real world it's OK to do it here. And then he blames me: "If you can't forgive small transgressions, then the internet is a bad place for you." We're not talking about the Internet. We're talking about Wikipedia, where WP:CIVIL is an important guideline. Dennis Brown's contention that anyone who doesn't like being told "fuck off" in a Wikipedia discussion should leave Wikipedia seems remarkable to me. Is that the bar we're setting for Wikipedia behavior? That repeatedly using the f-bomb against another editor is OK? --Tenebrae (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This permalink shows a section on Winkelvi's talk which you started. That was in response to a perfectly civil section from Winkelvi at your talk (permalink). Winkelvi is not a role model for collaborative language, but the response was perfectly in keeping with the style of your comments. It is never useful to hold a grudge, just forget that someone on the Internet was rude to you last June. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you for real? Let's do this - any editor who tells another editor to "fuck off" and stay off their talk page should consider it mutual.--v/r - TP 20:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger that, TParis: if another editor has given you offense and you have asked the offending party to stay off your talk page, then you -- at a minimum -- should be prepared to reciprocate and stay off the offending editor's talk page. To do otherwise strikes me as intentionally provocative and an attempt to continue an unnecessary feud. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

[Responding to Johnuniq; there were intervening posts] I see. It's my fault he came unsolicited to my page after a lengthy ANI/3RR battle in June that got us both temporarily blocked from Wikipedia. That's a far, far cry from being "rude to [me] in June."

Perhaps I could ask you to look here, look here, and look here ... mutual 3RR reports and an ANI. This wasn't "rudeness" ... this was all-our war between two editors that wound up in two blocks.

After all that, he deliberately comes to my page, when he could have gone to the article's talk page. That is baiting, and it was his deliberate choice.

And he's cursing at me again in November. So let's be clear that we're dealing with an angry, foulmouthed, uncivil person who went out of his way to provoke me simply by interacting with me. Why would a person who curses you, fought you, made (and continues to make) false accusations go to your talk page if not delieratey provoke you. And here's the thing: I can't curse at him, because the admin gives his special dispensation to curse at me. If I told Winkelvi the same number of f-words he told me, I'd be blocked in a second. Why is that?--Tenebrae (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• You are mischaracterizing what I said, which doesn't serve you well here. The original discussion is here [86]. Let me repeat. He shouldn't have said "fuck off" and was warned as such back in June. When it comes to random use of the word, not in a personal attack: if you can't handle seeing it in type, then yes, the internet is a bad place for you, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a swear free zone. We try to promote a collegiate environment, but that doesn't mean we censor people. We do what we can to limit personal attacks, but we aren't going to start blocking people for occasional swearing. It simply isn't going to happen. It is the context that matters more than the words. Here, the sole reason you would have to complain is that he said "I wasn't fucking baiting you, I was trying to inform you.". You are free to call it crass, or try to encourage better use of language (a reasonable goal), but under no circumstance should we block someone who says "fuck" every now and then. You mentioned about how it offends devout Christians and Muslims on that talk page, but our goal isn't to cater to any religion, it is to provide a reasonable environment for all editors, including accommodating and tolerating whenever possible. Now, if he is edit warring or harassing or doing something else, then yes, blocks are possible, but your singular focus on the f-bomb is bordering on obsession. Dennis - 2¢ 12:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur, it's not a fair witness description of Dennis's statements. NE Ent 13:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's entirely disappointing that both of these reliable editors are involved in such a thing as personal attacks and incivility. I don't think that cursing has any room on Wikipedia and believe me there have been many times that I would have loved to have told someone to fuck off but didn't. There is nothing on Wikipedia that can't be settled with just discussion, even heated, and consensus. I don't know the whole story and there is always 3 sides to every story, yours, theirs and the truth, but I think this just needs to stop. The edit in question of Winkelvi "baiting" Tene was Tene removing an IPs edit saying that Sebastian Stan and Chris Evans were married. Clearly they aren't. Clearly this is someone who is a fan of The Winter Soldier and wanted to make a silly edit. Wink's response on Tene's talk page, no offense Wink, was a little much. It had nothing to do with the LGBT community seeing as how they aren't a couple and pretty sure neither of them are gay, it was just a fan edit and that whole thing was unnecessary. I would just say at this point, try to stay away from each other, if your paths happen to cross, try to discuss the edit in question civilly and if you can't, ask for other neutral editors opinions. I don't want to see anyone leave. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown is correct Wikipedia isn't a profanity free zone but considering the past between these two editors, special consideration should be taken when it comes language. They should know that such language only serves to escalate tensions not defuse them. It would also probably be beneficial if these two don't deal directly with each other and instead first seek wider community support for their rationales when it comes to content disputes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's profanity in general, yes, it's fine but when it's directed at someone for the use of nothing other than a personal attack or to escalate things, then profanity has no place here. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I think we're in agreement here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• If Tenebrae's position is "Any communication from you is harassment," they will need to stay clear of any articles / discussions Winkelvi chooses to participate in. On the hand, a discussion of an edit on Chris Evans (actor) is best made on Talk:Chris_Evans_(actor), and I encourage Winkelvi in the future to use article, not user, talk for content discussions. NE Ent 13:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If the edit was a legit edit that needed discussing, I would agree, but the fact that it was a fan made edit about two actors being married when clearly they aren't, that does not need to be discussed, just removed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Concur -- didn't mean to imply a discussion was required, just that any discussion is best made on article talk. NE Ent 14:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, and you make a good point that discussions need to be made on the article talks not the editors. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
        • These cases are always problematic. I agree that swearing should be held to a minimum, but under no circumstances can we take actions for simple, occasional swearing that isn't calling someone a name, unless it part of a disruptive pattern (ie: happening daily or done just to disrupt). Wikipedia is a worldwide thing, a global encyclopedia. It requires we are all a bit more tolerant than perhaps we would like to be. In part, due to our own cultural biases and what we call "normal" isn't "normal" to everyone else. Also because humans are humans, and sometimes they are annoying as hell, including me. Like I told him way back when and again yesterday, telling someone to "fuck off" isn't acceptable, it is a bit too personal and aggressive. If he makes a habit of it, he will be blocked. If it is a rare occurrence, I would simply warn him, the same as I would anyone else. I tolerate all kinds of stuff I don't particularly like here. So must we all. WP:NPA is the line in the sand, and if someone gets too close to that line on a regular basis, then of course we will deal with it as well. I suggest we go edit articles now. I'm at work, so I'm going to go sell glass tubes of electric sunshine, and maybe edit later. Dennis - 2¢ 14:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
          • "Sell glass tubes of electric sunshine", that sounds lovely. And I agree, warnings should be given, and these two should just go back to editing and try not to interact too much. Cuss in general but keep the "fuck offs" to a minimum. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
            • The reference is to indoor grow lights for medical marijuana. —Neotarf (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from the accused: First, I think it's important to look at the diffs in order of occurance: This edit [87] prompted me to attempt to inform Tenebrae with a good faith effort that his reversion was questionable and why [88]. The article he edited is on my watchlist, and I was about to deal with a pending reversion there, that's why I knew he had reverted the edit to begin with. I was not hounding his edits or looking for him to create an issue between us as he has implied. After reading my post on his page, his response was to not WP:AGF and accuse me in an edit summary of harassing him earlier this year (which I did not) [89]. He then proceeded to my own talk page and left the following [90] and, after reading a communication between me and another editor, took it upon himself to disparage me at that editor's talkpage here [91]. Ironically, he remembered being told to stay off my talkpage and says any communication from will be considered harassment, but he keeps returning to my talkpage to continue accusing me of bad faith actions and harassment [92]. When I went to his talkpage, all I was doing was trying to inform of something I thought he might be unaware of. That's it.

I have to admit I am truly perplexed by Tenebrae's choice to come here after he was told by two administrators (Dennis Brown and Drmies) that doing so would be a bad idea and the fuss he was making about this issue was over-the-top. I am also dismayed at his accusation that my only purpose for going to his talk page was to harass him and "stir up trouble" and to bait him. I could understand him feeling that way if I had been brash, "crass", or rude in the comments I left. But none of that happened. I had actually forgotten about our conflict a few months ago and didn't remember what had occurred until he came to my talk page, brought it up, and made baseless accusations and personal attacks there as well as in the edit summary he left when deleting my comments. I had stated on Dangerous Panda's talkpage that even after this episode, I'm willing to bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones - to edit in the future with him collegially and peacefully. I further wrote that I hoped he could see his way to turning the clock back on all this and forgetting his grudge against me. He read my attempt at an olive-branch, responded nastily with more accusations, and then came here. But he didn't just come here. He then also went on a support canvassing campaign here [93], here [94], here [95], here [96], here [97], and here [98].

In conclusion, I can't see why I should receive any warnings for anything as some here have suggested. My initial contact with Tenebrae was totally in good faith. I did not "brag" about the incident(s) between us back in June as he claims. The negative picture Tenebrae is attempting to paint of me is from six months ago, not now. If anyone should receive a warning it should be Tenebrae for wasting the community's time on this report/complaint as it is more about Tenebrae wanting to see me punished for something I said/did 6 months ago and the fact the he still hasn't gotten over it. Look at the diffs above: Tenebrae is the one who is looking to cause trouble for me, not the other way around. I can't stress more that when I went to Tenebrae's talk page it was completely in good faith. Please note, the tension and drama only started when Tenebrae reacted as he did, not before. That reaction continued for post after post on my talk page and at post after post on the talk pages of others. There, he continued his over-reacting and accusations, doing everything he could to relive our contact 6 months ago (he's doing it here in the initial report, too) as well as his editing block (which was longer than my own, and I think that is what really rankled him and kept him away for months on end). In the future, I will now have no problem remembering what happened between us in June 2014 because of this ridiculous mess happening now. That memory will keep me from interacting with him at all costs. Unless, of course, he can finally accept the olive branch I presented him yesterday and leave his near obsessive and vitriolic grudge against me behind. Holding onto it is not healthy for him or the Wikipedia community. As this report has clearly demonstrated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Coming to my page to haughtily claim I'm wrong about something, when he in fact didn't read the relevant Wikipedia template and was wrong himself ... that's not an "olive branch."

"fuck off" [99] is a personal attack and he got away with it. Fine. Dennis Brown says, Well, it's OK to say "fuck off" if you don't make a habit of it. Yet Winkelvi throws the f-bomb gratuitously again in November. [100] He has done so in every series of communication with me. Is that "repeated behavior"? Tell me, please, how it's not.

Baiting someone and then saying, "Oh, look, he's holding a grudge" is classic misdirection. And another lie. I was not, in fact, holding a grudge. I returned to Wikipedia and presumed that with the thousands of editors here we would never have to cross paths again. He chose to be the instigator. I never would have spoken to him again. So clearly, he is the one who is obsessing on me and refuses to let go, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I. Did. Not. Bait. You. You assumed that was what I was doing because the lens through which you were seeing me (and are still seeing me) was clouded by your anger and grudge against me due to what happened six months ago. That is obvious by what you posted here [101] on October 22nd: "I've been off Wikipedia for a few months after some excruciatingly frustrating experience with a bunch of trollish Wikipedians, including an admin who says it's OK for another editor, perhaps his buddy, to curse at me and presumably at other editors". You are holding a grudge, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out. Are you also accusing those who have noted this grudge as also misdirecting?

And, please, stop bringing up the "fuck off" comment as if it happened in the last couple of days. It did not. It happened six months ago. Please let it go and move forward, hopefully by accepting the offer I gave you in all sincerity: to bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones, edit together in the future collegially and peacefully as well see your way to turning the clock back on all this and forgetting your grudge against me for something that happened quite a while ago. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You conveniently ignore you threw a "fucking" at me just yesterday. [102] This is a pattern with you, and constant cursing at someone is classic bullying. Oh, and you did brag yesterday about cursing me previously: "And, by the way, I think I said 'stay the fuck off my talkpage', not the version you remember." [103]

Giving an explanation for my absence is holding a grudge? No. If I were to have gone to you or gone to admins to stir things up, that is holding a grudge. And that's exactly the case with you when you came unsolicited to my talk page to claim, erroneously, that I was wrong about something, though Wikipedia template policy does not support you. Coming to me within days of my returning ... that seems like you're obsessing about me, and now you've told another editor on his talk page that you plan on stalking me. There's something quite wrong going on.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"and now you've told another editor on his talk page that you plan on stalking me. There's something quite wrong going on" What? I said I was going to be stalking you, where? Diff, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"I will need to keep tabs on what you post on talk pages to ensure you are not committing incivility and trying to disparage my name" [104]. So you're going to follow me all around my talk-page posts? All of them? Really? That's stalking.

And it is not the place of even a civil editor, let alone one who curses other editors, to follow an editor around to try to catch him being uncivil. And I never even used your name in that post that advised a fellow editor to ask for proof when another editor makes a policy/guideline assertion — a completely non-controversial piece of advice. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I rightfully stated I would have to start watching your talk page comments for you discussing me and making disparaging comments. I said it because it was clear to me at that point that you weren't going to stop your efforts to see me punished for the transgressions you imagine I committed against you six months ago. And, I note you did more of that today on the same editor's talkpage [105]: "Wow, you really are obsessed with me", "now saying you'll stalk me", "misleading other editors by saying your personal preference is the truth is just wrong". Implying that because you didn't mention me by name exonerates you from personal attacks and incivility just doesn't wash.

I'm done trying to communicate with you here. This whole experience has been beyond frustrating, and frankly, just doesn't deserve any more attention that it has already garnered. Trying to work things out with you while you are in this state of upset is clearly not going to do anything productive. If you want to continue, please do. Because, in my opinion, it only further sullies your "cause" to see me punished. Which is what this is all about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

An IBAN would be appropiate, 1-way or 2-way. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

One-way IBANs are inherently inequitable. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As a completely impartial observer, I saw Winkelvi leave a civil message (which may or many not have been supported by the infobox MoS), and Tenebrae responded with a bit of a temper. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You would need to see whole backstory: Look here, look here, and look here ... mutual 3RR reports and an ANI. Coming to my talk page at all after that, when he could have used the article's talk page, was a deliberate choice on his part. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't read the entire history, because it seems to be just that, history. While he could have used the article talk page, he left a perfectly civil note on your talk page. You could have ignored it, deleted it, or considered having a rational discussion. Instead you confronted him on his talk page, and now this is happening. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: in regards to the "support canvassing campaign", I don't state my opinion in favor of the editor who asked me to voice it unless that's my actual opinion. What I wrote was neutral and not a full advocacy of having you punished. I think that's what Tene wanted was to have people on neutral ground state what they thought. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, you have already been told by myself and an uninvolved editor that you are mischaracterizing my comments, undoubtedly with the goal of making me look bad. My comments are linked, you don't need to twist and misquote them. I was brutally clear. At this point, I'm going to recommend you drop the stick. I wouldn't recommend an interaction ban, as currently Tenenbrae's constant hammering in multiple places (I already closed the thread on DangerousPanda's page) has become disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole than the single utterance of the word "fuck" (keep in mind, the other use was in June and was dealt with then). You keep saying the same thing over and over, and you just don't like the answers you are getting there, so you tried here. We aren't a Magic 8 ball, you don't get to keep shaking until you get an answer you like. Ironically, this started over the use of the word "fuck" two times in five months by a user, yet has been used 49 times in this one ANI posting, just this morning, mainly by Tenebrae. It is the very definition of absurd. At this point, I'm going to strongly recommend both editors disengage and do their best to simply avoid each other, because if this cat fight ANI discussion continues, it will end badly for someone(s). Dennis - 2¢ 18:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I never wanted to engage with Winkelvi in the first place, and I will gladly disengage if he will do the same. I will say, however, that since your own actions as an admin are in question, an impartial, uninvolved admin needs to weigh in. That's only fair. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And it's not canvassing when one doesn't ask for support. A couple of editors are trying to drive me off Wikipedia and my colleagues deserve to be alerted. I asked for no support and said only: "I just wanted to let some of the good and responsible editors here know, and that if they're interested in following what's going on, that's the link." I never asked anyone to comment. In addition, the editors with whom I am collegial are all their own people who would never betray their beliefs, and I certainly don't know what they're going to say. They are hardly puppets, and are outspoken people with a variety of viewpoints. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, he cursed me with "fuck" or "fucking" four times, not two. I've already providing the diffs. Let's be accurate, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Admins are not classroom monitors, so if someone is merely offended by certain language then I think it is right to dismiss the complaint. However, if Tenebrae is becoming annoyed or distressed at being repeatedly sworn at then maybe Winkelvi could just agree to not swear directly at him, regardless of whether he feels justified. It seems a reasonable request to me, even if you have poor relations with the other editor, and one I would personally strive to respect. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Presumably yours is a response engendered by this? I'm not convinced that Tenebrae has demonstrated Winkelvi has been swearing directly at them recently, so it may not be particularly relevant. Tenebrae is upset and needs to get over it. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is part of the "shaking the Magic 8 ball" I spoke of. And yes Betty, but there is 4-5 months between incidents, and the two events aren't the same. That is the whole point, and why I recommended Tenebrae just walk away. Now his disruption includes trying to canvass you for support. Of course, I don't blame you for that, as he deliberately mislead you in his point on your talk page, and again misquoted me. If this continues, I'm going to simply ask for Tenebrae to be blocked a week for WP:DE via not dropping the stick and intentionally misrepresenting the words of others (deception). Dennis - 2¢ 19:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You're threatening to block me when your own actions and statements as an admin are at issue? How is that possibly just? The Noticeboard is where we're supposed to hash things out. It's up to an impartial, third-party admin to close it. Threatening to block me when you are one of the parties involved ... wow.

I didn't misquote or misrepresent you. Here is what you said [106]: "I'm saying that many people will occasionally say 'fuck off.' I don't remember doing it here, but in the real world, yes, I've told someone to fuck off more than once in my life. Probably once every year or two. Granted, in the real world, when I get fed up, I can be crass, I won't deny it. I'm saying that if it is a habit, it becomes a problem. If it isn't a habit, then it is just a singular rude overreaction."

So it's OK to "occasionally say 'fuck off'" on Wikipedia. So because you use "fuck" occasionally in real life, it's OK for Wikipedians to use it. I'm not misquoting or misrepresenting you.

"I'm saying that if it is a habit, it becomes a problem." Four times using "fuck" or "fucking" in two consecutive encounters seems a habit to me. (The 4 1/2 month difference is deceptive since I wasn't even here for that time. He instigated unasked-for contact within days of my return.)

"If you can't forgive small transgressions, then the internet is a bad place for you." We're not talking about the whole Internet, but Wikipeda, which has a civility guideline. Being told "fuck" repeatedly is not a small transgression. But you seem to think I should take it as that or else Wikipedia is "a bad place for [me]." I believe WP:CIVIL frowns on an editor using the f-word against another editor repeatedly. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

He didn't threaten to block you. He asked for a block to be considered, implying he will not be imposing it as he is involved. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Tenebrae, go have a cup of tea. This is likely to end badly for you if you do not. You have misrepresented, you have canvassed, you are still holding the stick and you have been around long enough now surely to realise that the Civility policy is dead in the water except perhaps for repetitive (as in daily etc) and egregious examples. The "best" outcome for you here seems to be that Wv gets blocked punitively for a few hours by some admin with less than perfect clue, and that won't actually change a thing. Wv has offered a reasonable proposal and you seem not to want to take it. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you are going on and on and on and on about this. Over and over. Dennis did not say it's ok, just that it's not the worst sin in the world. It just a word, a word many people say when they stub their toe. Logically it should be far less disturbing to "devout Christians and Muslims" than saying, say, GODDAM, which is asking God to consign someone to eternal torment. And yet we generally treat that swearword as trivial. 'Fuck' has no religious meaning at all, so should not affect Christians or Muslims more than anyone else. For the record I think Winkelvi's comment on your talk page was utterly stupid and they should be ashamed of themselves for sanctimoniously insinuating that you were homophobic, un-PC or whatever for removing something so obviously false and silly. Yes, it was provocative bear-poking. But that does not justify you acting as though you are on a mauling rampage and going on and on and on about one semi-meaningless word "repeated" over a space of several months. Working with others is also about letting some things drop to foster useful work. Many times I've decided to let someone else have "the last word" when I've seen a discussion is just degenerating into a pointless tit-for-tat fault-identifying excercise. It's natural to want to "win" or prove yourself "right", but it's not always productive. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's hard not to respond to statements like "the Civility policy is dead in the water." That's simply one editor's opinion; that opinion doesn't override policy. Wikipedia:Civility is a policy in effect and I think we're all expected to be civil on Wikipedia.

Sitush is correct in saying Dennis Brown only threatened to ask for a block, not to block me himself. I apologize for misstating. I did not misrepresent any other statement; in fact, I copy-pasted his own words here.

That said, I thank you Paul B for acknowledging the "provocative bear-poking." That acknowledgment and to keep Winkelvi away from ever interacting with me is all I've asked for this entire time. Winkelvi keeps saying I want him "punished." I never said that. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not "culture"; it is verbal abuse. No possible good can come from adding provocative language to a content dispute. Admins should be discouraging this, not making excuses for it. —Neotarf (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• And when it is a personal attack or extraordinarily harsh, admin do take action. What admin (and non-admin) SHOULDN'T do is be control freaks that tell everyone which words are ok and which words aren't. Admin aren't nannies, school marms or the PC police, we are here to facilitate solutions to problems, which should be in proportion to the problem itself. Dennis - 2¢ 02:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, could we have some clarification here?

The editor who is objecting here is a person of long standing who would like to be treated with respect. It doesn't mean they're always right, just that they'd like other people to be respectful; and they're probably open to someone reminding them to be respectful too.

Certainly other people editing this website need the ability to inform us of errors, indicate they are upset, and in some cases tell us to stop communicating with them. We all know that the English language has plenty of ways to do this that don't require swearing at people. And we also all know where we'll be going as a community, if we continue to act like this website is our "Mean and Grouchy Swearing Club" and everyone who doesn't like it should leave.

That said, it can't just be the task of a single administrator alone like User:Dennis Brown to improve the atmosphere here.

We all need to uphold the Aloha Spirit, and find more examples for promoting positive communication styles if we want the site to grow. And if "Aloha" is a little much for some folks, most cultures have some version of "here is how we treat others when we want to show we are friendly and respectful." Pretty often (though not always), you can tell when someone is making a effort to be friendly and respectful with you.

Are the folks in this thread really suggesting that all editors here have to accept people swearing at us, because that's where the community wants to set its social norms? -- Djembayz (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Request from Gender Gap project to reopen thread

Just to note, an attempt was made by a member of the Gender Gap group to reopen the discussion to allow further participation in the context of their project, where a notification had just been posted. The original closure by Drmies was reverted by Sitush. Both Sitush and Drmies are *involved* in the current Arbcom Gender Gap Task Force case, as is Dennis Brown, who made extensive comments in the discussion. —Neotarf (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I reclosed (reverting a bold re-opening) because this was a blatant attempt to hijack yet another drama board thread with what would be yet more of the same arguments. The above discussion related to a specific set of circumstances and neither needed nor should have been subjected to generalised debate about wider issues. My opinion seems to have been confirmed by the fact that I was not reverted and by various people (including regular GGTF participants) who commented in the subsequent point-y thread at WT:GGTF. Neotarf, you are just needling again. Please don't. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion Sitush refers to is titled ANI thread involving respect for women reopened, than reverted back to closed, and the "various people" besides himself are Djembayz, Robert McClenon, GRuban, Drmies, Carolmooredc, Rich Farmbrough, and Eric Corbett. Two of the eight (including Sitush) are women, and apparently, Corbett joined in just to ask, "What's the basis for [the] argument that calling someone a cunt is childish?" How he or anyone else can not see how off-putting this kind of language is to many people - especially women - who would like to edit on Wikipedia... it boggles the mind. That some editors here continue to discount how offensive that language ("cunt," "fuck," and so on) is - is equally unsettling. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it wasn't offensive to some people, I merely questioned the claim that it was childish. Eric Corbett 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not the language of chidren. It's the language of low-lifes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, as are those who might disagree with you. Eric Corbett 17:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying it is the language of children??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you take off your blinkers you will be able to see clearly that I was questioning the assertion made by another editor that it was childish. Eric Corbett 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• More evidence that the so-called "Gender Gap Task Force" is little more than a wannabe civility police and a drama magnet. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  Quite. Eric Corbett 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

To this observer, the remarks of SitushCarrite - so-called task force, wannabe civility police, drama magnet - provide evidence only about his prejudices. And Corbett's "Quite" says that he shares those prejudices. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

When did opinions become prejudices? And for the sake of clarity, Sitush didn't say what you claim he did. Now who's displaying their prejudices? Eric Corbett 21:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, 3RR edit-warring and article ownership by user Tharthan

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

---

Sorry, this was mistakenly entered under the main AN, not ANI.JesseRafe (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The user Tharthan has been edit warring on two articles, violating 3rr, the first being Yo Edit History (which also included a personal attack in an edit summary) and the second is Erewhon Edit History. I stopped after two edits, but this editor seems to be unable or unwilling to let go of his own prose and style, writing in a distracting and overly-indulgent tone and language (just see his User Page for his manifesto on his affected wordchoice (e.g. he insists "whilst" is perfectly normal for North America whereas every single style guide suggests avoiding it, even for British/Commonwealth speakers/writers, including both while and wiktionary:whilst. JesseRafe (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, I posted on his Talk Page a formulaic warning about personal attacks (cf. "callow fool") in case he had a history of these and he erased it, which I assume is a user's prerogative to whitewash their bad history. JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

P̶a̶r̶d̶o̶n̶ ̶m̶e̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶ ̶p̶a̶g̶e̶?̶ ̶I have already apologised to you for the personal attack (which I, again, apologise for), explained why I removed the unwarranted template "Welcome to Wikipedia" talk page post, and also attempted to start a discussion with you at your own talk page regarding the issue at hand. However, I was at school when I wrote that post, and now that I come home I see that you have suddenly started a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard of all places over a relatively minor and easily resolvable issue. If you truly thought that it was a bigger problem, it would have been fairer to have started a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard than to so swiftly take your concerns here.

Furthermore, whilst I do apologise for getting a bit heated up earlier, I would appreciate if you did not yourself act so hostilely towards me.

Finally, I was unaware that I broke 3RR. I was almost certain that these edits had taken place over the period of several days. If I am incorrect on this point, then I sincerely apologise.

In addition, the reason I maintained that we keep "whilst" on the page in question was because it was not confusing, it was the wording of the original writer of that (myself) and it had no real reason to be removed other than a dissonance of style.

EDIT: I have also responded to your response to my response on your talk page.

EDIT 2: Also, I never claimed that "whilst" was common across North America, I merely said that it had use in North America, and it has plenty of currency in my local dialect.

Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I post this now after trying to have a civil discussion with user JesseRafe at their talk page, but said person seems to have no wish to discuss things civilly whatsoever. They now are making rude statements ("blowhard" being one that they used that actually borderlines on being a personal attack) about my character and my intentions when such information has no bearing on the discussion being had there. I leave things to your decision, administrators, because it seems as if JesseRafe has no interest in coming to a peaceful agreement on this matter. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Usage note: "whilst" is not used in North America. Those who do not read modem British fiction might not even recognize it as a word. --NellieBly (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Tharthan, my intentions and words were clear, I didn't want your whining and excuses on my Talk Page. If you want to discuss "whilst" do it on the while page (as whilst doesn't have one, hmmm, what does that tell you?) as that discussion doesn't belong on Yo, but what does is your flagrant deletion of cited and sourced material for your own unverified etymological musings. As to Erewhon, again you made a unilateral move when there was zero Talk Page consensus, used horrendously unencyclopedic tone in your prose, and just mindlessly revert without even considering you might be in the wrong. Keep those discussions where they belong, I said "leave off" because I find it annoying to have 8 notifications in 10 minutes because some editor insists on both writing on my Talk Page AND not knowing there's a "preview" function (hint: use it). Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@NellieBly I have been using it since I was a child and have never run into anyone who questioned my using of it (neither as a child, nor now). In addition, I have talked with many a person who also uses the term. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that the exact clarification given to "whilst" by comprehensive and neutral sources is that it is rare in North America, and might be perceived negatively by some. Not that it is not present at all or only as a Briticism. Remember, though, I don't speak for North America or the United States, I only speak for my area. @JesseRafe Frankly, I am tired of this cynicism and name calling. It did initially arise from an already apologised-for (multiple times) personal attack made by me, but now at this point all that's going on here is the uttering of rude comments and hostility for no good reason whatsoever. Choose not to accept my apology if you so wish; I have offered it to you sincerely and as a gesture of goodwill. But if you so choose to think of me as some overzealous editor or haughty dandy or whatnot, please at least stop this incivility.

Switch the pages in question back to your preferred version if that'll satisfy you. I'm not going to fight against your claims. Just please stop this.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never, ever heard a fellow American say "whilst" either out loud or in writing. It sounds like something out of Dickens, a Britishism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because you've never heard the term used doesn't mean it is not in use. And whilst while it's accurate to say "whilst" doesn't have a page, it does redirect to "while" so one can hardly say the term doesn't exist or have use. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When have you heard Americans use it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Both Webster and the American Heritage have it as "Chiefly British". I learned the word right here on Wikipedia, after almost two decades in the US. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So we've established that it's not common in the United States in general. That's great, but I was never disputing that. I'm not really concerned with the (modern) "United States of America". My priorities are in my homeland, New England. Either way, the "issue" in question with my wording on the page "Yo" has been fixed by someone else, to a completely different word. So that's that.

But I'll tell you, it's funny when people notice a regionalism in my speech (which is only natural, since I don't waste my time artificially filtering my speech to comply with biased "standards" like General American or the like). Some regionalisms in my speech that people from outside of my area often point out are how I call a bubbler a bubbler (though I hear that they also call bubblers bubblers in Wisconsin as well, though I can't confirm this), sodapop sodapop, carriages carriages, (Italian) grinders (Italian) grinders, blinkers blinkers, wicked meaning "very", etc. So, yes folks, I speak a dialect of New England English and not some variation of General American. I'm not sure why this would surprise people, considering I come from New England and have such listed on my user page, but whatever. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So does that mean I can change Yo back into standard English (and again, obviously whilst redirects to while (nobody said it didn't Chaheel Riens) but my point is EVERY style guide calls "whilst" BOTH chiefly British AND argues against its use as it is "considered archaic, pedantic or pompous", which is the main reason why I removed it, not because it was a Briticism. JesseRafe (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, bossman, but somebody else changed "whilst" to something completely different already. Probably the best outcome, in my opinion. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid AN/I. Posting here or the other drama-pages pollutes your Precious Bodily Fluids, far as I'm concerned, but I'll make an exception in this case. Tharthandorf apologised above, contentious issue probably resolved. If the participants are happy with the outcome, maybe we should close this? Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of varieties of English: thanks to Wikipedia, in conversation I now refer to five different codes of football as just "football". (I've recently acquired a taste for American football – I had to lean the rules to find out what @Drmies: was talking about, then found I quite liked it.) And confusion ensues.

Additional comments

I realise the discussion above has been closed, but I see the last post by Shirt58 and have to shake my head in dismay. Shirt58 says "contentious issue probably resolved. If the participants are happy with the outcome" and I see that clearly they are not. After what we all thought was a resolution,[107] JesseRafe decided to change the whole damn thing.[108] Tharthan reverted,[109] and then so did JesseRafe.[110] Perhaps both sides need to go to the naughty corner for a while. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

On the positive side the conflict is no longer about the word "whilst." On the negative, it remains fairly uncollegiate. Not at the level requiring admin tools, but could do with wider editor input to encourage consensus between the competing versions. -Euryalus (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Well-meaning but clueless IP editor

Hi there. Editors working in the area of New Zealand history and the New Zealand land wars of the mid 19th century are currently trying to help a long-term IP editor (currently 122.62.226.243; who often signs messages as "Claudia" so I will use that name and feminine pronouns when discussing her) improve her contributions. Although she appears to mean well, and is certainly widely read in the subject, her contributions are poorly (or not at all) referenced and many are very point-of-view in tone and content. She has previously been mentioned here which gives additional background.

I would appreciate if an Administrator could perhaps take Claudia under his/her wing and help her improve her contributions to Wikipedia. I do not want her blocked but would much appreciate if she could knock off the sort of comments she has made here [111], here [112] or here [113] about editors who have been trying to help her, or about mainstream historians who disagree with her favourite (controversial) historian.

Thank you all for your time. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Dinosaur Dave" from Invercargill is the editor who has been previously warned about "knee jerk " reactions to edits. He reverted an recent edit of mine without following any of the normal rules of Wiki. Subsequently an independent editor decided the original edit was fine. Dave made no effort what so ever to justify his "instant delete" whereas I had added good clear, detailed information and references and backed up the edit with further details and background on "talk" of that topic. Obviously he does not think rules apply to him! He has previously owned up to making impulsive emotionally charged edits or responses to edits and was advised by an experienced editor to change his ways. Apparently,judging from his knowledge, he is a very misguided old man.Im guessing he is angry he got caught out! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Claudia" (IP 122.62.226.243) is engaging at a slow-mo edit war at Pai Mārire: See [114], [115], [116], [117] despite an extensive discussion on this in 2013, which this editor has chosen to ignore. This editor is a classic example of a disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus and insists on inserting POV material either without sources or, frequently, fictional sources. They have extensive form, have previously been banned and frankly deserve a long-term ban. BlackCab (TALK) 06:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hold it right there. — @BlackCab, you have just made a very serious charge: "This editor is a classic example of a disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus and insists on inserting POV material either without sources or, frequently, fictional sources." You need to either (a) redact and apologize or (b) show diffs demonstrating the use of "fictional sources" by Claudia — and if the latter is proven, Claudia should be out of here on a permaban without another word said. Faking sources is the most serious form of vandalism imaginable, it undermines public perceptions of the validity of the entire project. We can differ about whether this or that person is tendentious or inadvertently pushes a POV. But faking of sources is a matter that is black and white. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You made the same charge previously on the talk page of "Claudia from Hamilton" (122.62.226.243) HERE: "You have also on several occasions simply invented 'sources'..." This needs to be settled once and for all. If Claudia from Hamilton is fabricating sources, she should be tossed from the project for having violated the trust of its participants. If she has not fabricated sources, BlackCab needs to be sanctioned for falsely making this grave accusation against another editor. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The point I made was that this is a sentence -the OPENING sentence from well respected source. -You have chosen to go off topic to deflect attention from this point. Previously there was discussion about the name of the organization but no editor raised the point that the leader himself called the church Hauhau. I did not ignore the original discussion-I was part of it. Yes, we reached a good consensus back then but this is NEW information that was not part of the original discussion. I totally reject I am a disruptive editor. This is not a slow-mo edit war- it is trying to get editors to actually discuss the point at hand! My addition is small and does not change the article apart from making it more accurate in a minor but significant detail.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A series of reverts by ONE editor of the successive edits of SEVERAL editors, without bothering to discuss it on the talk page, is edit warring. 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit history of Māori culture clearly displays a trail of edit-warring by the IP editor: instead of sensible discussion the IP editor deals out juvenile comments denigrating the intelligence of other editors.[118] This is long-standing problematic behaviour by an editor who refuses to accept consensus. BlackCab (TALK) 07:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a long-term member of WP:WPNZ and I'm broadly in consensus with User talk:BlackCab and User:Daveosaurus over the disruptive behaviour of Special:Contributions/122.62.226.243. I bought the issue to WP:ANI previously (linked to above by User:Daveosaurus) but there was no resolution, and problems have continued since then. Non-local editors should be aware that due to the reconciliation process discussed at Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements, historical sources (pre-1980s) about New Zealand, and Māori in particular, need to be handled very carefully, even when they appear to be authoritative tertiary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommended that this case be brought here. It has been brought to the attention of this and similar boards several times previously - see the very first link in this thread, and the links within that ref - but no one has come up with any firm course of action. I am running out of patience, but I am an involved party as I have tried to give advice over many years to the parties concerned. If ANI cannot handle this, should we take it to Arbcom?-gadfium 08:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is a case of long-term edit warring, there should be one or two specific articles where you can document that pattern. If admins are convinced that someone is fighting against consensus, they might issue a final warning. If the person is using multiple IPs then WP:SCRUTINY might also be a concern, though nobody has so far suggested that the use of IPs is deceptive. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, this problematic editor is in a permanent state of denial. She says above "I totally reject I am a disruptive editor" but the compelling evidence proves otherwise. She has been blocked four times for disruption.

Since she starting editing with this IP she has been taken to task about her editing by users Transcendence, Moriori, Amtalic, Black Cab, Gadfium, Daveosaurus, Drmies, Sue Rangell, Rudolp89, Darkwind, Adabow, DI2000, Stuartyeates, Winkelvi, Mufka, Irondome, DerbyCountyinNZ, Bradshaws1, Epipelagic, Jim1138, Dennis Bratland, JoeSperazza, I dream of horses, Andrewprout and countless times by Sinebot and Bracketbot.

She has been criticised for agenda pushing, OR, ongoing poor formatting and spelling that others have to fix, changing other people’s comments at talk, lack of sources or poor sourcing, edit warring, refusal to get the point, incivility, 3RR etc etc etc. The evidence is there for all to see in her talk page. I agree with User:Black Cab who recently wrote "This editor plays a game of brinksmanship, provoking and taunting other editors while carrying out a deliberate campaign of misinformation and distortion in articles." I also think this comment from User:Irondome was spot on.

Seems to me a one month preventive block would be beneficial for the project, with the proviso clearly stated in the block notice that if when she returns to editing she just once disrupts the project she will be instantly indeffed - no ifs, buts, or maybes. The ball would then be in her court. I am an admin and would block her but might be considered involved. There are other admins here, but also involved. Moriori (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(Link corrupted) What User:Irondome wrote on the user's page was -- "Page stalker here. I have had a run in over the Dieppe raid article in the past with one of you. The one that goes on and on. It is like dealing with a bizarre cluster of multiple personalities. Luckily I never got involved with the ongoing NZ-related pages chaos that appears to be going from bad to worse in absurdity. I watch the related fall-out a bit. Tip. Why dont some of you take responsibility for your statements and contributions by signing in properly. Then you will be taken seriously, and not as a bizarre babble. What is the most scary is that you may actually be just one individual. Oh the horror!. We are all allowed at least one nervous breakdown per life, and you may be having yours if you are one person. No worries, couple of months or whenever then sign in properly. The slate will be clean then mate. One of you might have the makings of a good editor :) Good luck Irondome ". Moriori (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I also support Moriori's proposal.-gadfium 02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• The last block of this editor was in July, 2013 for one month. Since the problem has continued unchanged it is reasonable to escalate the block. I suggest a new block for one year due to the long-term pattern of edit warring. The block needs to be long enough that they can't just wait it out, which is what happened in the past. My assumption is that the block could be lifted if the user would agree to create an account and promise to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. As an uninvolved admin I am in a position to issue the block if it's appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. In answer to your first question: Māori culture [119] and Pai Mārire [120] are two articles where her recent behaviour has been particularly bad. In the latter, she insists in as often as possible referring to the religion in question as "Hauhau" - a name used dismissively to refer to it by the settler press of the day, in the same way that Chinese gold-miners were referred to as "Celestials" or "Mongolians", and Catholics were referred to as "Papists". In the former, the last couple of months' activity in Talk:Māori culture demonstrates the difficulty of trying to deal with her.

I don't know what tools Administrators have to deal with problem editors such as Claudia, but it has definitely got to the stage where she needs to either shape up or ship out. Shaping up would be my preference, but the last four or so years' of encouragement have had little success. If not a full block, I'd suggest a topic ban from any Māori subject whatsoever until her editing and interpersonal behaviour improves. (She does have other interests she can practice on, going by her editing history). She has in the past refused to create an account, giving reasons which seem to me to be illogical; but at the very least she should start properly signing her posts, and stop making rather creepy allusions to other editors' family members, or disparaging their nationalities. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors have shown kindness and patience in trying to get "Claudia" to lift his/her game, without success. The editor, however, continues to show an attitude of defiance and ridicule. In this discussion at New Zealand land confiscations the IP editor ridiculed me as an Australian "who has a limited knowledge of this topic" (In fact I wrote this article). At that article I had removed a slab of opinionated material; Claudia repeatedly reverted [121][122][123] to reinstate personal comment and highly dubious claims. Discussion gets us nowhere. A one-year block sounds good to me; editors at non-Maori pages seem to have the same difficulty in getting this person to discuss or collaborate. BlackCab (TALK) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, please take a moment to glance through this archive from the IP editor's talk page—noting the IP's dismissive responses—and tell me if you can see any improvement since then. BlackCab (TALK) 08:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow so much to answer! Firstly let me say the information above about Hauhau is factually incorrect.The founder of the movement HIMSELF called his church Hau hau.This is not "me " claiming something -it comes straight from the Encyclopedia of Nz on Line on the Page about Te Huamene-I have made this point 3? times recently and it has been ignored !Anyone can look it up and see I am correct. At the time of the lengthy discussion many months ago?? this point was never raised. It is true that the church or organization was called Hau hau by the European media in NZ and by government at the time. It is an inference by the editor that this was a term in the pejorative sense. The analogies used are mischievous. The name Pai Marire was later used by followers( up to this day).It translates as "good and peaceful" You can hardly blame them for using this name now because the actions of the originals were severely misguided ,some would say barbarous(murder and cannibalism were not common in NZ among Maori at that time).

Disparaging ???(looking at the heading to this section- Pot -Kettle- Black!!In all cases where questions have been asked about an edit I have responded at length and often in exhaustive detail. In a recent case about 1 month? ago an independent editor accessed that my edit was correct despite what I would call an "orchestrated" or band wagon attack on that edit by several of the above "complaining" editors.In other words a n independent editor with no axe to grind found I was correct and the others were wrong. Maybe this accounts for their recent more aggressive attitude?

As for my "behaviour " please check the talk page on Maori Culture -the recent exchanges of views. In every case I have answered questions in detail. One editor replied but did not address ANY of the points I made but introduced a red herring. Neither of the other 2 bothered to read or respond. Previously they complained that I did not engage in "discussion"in talk. Well I have done that in spades. Now, rather than answer questions or engage in a proper discussion they simply want to ban me. It is clear from many of their answers they have what I would call narrow ,"conservative" views of things that happened in the past. NB I have learnt that where I am inserting a piece of information I make sure that it comes from a wide variety of sources so they cant say "its made up" or "POV" or offends some other obscure wiki rule. I find it strange that their was no reaction AT ALL to the edit I made 10?days ago in Maori culture about Maori newspapers, but all hell breaks loose when I insert a section about tax that is very similar and just as valid.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the edit I made about 2? years ago re Dieppe Raid. It is interesting that although my edit was debunked back then( see the rather nasty remarks made by Iron dome) the current article now has a detailed section covering all the points I made. Words like"compelling" are used! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since the editor can't be bothered to create an account, and since there are too many affected articles to semi-protect all of them adequately, I Support EdJohnston's well-reasoned, uninvolved proposal of a one-year block, since one-month blocks have proven ineffective, with the offer of repeal as per the rest of EdJohnston's proposal. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, since English Wikipedia and the WMF can't be "bothered" to make the logical and obvious rule that all editors must establish accounts and sign-in-to-edit, it's pretty hard to condemn somebody for breaking rules that do not exist, isn't it? The issue to me is whether "Claudia from Hamilton" is faking sources. If she is, she should be out of here on the speediest rail imaginable with no return possible. If she isn't, Black Cab should kindly stop making false accusations and we should deal with the edits, not the editor. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Claudia"'s response here is fairly typical: it's everyone elses's fault that no one agrees with me, so I'll just go back into the article and insert what I know is correct. Her discussions are rants that rarely touch on the issue. There is just no collaboration, no concession, no acknowledgment of deficiencies. BlackCab (TALK) 04:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple article edit war spanning months by two editors

There's been an ongoing edit war now for months across a number of articles regarding films and actors in India. Two sockpuppet masters have been engaging in this edit war. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-senetor and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harirajmohanhrm. Despite multiple blocks being handed out now, spanning months, despite extended protection on at least one of the articles in question, the edit war continues. A list of just some of the articles where this has been ongoing:

• List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal
• Twenty:20 (film)
• RajadhiRaja
• Mammootty filmography
• Lailaa O Lailaa

I have attempted to communicate with both editors regarding the seriously problematic nature of their ongoing activities, to no avail. Today, the edit war is continuing. See editing histories of Harikrishnans, Mr. Fraud and Munnariyippu, all of which are experiencing edit warring by apparently the same two individuals today. They have absolutely refused to give up their edit war and have refused every opportunity of discussion. One could spend days and days and days doing nothing but chasing these two around. I certainly don't have the time for it. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed, and hopeful others will step in to stop this nonsense. I am notifying both sock masters, but hold little hope they'll read the notifications due to their frequent account/IP hopping. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone have suggestions? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

525th MI Brigade

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

---

Yesterday, a user manually moved an article, and in the process inadvertently severed the article's edit history. Would an administrator please fix this by re-moving 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade to 525th Military Intelligence Brigade (United States) over the re-direct? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done In the future, you can use {{histmerge}} to tag a page for this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted and thanks! Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Abusive posts on user talk by IP 58.106.19.68

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

---

58.106.19.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Abusive posts diff1 diff2.

Not sure if this is better handled here of AVI, but I have posted here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Presumably not a newcomer to Wikipedia, judging by their last comment. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

why they are showing BLP issue?

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

---

I have reverted a content blanking in the article Ron Paul. Here is my edit [124]. But the edit summury for my edit is showing "possible BLP issue or vandalism". Why? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's our abuse filter. I don't understand how it works, but with a rather subjective issue such as this, it can have plenty of false positives. Since this was automatically applied, and since any human can see that you weren't doing anything wrong, you need not worry about it. If you wish to report it, you can go to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives, but you should feel free to forget about it if you wish. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Harassment by User:The Banner

It's been about a week now, since I've questioned his undiscussed move from Karavostasi to Gemikonagi and had it reverted, that User:The Banner has been trying to disparage me, ignoring calls to substantiate any of his claims.

• He accused me of bias for having an IP in south Cyprus (1)
• He reinstated his move and tried to have his favourite version move-protected (2)
• He accused me of having a 'severe preference [for] Greek names', and called for me to be topic banned, ignores requests for diffs of my oh-so egregious offences that'd warrant it (3)
• He's today called for 'my friends' to be topic-banned as well, while continuing to ignore my and User:Dr.K.'s requests for diffs (4)
• He accused me of something-something about emotions, claims I said the move was uncontroversial, once again does not apologise for being caught red-handed (5)

There's more, but this isn't a court of law. I wouldn't ask for him to be blocked, 'cause he's obviously otherwise productive, but can someone bring him back to his senses? This has become very tiring. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to leave me alone. You clearly refuse that. I consider your behaviour as harassment. The Banner talk 12:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Really now? Who said you had to get involved above? Nobody called your name, and I can't exactly leave you alone when you keep claiming things about me that are not true. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you just have to read this. The Banner talk 13:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban and interaction ban for 213.7.147.34

I have enough of IP's 213.7.147.34 continuing attacks and refusal to accept opinions that do not fit his opinions. I think a topic ban of all articles related to Cyprus and a interaction ban towards me are suitable. I want to work in peace and have enough of this guy stirring up the pot. The Banner talk 12:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• See, this isn't how it works. You can't just say things; you'd need to be able to make a case for it. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • See here how mr. IP attacked me in a discussion where I was not involved and after I had stated that the emotions were running too high and that I baled out of the Cyprus mess. The Banner talk 13:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is neverproper to be party to a dispute and ask for an interaction or a topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not even remotely true. What may be inappropriate is implementing a restriction when you're involved, but asking for a restriction is not necessarily disruptive. Honestly, Banner's placement of this request in a separate subsection is probably the most proper way of starting a discussion about sanctioning 213'; it at least blunts accusation that Banner is trying to derail discussion about his behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I desperately wants to get out of it, even as this means that I have to accept the same topic ban and interaction ban. I accidentally strayed it that mine field, noticed how high the emotions were running and made a runner... The Banner talk 13:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not gonna be able to have a topic ban implemented, unless you can provide evidence that such a topic ban is needed. The only one's emotions who were running high were yours; stop retelling this fairy tale. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't <ugly word> care and I don't <ugly word> care about you. Just leave me alone. Go way. The Banner talk 13:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I might've done so, if it weren't for the fact that you 'bailed out' thrice before, only to thrice return to smear me (and others). Stop pretending you're somehow the victim here. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Just read the example above, in which I had to defend myself against an attack by you, after no prior involvement in that discussion. What I want, is that you just leave me alone. You can have that whole cyprus, left and right, north and south, east and west. But leave me alone. The Banner talk 20:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This makes me genuinely sad. Life's too short to be making enemies out of other people. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

True! And the only thing you have to do to avoid that, is leaving me alone. The Banner talk 00:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you felt threatened by me, then I apologise. Out of (mounting) frustration, I might've been more forceful or combative in my manner than I -- myself -- would've liked. I do feel that I've been wronged by you, but you don't seem to want to make amends. This is the third time you've said to leave you alone, so I won't be replying to you again out of respect -- respect that you've not shown me. I'll reflect on what has happened and I hope you do too. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• A topic ban on Cyprus for IP213.7.147.34 would clearly be completely counterproductive for Wikipedia. The editor has been doing a tremendous work on Cyprus-related articles lately: cleaning up after POV-editing, correcting errors, giving consistency to articles, providing more balanced presentations (yes, that too!) and generally improving the whole field. The Banner has repeatedly been asked to provide diffs for the accusastions against the IP editor. Surely a topic ban cannot be given without a foundation being made? --T*U (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban, no comment on topic ban. Banner has asked the IP to leave him out of it and IP continues to WP:HOUND him. IBAN is warranted. Ivanvector (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the exact opposite. The Banner, in all instances, joined a discussion that either I started or I'd previously participated in. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I see no indication that 213.7.147.34 is a POV warrior; he's participating quite civilly in the discussion at Talk:Karavostasi, and while he has certainly been critical of The Banner, that's hardly surprising given the diffs cited above. It doesn't look as if he has crossed the line to personal attacks, and the observation that The Banner's emotions are running a lot higher than 213.7.147.34's appears entirely accurate.
  I would say it's too early for an interaction ban as well, but certainly at this point not much good is coming out of these two editors interacting. I'd encourage both The Banner and 213.7.147.34 to leave the other alone for a while, calm down and concentrate on building an encyclopedia; they're both very capable of being productive editors.
  The Banner, if you feel there's a pro-Greek bias in Cyprus-related articles, by all means do your best to counter it... but use reliable sources and calmly reasoned arguments rather than claims of bias or POV-pushing. You'll probably find that the editors on the other side will be less critical of you then, and actually respect your point of view - and if the opposite happens, then you'll have grounds for requesting a topic ban. Sideways713 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless you are up against a team, then making a runner is the best option. And that is just what I did. The Banner talk 19:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @The Banner: Please stop these vague and base allegations against good-faith editors. This is verging on harassment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Yet another baseless accusation. Just 'cause we're courteous towards each other doesn't make us a 'team', and it's not like we've never disagreed. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban Per TU-nor and Sideways713. That would be completely unjustified and unjustifiable for the IP editor, who as T*U noted, has performed stellar and tedious work in the field of Cypriot municipal onomatology to the point that Future Perfect at Sunrise has told him that it is a lot of work at the talkpage of the Greek naming discussion. I find the vague allegations by The Banner, about POV-pushing without providing diffs, and the request for a topic ban for the IP editor to be pointy and indicative of the dismissal on The Banner's part, of the IP editor's remarkable and expert contributions in cleaning up this topic area both onomatologically and POV-wise. As far as IBan, I think that it is premature, but ultimately it wouldn't harm either of them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't hunted around to check this out so if there is something clear to support a topic ban please show it, but I have looked at a couple of the links above and nothing stands out as justification. The IP's comments here and at a couple of the pages I saw are a model of good conduct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comments above, just to state it explicitly. --T*U (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Socks editing Mamie Van Doren

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

---

Mamie Van Doren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just woke up long enough to let my dogs out and made the mistake of checking WP. There have been ongoing problems with the Mamie Van Doren article by a sock. Today they created another account (well, two actually but one has been dealt with already) and this most recent one is adding the same material to the page. Could some admin please deal with this new sock and possibly protect the page? I'd dot all the Is and cross the Ts myself with all the right protection/investigation desks but I just want to get back to sleep. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The sock blocked, te article protected for 3 weeks (given that the current disruption continued after expiration of the previous protection)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Dismas|^(talk) 21:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Bilal Jamal Eddine

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

---

For some reason the user has decided to move his user page into a project page. As it seems like he is using it as a webhost, I am not sure what deletion criteria apply. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted as obvious G11, talk page moved back to his account, softblocked and COI-warned. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Sanjay at iac

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

---

Please can someone indef User:Sanjay at iac. The usual IAC sock/meat farm making legal threats. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to see mop deployment speeding up in this area ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably could do with removing talk page access, as we often have been doing for this lot. They're ranting now. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of those diffs in the talk history could do with a revdel. Blackmane (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Access now revoked. For a supposedly anti-corruption body, they're remarkably adept at lying. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Another admin has rev-deleted most of their talk page posts, so we are done for now. Next time I will remove talk page access right from the get-go and save us some work :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you and, yes, a speedy block that include talk page revocation is the way to go. - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Implied legal threat on Talk:Laverne Cox

See edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat. Without a stated or implied intent to sue by that editor, it's just a discussion of whether it's generally libel or actionable.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, that is not a legal threat, it is merely an expression of my (non-lawyer) opinion that this is libelous behavior that warrants legal action on the part of Ms. Cox (which is why I think this info should be removed from her page IMMEDIATELY). I also hope the Yankees win the World Series next year, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen! ::eyeroll:: Aroundthewayboy (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I take a dim view of "well, I'm certainly not going to sue you, but someone else would/could" threats, but I recognize that they're often more borderline than most of our NLT examples. To Aroundthewayboy: I don't think this was intended to be or served as a legal threat. However the purpose of the legal threats policy is to avoid quelling discussion. Saying that someone would or should sue an editor for what is essentially normal editing chills discussion on the subject and creates a pretty shitty environment for your peers who all edit the encyclopedia for free as a hobby. If you feel that some content has been added which could be libelous, then specifically say that and only that. Don't try to trump it up or bring anything that looks like a legal threat into the picture. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm, fair enough. When I wrote that I was feeling very heated because I had just read an earlier linked WP discussion in which a transgender woman (Laverne) literally wrote "I beg you to remove this information" (her birth name), which this editor linked to proudly to flaunt the fact that they had ignored her clearly stated wishes and expression of the deep personal harm it had caused her. It reeked of a transphobic campaign of harassment to me, and it made me very upset. I was actually going to go back 5 minutes later and remove the "I hope she sues you" line as well as the "you're disgusting" line, because although it was a true expression of my feelings in that moment, I thought it made me sound a little overheated (which I was). But by then the above editor had already removed them and, very oddly, reported it to this forum (which could actually be construed as a threat and an attempt to silence me, even though all my edits have been in good faith and I have only solicited consensus, not tried to silence people).

However, I stand by the fundamental sentiment, which is that pattern of reinserting Laverne's birth name into her entry, against her CLEAR and PERSONAL communication that she "begs" us to stop putting it on Wikipedia, is a grotesque campaign of harassment in which a handful of editors are delighting in the fact that they are gravely harming Laverne. I do think that it rises to the level of legally actionable behavior, which I had already written in the discussion. If for no other reason, this info should be removed.

But no, I'm not going to sue this person, even though I may hold very negative personal opinions about their harassment -- for one thing I have no legal standing, so that makes zero sense. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you're not going to sue this person (i.e., me) because you have no clue what is legally actionable. Pretending that you do only reflects badly on you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you read her article about how this kind of harassment drove her to the brink of suicide? Did you read her messages in which she said "I beg you to remove this"? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Truth is virtually always a valid defense in a defamation suit, and it's damn difficult to maintain an invasion of privacy suit when the relevant "private" facts are a matter of public record. From my perspective, this is a very silly conversation to be having. I take no pleasure in giving anyone personal pain, but that's not a valid reason for omitting relevant public information from a Wikipedia biography article about an otherwise notable person. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• You are assuming the editor in question was Cox (they did not respond to my advice about confirming who they were). Secondly, have you stopped beating your spouse yet? Or are you going to accuse USA Today and The National Post of harassing her as well? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

EDITING THIS TO READ: NeilN, I apologize if I was a little hot-headed as I tried to defend Laverne. I will do my best to assume good faith in your edits. Have a great night!!!! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's what Laverne wrote: "I shouldn't have to get consensus on my life. When a transgender person is referred to by our birth name it misgenders us and encourages people who hate trans people to misgender. Having this information on Wikipedia encourages hate and affects the quality of my life as a trans person. Can you take it down please? I beg you. Also Chelsea Manning transitioned publicly and her pre transition name was public knowledge before she transitioned. This is something I have never shared with anyone"

The crucial bit is that this was not something she had ever shared in any interview. There is one interview with her mother in an obscure blog in which her birth name came up, but other than that the only articles that cite her birth name are ones created AFTER these users put it on Wikipedia. The articles in question are in entertainment sections of mediocre publications, and with the way they are worded I strongly suspect their only source was Wikipedia. This becomes a problem of circularity and original research, as well as harassment.

Also, this is not a "silly" conversation for Laverne herself, who has written a whole article about how this type of harassment and misgendering brought her to the brink of suicide. This is serious stuff. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is the fourth or fifth time you've accused me of waging a campaign of harassment (now deleted - you need to think twice before clicking save) or worse. Since you seem incapable of assuming good faith, I see no reason to further engage with you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I will do my best to assume good faith. Have a great night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Unintentional Outing

Can I get someone to fix my screw up? I didn't think about my comment made here as a confirmation or denial but out of safety it should probably be revdel. [[125]] Apologies. My idea is that we delete the SPI page and repost in it's current format or completely revdel as needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dreams for Kids missing

The talk page for Dreams for Kids, Talk:Dreams for Kids, seems to have gone missing. There's no deletion transaction for it in the deletion log [126]. This article was mentioned on WP:COIN in connection with a claim of paid editing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#SavvyMedia. Is there anything special going on that required deletion of the talk page, or is this a technical problem such as a botched move or a database error? John Nagle (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just looks as if never existed, no deleted version history there, nothing. Mfield (Oi!) 06:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but as I recall, creating an article does not automatically create a talk page. Someone has to create it, by posting an initial entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

After six years of editing on the article, and some controversies, it seems surprising that there's no talk page. That's why I'm looking for it. John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has no main namespace redirects and its history doesn't show any moves within the main namespace, so the talk page must never have been created anywhere. Graham87 08:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

i just created it. that wasn't hard.  :) it is bizarre that no one has ever discussed anything on that article! Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, so nothing funny was going on. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kevgood777

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

---

A new contributor, User:Kevgood777, seems to think that the Ronald Reagan article is an appropriate forum for his personal opinions, rather than encyclopaedic content. [127] Earlier edits to the Levi Johnston [128] and John Hinckley, Jr. [129] articles aren't exactly encouraging either. In my opinion this 'contributor' shows no evidence of being here for any legitimate purpose, and merits an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that this is not likely to be a productive editor and should be blocked.-gadfium 08:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this further, the edits to the Levi Johnston article appear to be a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - contrary to the 'Crystal Meth Lab' heading, Sherry Johnston appears as far as I can ascertain to have only been convicted of "one count of possession with intent to deliver the painkiller OxyContin." [130] Though it is questionable whether even that merits mention in an article on her son. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevgood777 here.

I am willing to discuss the edits I have made. The edits are informative. The Reagan page is not supposed to be a puff piece like Tea Party campaign literature, and that is what it has become. Most of the blurb is plagiarized from the Heritage Foundation website. The edits I have made are factual.

It is not in keeping with the spirit of intellectual discourse to do as the Angry guy wishes, by bullying me into removing edits threatening to block me if I post factual edits that do not advance his fluffy, nostalgic view of the Reagan presidency.

Like I said, I am willing to discuss. I want to be a positive contributor here. I look forward to working with the Angry guy to come to a reasonable solution. The Reagan puff piece as it stands is not an accurate representation of what happened during the Reagan years. I would like to help revise the Reagan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevgood777 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you actually think I have a "fluffy, nostalgic view of the Reagan presidency" you clearly don't know the slightest thing about me. Wikipedia is not however a forum for our personal opinions however, and contributors are expected to use neutral encyclopaedic language, and to base content on verifiable sources. Your evident inability to do so speaks for itself, and I see nothing in your response to suggest that my initial impression was incorrect. This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog, and if you see problems with articles, you don't 'fix' them by adding hyperbolic sub-tabloid waffle about Reagan having "paraded around the globe bellowing anti-communist slogans worldwide in an attempt to steal the thunder of the already nearly dead so-called Soviet Empire" and the rest. And you certainly don't add headings about 'Crystal Meth Labs' to articles without a source ever, under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevgood777 here again.

If you dislike the edits I made to the Reagan page based on opinion, then you must also dislike much of the rest of the page, which is mostly yanked straight from the Heritage Foundation website. Educated as you are, you must already know that the Heritage Foundation is a source of highly charged right wing political opinion. Educated as you are, Angry guy, you must also understand that upon reading that page the way it was written before my edits, I have very good cause to assume it is very much OK to post facts in a political slant. The Reagan article before the edits is terribly politically slanted. And that is most certainly why I question your objectivity.

I am willing to discuss.Kevgood777 (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Some pretty awful edits there from Kevgood777. Everybody has to start somewhere, and I will discuss some detailed suggestions for improvement at the user's talk page. If this continues, certainly he should be blocked. --John (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevgood777, I'm not the slightest bit interested in your utterly clueless opinions regarding my objectivity (though anyone who actually knew my background would find them hilarious) - if you see problems with an article, the correct way to resolve them is via discussion on the talk page, not by adding your own oppositional rant. And you have still to explain why you referred to a 'Crystal Meth Lab' on the Levi Johnston article. Are you under the impression that libel laws don't extend to the internet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Rampant BLP violations and unsourced editorializing. If he's concerned about copyright violations, he can take it to the talk page. Otherwise, one more edit like any of those and he needs to be sent away. And before he asks, NO, I was not then, and remain not now, a Reagan supporter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidently Kevgood777 has failed to get the message here - continuing with questionable edits to the Reagan page: "More than anything, Reagan is famous for out-of-control reckless military and nuclear weapons spending programs after the collapse of the Soviet Union was imminent." [131]. No source for this curiously-worded 'fame' (which seems to imply that Reagan knew about the collapse of the Soviet Union in advance, something that not even his staunchest admirers seem to assert...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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

IAC block evasion

Might I suggest that we keep this section open because we're experiencing a lot of block evasion at the moment per WP:LTA/IAC. Perhaps just add a {{done}} for each report, as they are blocked and have their talk page access revoked? Probably best to disable their email also as they have now begun to use that to harass people.

• Juhimukherjee (talk · contribs) is at it right now. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done by Future Perfect at Sunrise - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IPs in 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis

In the past few months, a user (very likely the same person) has been making repetitive disruptive reverts on the pages 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis and People's Democratic Reform Committee on the same contents, which are the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Democratic_Reform_Committee&diff=633071055&oldid=631447702
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Thai_political_crisis&oldid=633070579&diff=pre

The edits that have been reverted by the IPs were reasoned, and have achieved general consensus among us editors of that page. The editor has not specified the reasons for his or her edits. Warnings have been issued to the editor, I have also suggested the editor to use the talk page. The links are listed below:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013%E2%80%9314_Thai_political_crisis#Disruptive_editing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Democratic_Reform_Committee#Disruptive_editing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:180.183.130.167

Around 5 or more reverts have been made in 2 months, which makes it not fit as an edit war. Another problem is that the IPs change over time, so I am unable to block the editor. The IPs are:

• 180.183.129.73
• 180.183.129.161
• 180.183.130.167
• 185.56.163.164
• 180.183.245.59

As you can see, the IPs have a very similar number pattern, and also do the same thing. It is most likely the action of one editor.

If you require more information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you in advance. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Levente 2 again

User:Levente 2 has been disruptive due to his very weak command of English - he seems to be a Hungarian kid who really can't speak English at all. See archived ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive860#User:Levente 2

I now think he's being abusive, but I can't be certain. User:Thehoboclown tried to help by posting a message on his talk page, and Levente 2 went quiet. But a couple of days ago at User talk:Thehoboclown, another Hungarian speaker, User:OsvátA came alone to say, as far as I can tell, that Levente 2 was blocked for socking at the Hungarian Wikipedia - see [132] (I'm going on Google translate of the Hugarian, and that's far from perfect, but I think I can get the gist of it). We then had a comment by User:Pallerti - see [133]. As far as I can make out that is agreeing that Levente 2 is trouble. Levente 2 reponded at User talk:OsvátA - see [134], and the translation of that appears to have "motherfucker" and "fucking bastard" in it.

I think it's time to finally block User: Levente 2 - I brought it here rather than AIV or elsewhere, because it's a little complicated and not simple vandalism. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree , Levente 2 is a recurrent vandal in huwiki, and in Commons too. FYI: Levente's sockpupetts in huwiki: user:Garb, user:Troodon, user:Garbera levente (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kateg%C3%B3ria:Troodon_zoknib%C3%A1bjai). Sorry for my poor English. --Pallerti (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree , in Hungarian Wikipedia he would be blocked solely for what he wrote on OsvátA's talk page (the Google Translate version is actually much more polite than the original...) his articles are hoaxes and his Hungarian is almost as incomprehensible as his English. I don't think he could make useful contributions to Wikipedia. – Alensha ^talk 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree I can confirm that this user has been blocked on huwiki for extensive sockpuppeting and for numerous dirsuptive edits. His MO in Hungarian is posting copy with orthography that is so poor that it's difficult to believe the mistakes are not made on purpose, as an attempt to be funny. The remarks he left on OsvátA's talk page are extremely foul (essentially recommemding that OsvátA should initiate intimate relations with his prostitute mother, and expressing the hope that OsvátA's eyes will fall out -- it sounds more authentically foul in the original). I also noticed that he had created a page about the Nyíregyháza metro that has since been deleted as a test. Assuming that the page was about a "metro" as in "underground passenger railway system," you should know that no such mode of public transport exists in Nyíregyháza, nor is it envisioned, given the size of that city, so the article was likely a hoax. It's difficult to imagine any positive contributions coming from this user. Malatinszky (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Malatinszky: He also created Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway (which has since been copy-edited to get it into better English). Can you tell us if that is accurate or likely to be a hoax too? Neatsfoot (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is not a hoax, but there are some problems. Let me continue on your talk page in a minute. Malatinszky (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

He just vandalized this very page with a profanity-laden message. I've warned him but if he's been engaging in long-term disruption and if his English is as bad as others say it is, I imagine this will do little good. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Google translate, part of that message said "three little bastard fucking your mother". I think this needs a block as soon as possible. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Although he was informed both in English and Hungarian that he lacks certain competences (I can confirm that his Hungarian is as terrible as his English), and was advised to learn the rules and improve his skills at first, it turned out that he fails to understand anything and created yet another hoax article about Hungarian greenland that was just speedy deleted. I'd also suggest an action here, the sooner the better. Thehoboclown (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that one was a hoax either. There is a risible fringe theory, popular among certain Hungarian nationalists, that a runic stone discovered in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia is Hungarian in origin, and that this is proof that Hungarian explorers, like the Vikings, must have reached North America centuries before Columbus. Possibly the Hungarian greenland article was a misguided attempt at documenting this theory. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering his activity on the commons – he uploaded images like a map of British and Hungarian colonies, though Hungary never had any, or like the flag of Magyar Guyana, that never existed and is otherwise the flag of Suriname with a small Hungarian tricolor drawn in the left top corner with paint or other simple drawing software, and flags of other fake Hungarian colonies – it's hard to believe it was his real intention. It seems he spreads his hoaxes all over the hu/en wiki and commons. Thehoboclown (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is only tangentially on-topic here, but Levente2 has also left a threatening message on OsvatA's talk page on Commons. In that message, titled "You are finished if the block is not lifted," Levente2 threatens to send his goons to beat up OsvatA (and also Pallerti) and to pluck out his eyes. One sentece reads "I've seen you in the streets and I know where you live." I wouldn't take this threat at face value but still, perhaps we should strive for a slightly less confrontational tone in a community-based project, won't you agree? --Malatinszky (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Whether or not his/her command of the English language is suspect IMO is not relevant here. It is obvious (to me anyway) that his individual does not appear to work or play well with others. Threats (no matter how thinly-veiled) against other editors cannot be tolerated. Perhaps a 30-day time out to ponder the errors of his/her ways might be more useful than a permanent bin? Of course if the disruptive behavior continues after that, send him/her to the land of the elite ranks of the NON-participants. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no chance of a 30-day block achieving anything - blatantly abusive trolls like this need to be shown the door for good. (And remember - indefinite does not mean permanent.) Neatsfoot (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Neatsfoot. Does anybody here seriously believe that this guy, having been booted from huwiki and commons, having had at least two hoaxes deleted from enwiki, having vandalized this page, having posted threats that might well warrant a police investigation in some jurisdictions, having shown almost no command of the English language, will somehow, after pondering the errors of his ways, return from his 30-day suspension to turn into a useful contributor to this project? --Malatinszky (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked him, for the threats and for lacking the necessary minimum of English competency. I wrestled with that railway article. I will now move it to the title suggested. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

RTG

I want RTG (talk · contribs) to be interaction banned from me. He has done nothing but insert himself into disputes where I have been involved and show zero actual knowledge of the disputes at hand or the policies he's claiming I'm violating. After a day out I came back to my talk page to this after dealing with this nonsense two weeks ago and everything closed off in here two months ago. He has done nothing but pester me and demand I get punished for what he thinks are policy violations when every time he has been wrong on his interpretation. I want him to leave me alone for the rest of his or my tenure on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I got dragged into the drama when he pinged me from your talk page. I'm not sure what possessed him to respond to so many conversations in such a hostile manner. When I dislike a person, I stay far away from their talk page. Maybe RTG can offer an explanation for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Active sockfarm linked to Morning277

• There's over 50 accounts in what appears to be a sockfarm investigated in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez. It may be hundreds or more. It is linked by article Warren_Cassell,_Jr. created by one of the suspects User:Caribbeanbio, edited by the blocked sock User:Kishanvkc20 of banned User:Morning277. The edit patterns may match Morning277.
  • Electronic Recycling Association is fully protected due to a content dispute involving some of the suspected accounts and non-suspects. The most active account TheSawTooth appears to be connected but disputes it. (I have given COIN notice to all accounts, but have only notified the accounts above of this). Widefox; talk 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure how this conclusion was even jumped to. My account is not related to any of the mentioned accounts. All of my edits (I've been a member for a year) have been centered around Caribbean articles and politics. Caribbeanbio (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Caribbeanbio account is linked to the other suspects by editing these:
      • Intaction [135] also edited by suspects User:Hillysilly, blocked User:Josiah120214, blocked User:IntactKnowledge
      • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Porter "Keep" voting [136] along with other suspects e.g. User:Hillysilly
      • Warren_Cassell,_Jr. disclosed a potential COI on [137] but that is somewhat tangential to the pattern, the article was also edited by the other suspects including sock of banned User:Morning277
      • Dead Exit [138] the next day by blocked suspect User:Klokus [139]
    • There's more evidence at COIN above how the suspects are linked
    • That appears to be overwhelming evidence. I believe edits made in violation of the Morning277 ban may be reverted, with suspects to be notified here, and measures that behavioural evidence is enough to for admins to G5 and block suspects. Presented here and at COIN for comments. Widefox; talk 01:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I live on the same island as the gentleman. How is that a conflict of interest? I edited those pages, does that make me a sock puppet? I am getting a little perturbed now, as I have made contributions to help but all Wikipedia is doing is frustrating me. Caribbeanbio (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Caribbeanbio socks were blocked here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Caribbeanbio/Archive "I would treat any of their page creations as likely promotional/paid editing." Widefox; talk 15:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Porter User:Klokus disclosed "I don't work with User:Hillysilly or User:Emilysantoss. I assume they work on the same freelancing site as me and are being hired by the same people" [140] . All the "Keep" votes are suspects.
          • User:Klokus blocked as sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newzealand123, disclosed who hired them [141] Widefox; talk 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
          • User:Klokus disclosed "I was hired off of Fiverr a few days ago to make edits to User:Americanpatriot1/Veronica Grey ‎and also the Madison McKinley" [142] (recreated as Madison McKinley Garton)

Summary several paid editors hired via Fiverr.com (Fiverr) https://www.fiverr.com/gigs/wikipedia/#page=1 (matching account names and articles here). Offwiki well coordinated mix of meats and socks - paidpuppets "paids"TM, unknown if hired direct by clients or subcontracted by a "Paidpuppetmaster". Overlap of clients both with Morning277 and each other. Similar to a DDOS attack, Redundant Array of Inexpensive Editors (RAIE) or maybe "flies" buzzing around the same stinking articles. Widefox; talk 03:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) upd Widefox; talk 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not know any one else on wikipedia and I am not related to them. I am pro recycling so I have rewritten a neutral ERA topic but they are not telling me what sentence I need to change. Even one editor who filed Conflict of Interest report has withdrawn his report and saying he agrees with me. Now only Widefox is having concern. I do not live in US or Canada so I do not know these users. My purpose is to rewrite recycling topic so that people know more about recycling. I deleted blog reference and added simple facts and background of recycling. I am willing to correct if concern is raised on any sentence I write. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence linking articles/accounts detailed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez

• TheSawTooth account made 10 minor edits (and a draft) then almost exclusively edited Electronic Recycling Association
  • At same time as User:Cristine nickol (who advertises paid editing with the same accountname on https://www.fiverr.com/gigs/wikipedia/#page=1 ) [143] [144] [145] and User:Emilysantoss [146] and User:BiH [147] and the other 5 accounts and 3 IPs listed at COIN.
    • Another tie of related accounts with one fiverr paid editor was editing Marko Stout - a screenshot of which is used in an paid editing advert at https://cdnil1.fiverrcdn.com/deliveries/3084347/v2_680_459/proofreading-editing_ws_1410193484.png?1410193484 (avoiding linking to the exact account in case that is outing).

That overwhelming evidence links a bunch of accounts with certain paid editing accounts and same articles at the same time. They appear to be meats with the same clients, so SPI may not find much (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Newzealand123/Archive has more info). Widefox; talk 13:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am working on sandbox subject unrelated to ERA. I am also working on Operation Zarb-e-Azb there a user thinks I am his enemy. Why this bullying everywhere? --TheSawTooth (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The unanswered questions are: Has TheSawTooth been paid for editing? Do they advertise paid editing on fiverr? Have they disclosed that per the TOS Paid contributions without disclosure, or been asked (or communicated on or offwiki by any method) to edit ERA?

A full disclosure of previous IP edits (as claimed) and/or any other accounts would help clear up any unlikely coincidence (as claimed). Widefox; talk 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hayatgm (second nomination)

Hi, Hayatgm was first reported to ANI by Richard Yin at WP:ANI#CSD tag edit war between myself and User:Hayatgm because he kept removing CSD templates from articles he'd created. I first noticed the user removing an AfD template in this edit, and I warned him accordingly. User has since removed a PROD template from Javed Hayat Kakakhail in this edit without resolving the lack of sources that led to the article being PRODed. (There are notability issues too, there is a non-English poem with no context to explain it, etc.) In fact, I believe that this article might be a recreation of Javaid Hayat Kakakhail, which was twice deleted, once for unambiguous promotion, and a second time for copyright infringement for including the non-English poem. (See this edit as evidence.) Like Richard Yin, I too suspect a WP:COI. My feeling is that the user is trying to memorialize family members or something, as they've created about a dozen articles about people named and related to "Hayat". Most have been deleted. Requesting administrative intervention. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gilliam

Dear User:Gilliam,

You have violated the Digital rights act stating, "Allow individuals to access, use, create, and publish digital media or to access and use computers, other electronic devices, or communications networks." This is unacceptable towards the values and interests of Wikipedia. You have incorrectly disallowed users to help shape Wikipedia as it is today to even something better. Among the thousands of users you have blocked, disallowing students, librarians and probably even historians is outrageous. Sorry to inform you of this, but something has to change. Yours sincerely, User:cod8 — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Since we're already here, I'll point out that Cod8 (talk · contribs) is currently engaging in edit warring and disruptive edits on Pavlova (food), which he is insistently labeling as Australian despite the sources. I have absolutely no clue what the original complaint is about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Presumably this is related to the edit warring by cod8 on Pavlova, where they and a number of IPs have been seeking to include Australia as the home of Pavlova. No comment on the content, but this edit warring is ridiculous. This is about as malformed an ANI as they get. I'll be dropping the ANI notification on Gilliam's page. Also going to ping a few other editors who have been involved in dealing with the edit warring IPs and cod8. @MelbourneStar:, @HiLo48:, @Gadfium:, @Moriori:, @Grayfell:. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me Blackmane. I have just again reverted Cod8's latest edit to the Pavlova article, and pointed him at WP:3RR on his Talk page. Someone appears to not be learning. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cod. Thank you for raising this concern. Of course, I am not Gilliam, but I wanted to clarify a thing or two.

When editing, it is very important to realize that Wikipedia is a privately owned organization, which means that we mostly have the right to create our own policies. If a person is disruptive to the project, and is not helping to further our mission to build a free encyclopedia, they can be blocked. Blocking is not intended to be a punitive act against a particular editor, but rather an act to protect the project as a whole against vandalism and disruption. If we never blocked editors, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that we quickly be overrun by trolls and vandals. Are unjust blocks ever made? Certainly. Can they be reversed? Of course. In fact, we provide multiple ways to appeal a block.

For a helpful resource concerning "the right to free speech on Wikipedia", I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Free speech.

Thanks, --Biblioworm 01:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I have learnt what iv'e done wrong and intend to fix my editing processes. Extremely sorry for inconvenience I have caused, hope this is no issue. Thanks User:Gilliam for your input this is helpful for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cod8 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cod8: Does that mean that you're going to stop editing Pavlova (food)? If not, you're likely to be blocked. You've already continued to disrupt the article after a level four warning (enough to get you blocked right now), edit warred in violation of 3RR (which is also enough to get you blocked), and filed an incomprehensible ANI complaint against someone with whom you've seemingly never interacted. You really need to consider your next action carefully. I suggest you start by reading WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:EW, and WP:POVPUSH. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, NinjaRobotPirate has a point--this is all pretty sophomoric and has to stop. I see that HiLo48 has just reverted, and I hope this is the last revert; if another one is necessary a block will follow. My dear Cod8, is that clear? Now, let's move on and fight over something else. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

James T. Struck

There are at least two anons, 75.145.144.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.165.0.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who have been inserting nonsense material about "James T Struck" into at least three articles: List of prolific inventors and Poincaré conjecture (these past few days), and Newspapers of the Chicago metropolitan area, last spring. These edits weren't the "obvious" vandalism that get handled by WP:AIV, so I'm reporting here. My guess is this is some known problem. Choor monster (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Indeed, same editor, same ineptitude, same interest. Hard to do something about it; I can block the IPs, but it's a bit soon for that and I can't easily say what block length would be appropriate. I suggest you warn them if you haven't already, along the lines of "the game is up; stop this nonsense". If it happens again we can be sure that the IPs are either static or their regular hangouts, or both, and we can block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The style was of the sort of inept blocked users, so I was wondering if "Struck" seemed familiar. I'll keep on an eye on these IPs. If they strike again, I'll warn. I assume he/she/it has noticed the reversions. Thank you. Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Iranian airmen

CFFan116 here. I am concerned about an IP user 70.27.192.197 who has been reverting my edits on the articles belonging to two airmen of the Iranian Air Force who saw combat service in the Iran-Iraq war, Jalil Zandi and Yadollah Javadpour, without proper discussion. He insists that the articles are written "well enough" despite only being Starter class on Project:Iran and using phrases such as "most successful F-5 pilot ever". The issue has spilled over into my talk page. CFFan116 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that there is no discussion at all at the talk pages, and all communication between you is via the edit summaries of the reverts. May be you could start the discussion and propose changes you want to make. If there is no response within several days, you could revert them indicating that the discussion has been started at the talk page. If even after this they do not engage into discussion, measures could be taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

TheNewSaadia, incivility, POV-pushing, and general inability to cooperate

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

---

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

Prophecy of Seventy Weeks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TL;DR: He has called for the article to place religious interpretation and secular academic history next to each other as alternatives "without necessarily casting judgement," and then replaced, neutered, or removed material that clashes with non-critical traditions. He intentionally tried to use language that he admitted could mislead people into thinking that the prophecies in Daniel were written before the Maccabean era. If he's not pushing a non-critical POV, he's doing a terrible job of it. His changes and proposed changes have yet to find any support beyond him, and yet he seeks to unilaterally carry them out. When others have tried to help him by explaining how things are done here, he either ignores it or responds with insults and bullying pretentiousness. Evidence to follow:

His edits include:

• Replacing sourced information about the dating of the Book of Daniel with mostly unsourced claims and a quote from a 1927 religious source to more or less argue 'well no one really knows'
• Arguing that we should change the article to fit a "postmodern" perspective that treats non-critical religious interpretations as equivalent to history
• Edit warring instead of seeking consensus
• Equating secular academic historians' findings to non-criticial religious interpretations -- That's fine for one's personal beliefs, but goes against WP:GEVAL, the very reason why we present evolution as a fact and young earth creationism as WP:FRINGE.
• Arguing that Catholic Biblical Quarterly is a valid source on the history of the text despite the Catholic Biblical Association (the group that publishes CBQ, saying that their purpose is theological, not historical. I've said that CBQ would certainly be fine for the article's "Interpretation" section, but that doesn't suit his agenda.
• Responding to the previous point with arrogant personal attacks ("rank amateur"), more than once. This being a volunteer project that doesn't use original research, most of us are amateurs in a positive sense. To exclude someone as a "rank amateur" for trying to explain the site's guidelines fails WP:CIVIL, however. It's not a matter of how many journal initials we can ramble off, but our ability to actually cite sources and collaborate with others.
• Neutering language in the article create doubt that isn't in the source ("probably" instead of more definite language) and implying that the text is older with "around the time" instead of "in response to" (the source more firmly supporting the latter). He even argued that by "around" he only meant "during" or "shortly thereafter," and said I was being "paranoid" for worrying about intentionally using phrasing he admitted could be misunderstood to include "before" (as in you know, how "around" is used in the rest of the English language when referring to time, to mean "before, during, or after").
• Censoring material that doesn't fit his POV, reaching his third and fourth revert in 24 hours to keep it out (he had previously been warned about 3rr the day before); only begrudgingly restoring the material after I warned him about 3RR again and pointed out that it was actually his fourth revert (once again completely ignoring the multiple reminders to seek consensus for his reverted edits).
• Continuing personal attacks ("paranoid amateur"), and generally asserting that some authority of his trumps policy or consensus

To date, this is the closest to a substantially positive edit I've seen from them. Still, it still fits within an overall agenda to advocate on behalf of the text's historical authenticity, and it's undue weight using a source that fails to discuss how accepted or rejected the idea is.

Multiple editors have explained politely, repeatedly, and in a variety of ways that we do not engage in original research, that we discuss reverted changes before restoring them, that we handle non-critical religious claims and secular academic findings separately or otherwise give more prominence to secular academia, etc. Since this doesn't work with his agenda, he rarely responds with civility, and shows no indication that he'll cooperate except for when it will get him his way. He's demonstrated he might make his POV-pushing more subtle to avoid trouble, but also that he'll still keep seeing what he can get away with and will not become any more civil. I've done my best to be nice to him, but (at least for this topic) he simply is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate, he is here to 'right great wrongs'.

Ian.thomson (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, and giving a stern reminder on NPA as well. However, let me remind you that we have a policy called "neutral point of view", to which presenting the secular perspective as true and the religious perspective as false is fundamentally incompatible. Do not attempt to POV-push either way. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Tropical Biology Association

I axed this article awhile back on copyright grounds (the material was copied verbatim from [148]), however the article's been recreated by @Maddy193: and it look similar enough to the old version that I am concerned. Can someone take a second look and advise on what to do from here? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Not instantly obvious that it was a copyvio, but that's because of typos such as 1,800 biologists versus 1,500 biologists. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

There is an edit war ongoing at the moment involving the following users:

• @TomStar81:
• @MarnetteD:
• @DeletespagesthatfailGNG:
• @50.121.124.125:
• @50.121.125.51:
• @AussieLegend:

The issues include alleged 3RR violations, alleged admin abuse, alleged blocking evasion, and alleged POV pushing. Would someone please look into this and sort it out? It would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I should note here that this is largely an edit war over actions already taken, it appears at this time that the war is contained. That having been said, if anyone wants to weigh in on the actions taken thus far and advise on what more should be done I'd be happy to listen to the advise. I feel that this may be a sock, but I've no proof of that at the moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Some background. 50.121.125.51 decided to redirect a series of TV character articles. These have previously been discussed with one article being kept at AfD with another AfD closing as no consensus. As well, the articles have been discussed at the main series article talk page, when it was suggested that if there was a desire to delete these articles they should go to AfD. For these reasons I reverted the changes. Several hours later I discovered an edit war had broken out on several articles, with the IP redirecting articles and/or restoring contested PROD notices, even on the articles that had been at AfD. Fortunately, C.Fred stepped in gave the IP some sorely needed advice and direction, but it didn't seem to help. The IP had made 3 reverts in just over an hour at Midge and Bob Pinciotti so I left a warning on his talk page.[149] The IP made a few botched attempts at AfD nominations and then created DeletespagesthatfailGNG for the sole purpose of creating an AfD page. This done, DeletespagesthatfailGNG started edit warring and breached 3RR at Kitty Forman so I left a warning on the account's talk page, only to find that he had already been blocked by TomStar81. After being blocked, TomStar81 revoked his talk page access after this personal attack. Since then, DeletespagesthatfailGNG has resorted to using IPs to evade the block.[150][151]] However, for the time being, the IPs seem to have gone quiet. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User Conduct Complaint against User:Moxy

I would like to make a user conduct complaint against User:Moxy. I would like to refer you to the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moxy&oldid=633177451 . That diff describes six messages I have had with him on his talk page, 3 messages from myself and 3 messages from him.

In summary:

1. Moxy in the past week has made eight reversals of good faith edits by myself, without any talk page discussions. This was mostly to different pages, but they were all in the Help: and Wikipedia: namespaces. This includes 4 reversals in the space of 28 minutes. The four reversals in the space of 28 mnutes especially seemed to me to be inflammatory.

2. I asked him various questions. I was suspious because they were all pages which he had previously edited, in some cases recently. He confirmed what I had suspected in the following exchange: “Would you prefer it if I didn't edit pages you've already edited? - Yes I happen to be the guy that writes and organizes many of the help pages.” This more or less confirmed to me has was unhappy with me editing on pages he considered to be his turf; and it was a campaign of intimidation to persuade me to stop.

3. I informed him I was willing to not take this further if he undid the changes he had made. he refused to do this. Owing to the complexity of all the changes I decided that to go through all the changes in an individual basis would be pointless, since he would merely disagree with me.

4. I infomed him that he had more or less confirmed to me that he had broken two WP policies, namely WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:OWN. I believe I was justified in saying this under WP:DUCK. I was civil throughout the exchanges.

The diffs in question:

00:09 9 November 2014 (reverting good faith edits - best we don't keep sending people in circles to basiclly that same information right of the bat. See aslo are best at bottom Will be reverting this in a few places)

00:11 9 November 2014 (reverting good faith edits - best we don't keep sending people in circles to basiclly that same information right of the bat. See aslo are best at bottom Will be reverting this in a few places)

00:25 9 November 2014 (Add link to a more appropriate spot)

00:37 9 November 2014 (lets keep the top simple .....no need for a mini search bar that is lined on ever page. |Fixup bit... We need to minimizes the size of this a per the discussion at the help project. Many of this templates are simply overwhelming and dont help new editors)

Earlier in the week:

01:16, 7 November 2014 (short at bottom as per previous talks...they have zero value for new editors looking for help..and trim as there is more then one search box now ...both have info on how to beside them)

18:28, 3 November 2014 (fix coding so it does not cause all to have to side scroll)

Later:

15:29, 9 November 2014 (more to more appropriate)

15:25, 9 November 2014 (ce)

I am willing to supply any other diffs in evidence that you require. Also, if you want confirmation that the 8 edits undid changes that I had made I will also supply them for you. And any other questions please ask me.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I see from your description above and the discussions on Moxy's and your talk page, Moxy did not do anything wrong. You made similar bold edits on a few different pages, Moxy reverted them with explanatory edit summaries. Then went to your talk page and explained further why he reverted. You then go to his talk page and ask for further explanation. Moxy gives more of an explanation, but that does not satisfy you, so you threaten to report him unless he reverts to your preferred version. That is where we are at. Moxy followed standard procedure, Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold, he reverted and the two of you discussed it. If you don't like the outcome of that discussion, the next part of it is not to threaten to get your way, it is to use one of the dispute resolution options. ANI is not it. GB fan 12:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The evidence speaks for its self.-- Moxy (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@GB fan: OK in that case what would you say is my best course of action? You quoted WP:DR, this is a part of DR, could you be a little more specific please? I felt he had broken policy, but if you disagree I will accept that. By the way, the only "threat" I made was "I may well go take this further", and you're suggesting DR, how is that different? --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

While you didn't say where you would take it further, it was fairly obvious since everything you were talking about was your perceived policy infractions. Your actions confirmed that taking it further was trying to get admins to step in. A threat is not a civil way to resolve a disagreement. From your very first post you assumed bad faith on Moxy's part, all 5 of your points are assumptions of bad faith, that also is not a civil way to resolve a dispute. Rather than taking Moxy at his word that he isn't against changes to these pages, just that he believes these specific edits are not helpful, you assumed that his purpose is to drive you away from the pages. Moxy told you that you have made good changes to at least one of the same pages that you believe he does not want you to edit. That does not appear to be someone that is harassing you or has ownership issues. Someone who is intent on harassing would not be encouraging the person they are harassing to edit the pages. I can be very specific where I think you should go from here. You should go to the first step of trying to resolve any dispute, good faith discussion. So far the discussion has been you asking for answers and Moxy giving you those answers. What you have not done, as far as I have been able to find, is explain why you believe the edits should stand. You need to explain how your edits improve the page. You should assume until proven other wise that Moxy is only trying to make the pages as good as possible. Moxy should be assuming your edits are trying to improve the page also. After a good faith discussion the two of you can not come to an agreement then you go onto other forms of dispute resolution. If it is still just the two of you discussing then a good next step is to ask for a third opinion. Also, you do not have to ping me, I am watching this page and this section in particular. GB fan 16:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@GB fan. Thanks for explaining that to me. While I don't really agree, I shall accept your judgement. But I really believe all this could have been avoided if he had discussed some of theses reversions beforehand. Afterwards is not so good. And while it is true I have been bold, I have not been bold with reversions. But anyway, it is valuable for me to have your insights and opinions, and I shall bear them in mind in the future. Thank you for suggestions on my future course of actions, and for dealing with these matters. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of 3O

• Nellyhan (talk · contribs): a WP:SPA whose only article edited is Ahn Sahng-hong
• Mischief7 (talk · contribs): an editor registered Nov 2013 with about 15 edits. Mischief7 responded to a '3O' request by Nellyhan.
• Ahn Sahng-hong (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch (ASH): an article on the deceased, self-proclaimed messiah and founder of Witnesses of Jesus Church of God which split into two groups one being World Mission Society Church of God.
  

The ASH article has the potential for being a contentious article as it contains criticism of ASH which seems to be what all this is about. There are numerous removals and restores of criticism and contentious material.

Nellyhan made a 3O request directly to Mischief7 instead of posting the request on WP:3O. Besides avoiding the random editor selection, the choice of Mischief7 seems highly unusual given Mischief7's edit history.

ASH article recent history

Essntially, Nellyhan removed content from ASH, was reverted by Sam Sailor (talk · contribs) 1 2. Nellyhan reverted SamSailor 1 and removed more content from ASH 2 3. I reverted Nellyhan's 3 edits 1, where the article stands at this time. After discussions on talk:Ahn Sahng-hong and my suggestion that Nellyhan open a ticket on WP:DR, WP:RFC, or WP:3O, Nellyhan made a direct 3O request to Mischief7 who posted talk:ASH repeating Nellyhan's criticism of me, but not concerned with Nellyhan's removal of sourced content. Mischief7 then replied to Nellyhan on Nellyhan's talk.

Nellyhan seems to have read my user page and BRD, but misunderstood WP:3O?

Mischief7's history

Mischief7 after being inactive for nearly a year, (last edit November 2013} edits Vicky Vale at 27 October 2014 19:22 about 45 minutes after Nellyhan edits my talk page at 27 October 2014 06:36. The next day, Mischief7 creates an article in the user's sandbox which is declined and moved to Draft:Aether. Then, at 02:44, 29 October 2014, Mischief7 receives a "3O" request from Nellyhan 3O request who, less than two hours later, posts on talk:ASH at 04:25, 30 October 2014 Mischief7's edit to talk:ASH. Interestingly, Mischief7's concern's seem to reflect Nellyhan's.

Conclusion / request

Both editors seem to take my statement that "I have not edited the article in at least a year" (I had only checked the latest 500 edits) that have edited before under a different username and that I am a sock and am lying. Interesting similarity in bolding on this in talk:ASH.

Would it be possible to get another set of eyes on this? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For a starter, I fully protected the article for a week, but unfortunately I do not have much time to figure out the details of what is going on. I hope someone will find some time. Feel free to remove protection if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly looks very fishy. I'd like to hear from one of the suspected editors on why he or she was specifically singled out for the 3O opinion. I want to assume good faith here, but I can't find any logical reason (beyond, maybe the editor randomly picked someone who came up on the recent changes list) that doesn't involve some kind of SPA or improper collusion. I was thinking maybe they had interacted in the past and so Nellyhan just picked an editor they were familiar with (which would still be an improper use of 3O but would not have the same canvassing or SPA issues) but this does not seem to be the case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the intersecting articles that both editors worked on [152] you basically found nothing, so from that point of view, there is no reason to think that Nellyhan and Mischief7 knew each other at all. That doesn't explain why it wasn't filed at WP:3O, but they weren't editing buddies. Dennis - 2¢ 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is some significant socking going on here. Nellyhan is  Confirmed to Vanessaliam (talk · contribs), Maintain1 (talk · contribs) and Willsturn (talk · contribs). On the other side of the coin Mischief7 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to Thomathe81 (talk · contribs) and is  possibly related to the first group of socks, though via direct socking or meat is unknown.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised; behaviorally it's 100% guaranteed that they are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other. Before seeing Ponyo's CU info, I left a pointed question for Nellyhan on their talk page, but events have overtaken me. I've collapsed the "3O", although if someone want to delete in instead I won't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. What's all this mess here. First of all, Nellyhan is my recent ID, and Vanessaliam is my old ID. I didn't even use this ID to edit this article. As for Maintain1 and Willsturn were new IDs that I've created because I was having problems logging in. Notice I haven't done anything with those IDs. Mischief7 - I don't even know him or her, I just picked him randomly from the ones who I gave welcoming message when I used Vanessaliam. It makes me wonder why Jim1138 added some other info. rather than only reverting my edits, and I asked him why and he said that he edited a year ago, and I don't see him editing a year ago, or ever since the article was created. Who is Jim1138 a year ago? Is he a socket puppet? -Nellyhan (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is 199.47.73.100 from New York reverting my opinion? Are you all together or what? Do you own this place? Floquenbeam told me to reply. -Nellyhan (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So, if I reply, everyone is going to delete? This is totally ridiculous.-Nellyhan (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

First things first! I was sent a 3O. Didn’t know that there were designated 3O's. That aside, I just answered what was asked of me. I don’t know Nellyhan. I was requested a 3O and when I Iooked into it, I thought something fishy was going on. This sock or meat puppeting you accuse me of…is this an automated response every time someone asks a question? I’m still curious as to why Jim1138 (a patroller and someone who’s a part of the vandalism team) is reverting as well as adding things to the said article and saying he edited a year ago when there's no evidence of him doing so. Shouldn’t Jim1138 be playing a neutral stance instead of reverting said article and adding things? Isn’t that a case of sock and/or meat puppeteering? I wrote what I did because to me it was clear that Jim1138 was lying and abusing his power. That’s the point!Mischief7 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring this section where the above two users have added their comments to the archive. Sam ^Sing! 13:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

64.183.48.206 has returned as 107.220.86.220

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

---

64.183.48.206 was blocked for abusive editing. It was thought that he/she was using a second account, 107.220.86.220. The latter account has started to edit two pages that I have been watching with the same crappy and unsourced edits as under the other user name. 64.183.48.206 was blocked for one month this time. He/she has been blocked in the past 107.220.86.220 has been warned before but never blocked. If anyone would just take a look at the two contributions pages, it would be clear that one person is using two accounts to do abusive work. Both accounts need the death penalty, in my opinion. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, user IDs of the form 123.45.231.54 are IP addresses. Generally IP addresses are not indefinitely blocked because it's very possible for IP addresses to change hands or be used by multiple people (such as in an organization or school). If you already knew this, feel free to ignore me. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was the case, Richard Yin. In the case of 64.183.48.206, he/she was warned repeatedly and blocked on a couple of occasions. A comparison of the two accounts (work/home computers?) will show pretty clearly that it's the same person. Hiding behind an IP address should not shield an abusive user from being blocked. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked 107.220.86.220 for a month as its clearly the IP 64.183.48.206 avoiding the month long block i gave them a week or so ago. Mfield (Oi!) 16:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you once again, good sir. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Closure review

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag at Gamergate controversy being used as a scarlet letter

• Gamergate controversy

(Note claiming exception to the Arbcom finding, as this is a matter in which I am primarily involved.)

We have a situation at the Gamergate article, linked above, where the "NPOV issues" tag has remained on the article for five weeks now, even though there are no specific or immediate issues. The tag was added on October 6th by MSGJ, at the behest of other editors and he has not edited the article since. The nature of the controversy over Gamergate is over the misogyny and harassment of women in video gaming culture, a point-of-view strongly supported by reliable sources. A secondary point-of-view is that the nature of the controversy is about gamer journalism ethics. The side that pushes the latter has become more and more vocal about their minority point-of-view being given equal weight as the primary, but as the sourcing does not support this at all, that would violate WP:UNDUE. So, they tagged the article, and the tag has remained for thirty-five days now.

I intended to remove it last week, but the date slipped by. A thread last night, consisitng largely of vocal single-purpose accounts seems to think the matter is up for a vote, to which I disagree with strongly. Template:POV explicitly warns against tag usage as a badge of shame or as a "warning" to readers. It is meant to solicit other editors to weigh in on the matter. We have done that for over a month now, none of the concerns raised have been found to have merit. I attempted a removal just now to no avail. Admin intervention is requested, as the tag is now being misused. New editors need to keep in mind that a tag removal doesn't mean the end of the discussion, it just means the end of the immediacy of a serious issue or concern that we must warn ever make every page visitor aware of.

Also note that other editors wholly unconnected to Gamergate seem to see the tag as long outliving its usefulness as well. Tony Sidaway attempted to remove it last night, but was reverted by an SPA. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have continued and will continue to point out there is an NPOV problem with the article (mainly impartialness; balance will never be equal due to sourcing), which a few owning editors (see ArbCom case) refuse to acknowledge. While such maintenance tags are not meant for long term use, I can point to hundreds of articles with similar maintenance tags still on the page going back to 2007, so there is no requirement that they have to be removed after a month, especially if active debate is still going on with justified reasons. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that point out other problematic articles makes a compelling counter-argument. Look at The Troubles, abortion, climate change, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and 9/11. All hugely controversial articles are are subject to editing disputes all the time, yet none are tagged. Disputes are routine; tagging an article with "POV" is a short-term call for wider input into a matter. We've had that for over a month now, and if there are editors that cannot articulate a reason other than "it's biased!", when the sources show otherwise, then it runs afoul of the template usage instructions. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident (save for 9/11) that all of those have gone through ArbCom to set what proper editing process should be and approach, in addition to the fact that those are long since "resolved" (years of facts and opinions) so that long-term issues are resolved. This is still developing and only a few months old, and things are still changing, and of course, no ArbCom review yet. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Immediate block of Tarc for violating ArbCom's ban of his use of administrator noticeboards. He is banned from any noticeboard unless it directly concerns the user. He is not allowed to bring forth any issue as he is effectively banned from the admin boards. This is a use of administrator's noticeboard for this purpose and he has fragrantly disobeyed the ArbCom restriction lended to him, and as enforcement, should be blocked. Tutelary (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh Arbcom should have explained what the "normal restrictions" were. Is he banned from all topics which are not explicitly about him, or is he banned from topics that have nothing to do with him? Can someone file a clarification case?--v/r - TP 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I would think that the normal restrictions involved responding to posts about you, rather than starting a new discussion. On the face of it, this appears a clear violation of the sanctions from the case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a very obvious violation of Arbcom sanctions against Tarc, which explicitly prohibit him from posting on AN/I and Jimbotalk. Here he is stirring up drama by starting a new thread. See: "Tarc restricted (1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions. Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (UTC−7)" Carrite (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support immediate indefinite block of Tarc for violation of Arbcom sanctions. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Before we all get on the bandwagon, I do believe Tarc has violated it. However, the game is in ArbCom's park and not the community's, else we could just devoid or reject ArbCom by merely having a !vote on it. I'll file an enforcement request when I get home, or some admin can just block now. It's a pretty overt violation; after all. Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support for indef block of Tarc in violation of ArbCom sanctions. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 18:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My reading of those restrictions is that they're intended to prevent Tarc from becoming involved in ongoing noticeboard drama. His proposal to remove the NPOV tag, which is being used out of policy, is being filibustered by many editors with very few contributions outside of the gamergate debacle. This seems like a clear case of 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Anybody who keeps shouting "immediate indef block of Tarc" here needs to first read the Arbcom decision himself. We don't do indef blocks for one-off violations of arbcom restrictions, even if this turns out to be one (which I'm not entirely certain of). The length of a block is a matter of administrative discretion, but the maximum would be a month, and since he declared he believed an exemption applied (and I have no reason to doubt his good faith in that), I doubt even a short block is in order – if we think he was wrong about that, we simply close the thread down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tarc did violate his restrictions. He may have, or he may not have, I don't know. Would it make the Gamergate article to be perfect? Does his complaint have no merit? Perhaps two independent and unrelated discussions need to occur here... --Jayron32 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Will someone please muzzle these 3 characters...Tuletary, Carrite, and Dungeon-whatever...please? The middle one in particular, a busybody with personal animosity who has nothing to do with the topic area. The Arbcom prohibition has a "normal restrictions" clause, i.e. WP:BANEX's "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" line. I, on behalf of myself and other established editors who have been keeping the muck out of the Gamergate article, am seeking intervention in a dispute because I/we are unable to fight the constant edit-warring over this tag without resorting to edit-warring ourselves. This is textbook "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". Tarc (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You deliberately leave out the next line. It has to be related to the ban itself. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:

asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than

once).

asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban.

appealing the ban. You are absolutely in violation of this as you are not questioning the ban of itself, but trying to us the AN

board to bring action against something. ArbCom specifically sanctioned you for this, and you are violating it.

Tutelary (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Tarc, WP:BANEX doesn't cover this; it's only about "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". I suggest we close this thread down, and if anybody else besides Tarc wishes to have a discussion about that Gamergate tag, they can re-open a new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Drama aside, can we get some actual administrator attention to this issue and the page in general? That would be extremely helpful. FWIW as far as I can see the page meets WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, and the one outsstanding POV issue on the talk page contains calls for violating those policies and is basically and excercise in beating a dead horse, but admins are of course free to make up their own minds on that. Artw (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, I cannot be prevented from seeking redress when there is a situation in which I am involved in requires admin input. Arbcom wanted me out of admin discussions which I had no prior involvement in, as I used to comment on ANI postings quite frequently. None of this affects the merit of SPAs and their associates trolling the Gamergate article to force a scarlet letter tag in perpetuity. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

115ash at Asian American

Article:

• Asian American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved editors

• RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115ash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wtmitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Palmeira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor 115ash, has continued to attempt to change the lead section and infobox of the article Asian Americans against the established consensus built in 2012. The editor has been asked to stop, and has been invited to discuss changes to content on the talk page on multiple occasions, by more editors than just myself. Continued editing without significantly engaging in talk page discussion is seen by myself as disruptive editing. An attempt to resolve this at WP:DRN was rejected.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

And I would note that the DRN was rejected because 115ash has not participated in the talk page discussions - their refusal to discuss(or belief that as soon as they have made a comment they have consensus for their position) is an issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)