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

Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure

I am a paid editor creating and posting pages on a behalf of a hotel chain. My paid editing status wasn't properly disclosed which was pointed out to me (and which I would have gladly fixed, but that's not the issue here). I made a paid edit to Plaza Hotel which is a page that Beyond My Ken is clearly passionate about. He reverted that paid edit and then reverted the paid edits for all 30+ hotel pages that I had previously done. I've attempted to engage with him on his talk page User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken (Hotels) as to his objections to my paid editing and it's very clear that he won't engage with me on the merits of my work. I feel that Beyond My Ken isn't open to my contributions because of my Paid Editor Status and if you look at my total contributions to the community, I'm making large numbers of non-paid edits for topics that I'm passionate about. I have posted over 30 Paid Page Edits for the hotel chain and only one other Wikipedian total has objected to me in any manner before Beyond My Ken did...and as a new paid editor who did not quite do attribution properly, that's testimony to the validity of my pages for the Wikipedia Community which comply with Wikipedia's style and content guidelines. I would like to repost the pages with the proper paid attribution and I want Beyond My Ken to leave them alone. With Plaza Hotel, I will gladly work with him to see any concerns over my work are addressed (and I repeat my preference to engage him instead of going through these sorts of processes).

While there are 30+ pages that Beyond My Ken reverted, the two most recent were Peace_Hotel and Swissôtel_The_Stamford so those are the ones I would like to put at issue here. Blueberry Hill (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for those with financial conflicts of interest state that "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles" (emphasis is in the original). To reduce the chance of future misunderstandings, it would help to familiarize yourself with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueberry Hill It is a good idea is to check the links you create. Beyond My Ken does not go to BMK's page nor does it ping him. Next since this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hotel Paid Edits w.2F Disclosure was declined this new thread smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not forum shopping; the editor was told to bring it to ANI first [1]; see also User talk:Blueberry Hill discussion about not starting with arbcom. NE Ent 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes my mistake and I have struck the comment. OTOH you should not be altering your posts on BMK's talk page as you did here. Place a new notice rather than altering an old one is the proper way to handle things. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of Blueberry Hill's edits and concur that most, but perhaps not all of them should be reverted. Here are some of the problems: First, Wikipedia is not a directory. Adding a plethora of restaurant listings and amenities falls afoul of that rule. Use summary style, and describe amenities and restaurants with as concisely as possible. Second, the wording on many of the edits was indeed highly promotional. While some wordings are commonly used for travel brochures, they are simply too charged or too trite for an encyclopedia: for example, on Banff Springs Hotel, phrasings like "beautiful wilderness", "spectacular settings", "luxury dining experience", "authentic" – that goes too far. Even in some cases that avoid using promotional wordings, the intent is still clearly to persuade the reader, which is the goal of an advertisement, rather than to inform the reader, which should be the purpose of an encyclopedia. Example, on Hotel Macdonald : "Travelers who miss their own dogs while away from home can take the hotel's dog along for walks and companionship." Yes, that might be true and might be greatly comforting, but it is still trying to persuade that the canine will make the hotel a more comforting experience. That kind of slant of slant just isn't permissible.

So, moving forward. Paid editors can play a valuable role for Wikipedia. Articles become outdated, and mere updates of room counts or ownership is perfectly acceptable. But paid editors who persist in trying to give articles a promotional slant will run into stiff resistance. Blueberry Hill, I would suggest you read some neutral, non-promotional examples of hotel articles before moving forward: Renaissance Blackstone Hotel would be a good start. If possible, it's easier to write neutrally about the history of a hotel rather than its amenities. Altamel (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from Blueberry Hill's latest contribution [2]:

The 5-star hotel offers 1,261 luxurious rooms and suites, 15 restaurants and bars, access to the Raffles City Convention Centre, and one of Asia's largest Spas. ... Swissôtel The Stamford offers 15 food and beverage outlets including the Equinox Complex, which offer a wide range of cuisines, and settings from casual to elegant. ... JAAN, Level 70 – Serving a distinctive menu of artisanal French cuisine by Chef de Cuisine Kirk Westaway. JAAN was Ranked No. 11 on Asia's 50 Best Restaurants list 2015, and Ranked No. 74 on the S. Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants List 2015 ... [list of 14 other restaurants] ... One of Asia's largest spas, the Willow Stream Spa, featuring relaxation lounges, pools, whirlpools, steam and sauna rooms. The spa offers 35 treatment rooms total, including three couples suites with private Jacuzzi and aromatherapy steam rooms.

This is not WP:NPOV writing, this is not encyclopedic writing, this is not even good writing, this is the writing of a PR flack, solely promotional in tone and purpose. Since Blueberry Hill appears to be incapable of writing in a way that is appropriate to Wikipedia, I stand by my request that he only request edits on hotel article talk pages, and not edit directly any hotel article. We could, of course, go through every one of his edits to clean up after him, to convert the above into something resenbling:

The hotel offers 1,260 rooms and suites and many bars and restaurant, as well as access to the Raffles City Convention Center. It has a complete spa, which includes lounges, pools, whirlspools and steam, sauna and treatment rooms.

but it's not our job to be Blueberry Hill's personal copyeditors, it's his job (literally) to write in a manner acceptable to us. BMK (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the (collective) feedback and this is very helpful. What I'm trying to accomplish and what I ask for is the opportunity to give you pages that are acceptable to this collective group (and any others who might be interested in these topics). I'm comfortable I can do this (and by being public with this issue, I know you're paying attention to me). Would you collectively look upon my future work on these page based purely upon their merits and not based upon something that you previously objected to and not based upon the fact that I'm being a paid editor (and FYI, I've never done PR in my life).? Blueberry Hill (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is useful for some things, but hashing out the wording of edits across multiple articles is not one of them. The accepted procedure is to use the relevant article's talk page and request edits (there's even a handy template). Again, I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing and follow the procedures described there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to hash out wording here...I'm just looking to be judged fairly and objectively if I attempt to incorporate your feedback. Blueberry Hill (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All of your edits have been judged on their merits, or lack thereof. BMK (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The wisest option is to propose what you wish to include in the article on the talk page and let other editors dissect the text and distill out anything that might violate WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. You should definitely include any sources that such text would come from. Blackmane (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistance for Blueberry Hill

Blueberry Hill, in the interests of moving things along, you are welcome to an offer of help from me—not indefinitely, but to get you in the right direction. When you have placed your proposed text on the relevant article talk page, you are welcome to ping me using {{ping|Sladen}} and we can go over and WP:NPOV what you've done. If you would like help and are willing to learn, then we'll probably have a solution. —Sladen (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) And if an understanding of WP:NPOV doesn't come naturally, BMK et al will probably revert you again, and you'll end up back here again.

A good way to start is this: (1) Write your copy offline. (2) Delete all the adjectives. (3) Post the result on the article talk page as your proposed text. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. BMK (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 to that suggestion. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed Swissôtel The Stamford down to the facts and awards with reliable sources. It no longer reads like a brochure. Trimmed Peace Hotel similarly. There remains a "happy talk" problem. At least three people have died falling from the Swissôtel The Stamford since 2013.[3] Somehow the paid editor didn't mention that, even though that's what you find if you look for independent reliable sources. This is the other side of the COI editing problem - omitting the bad news. John Nagle (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No Assistance for Blueberry Hill

I happened to look a bit into the Plaza Hotel, one of User:Blueberry Hill's clients, when writing Oak Room (Plaza Hotel). The institution is now a shell and shadow of its former self, being converted largely to condos many of which are always empty (holding unused multi-million dollar condos is normal for Russian, Saudi, etc. billionaires I gather). The storied Oak Room itself had to be shut down because entitled "douchebags" (not my words) were out of control and wrecking the place. These, I think, are useful and cogent facts which ought to be added to added the article to help the reader answer the question "what is this entity".

Is User:Blueberry Hill going to add this material? No of course not. Is he going to suggest these changes on the talk page? No of course not.

My experience is that User:Blueberry Hill is going to elide all these facts. In theory then other editors are going to take time to check the material very thoroughly, take the time not to just to check the refs to ensure that they're accurate but to take the hours or days necessary to extensively research the entity exhaustively to determine if balancing material has been left out -- that we are not lying by omission.

Is this going to happen? Not in my experience it's not. More likely some editor will come along and at most check the refs for accuracy, be like "looks good to me", post it, and Bob's your uncle, for User:Blueberry Hill.

Why this happens is complicated. Here're some reasons: with User:Blueberry Hill, we have to assume bad faith -- nothing personal, User:Blueberry Hill, its just an effect of your profession that of course people are going to look at your statements with skepticism -- but we are very much in the habit of not doing that because of our community commitment to assuming good faith on the part of editors in good standing.

In addition, people here like to be helpful generally: "Sure, I'll post this for you". In addition, there are editors who think it's ridiculous that we don't allow commercial editing and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. There are editors who think rules against commercial editing are unenforceable and it is unfair to punish people who abide by the bright line rule and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. And of course there are libertarians who will post the material for ideological reasons. There's certainly no rule against backrubbing (you post my PR material to which you have no attachment and no COI and I'll do the same for you). So there're a lot of reasons why, sorry, this is a poor solution.

As an alternative, I'd suggest indef blocking User:Blueberry Hill on WP:NOTHERE grounds or whatever other grounds you like. I don't want him here and he doesn't belong here, period. I don't give a damn if he contributes to Mike Napoli or whatever. So do I. The difference is, I'm not corrupt and I don't hack into the Wikipedia database to damage it for my own personal financial gain (which is what I consider commercial editing to be). That's a big difference.

You're the admin corps. You're supposed to protect the Wikipedia It's simple: get rid of him and people like him whenever, wherever, and however discovered. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Herostratus, hopefully the more positive approach is to offer a limited amount of guidance and support to Blueberry Hill, during which they can choose to make the most of it and contribute according to policy, or other remedies can be looked at. Education opportunity and carrots are much better in the long run than brute force and sticks. Lets presume WP:AGF (per Wikipedia's policies, and regardless of presumptions of WP:COI or not). As yet, I believe we're waiting upon Blueberry Hill's request for review of their next draft/proposed changes. —Sladen (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a massive fan myself, but WP:ROPE would seem to apply. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The last edit from Blueberry Hill (talk · contribs) was on 11 October 2015. The articles involved have been cleaned up by others. Their edit at Plaza Hotel was totally undone, with the edit comment "Nope", and they didn't try again. None of those hotel articles need much attention; they're all historic hotels with their long histories documented in Wikipedia. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a need to do anything here. John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"The root of the problem here is Keysanger"

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History). His ban was conditionally released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

And in editor's @Neil P. Quinn: talk page (diff) he continues:

1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
3. [Keysanger] he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism).
5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

It must be emphasized, that I have not interacted with MarshalN20 for a long time (years?), aside from my warning in his Amendment request or as he accused me to be a sockpuppet. That is, MarshalN20 personal attacks have its source solely in his battleground conduct as the tribunal established.

I see in MarshalN20's conduct a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, even worse, the rules set by the amendment. I expect that the community apply the needed sanctions on the wrongdoer to end definitely the personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider to have broken my personal "vow" since I have not actually edited any article about the War of the Pacific. I don't consider talk or discussion spaces the same as articles—albeit discussing the semantics of my words is surely not within the scope of AN/I (as my vow was not part of the resolution that lifted my TB).

In fact, Keysanger's request here is entirely preposterous. I have not personally attacked him, and have actually been quite empathetic to him in our recent interaction (see [4] and [5]). As Dentren indicates, my comments are a criticism of the "work" that Keysanger has done in the article.

I place "work" in quotations because Keysanger's contributions to the War of the Pacific article, in a time-span of over half a decade, has left it in a complete mess (I called it a "soup of words," and that's a mighty kind use of words). The article needs serious work from editors competent in English who can write an adequate prose with proper paraphrasing and summarization of reliable sources. I would volunteer to help, but can't do so now due to other commitments.

This is why I left a message on Neil's talk page. He attempted to help resolve a problem in the article, but the situation is so convoluted that he could not make sense of what was going on. My message was in no way or form uncivil; furthermore, Neil even thanked me for taking the time to explain to him the issue and provide him with an example (see [6]).

This AN/I request surprises me greatly, but at the same time it opens an opportunity for a WP:BOOMERANG case where I hope the community can take a look at the War of the Pacific article and see for themselves its current state. I am even considering to propose that a community topic ban be placed on Keysanger so that he no longer can interfere with other editors taking charge of the article; please let me know your thoughts on this. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, and by the way, I didn't accuse Keysanger of being a sockpuppet. I pointed out in the SP investigation, as a commenter (not nominator), that the editing patterns between Keysanger and another user were very similar. However, this SPI took place in May 2014; it has been well over a year since then. The fact that this user continues to harbor anger over this, as well as his comment in my topic ban review (of a case that never involved him), serves as evidence that the saber still rattles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's description of the case is incorrect. The ban has not been lifted on the condition that he doesn't engage in the war of the pacific articles. The ban has been lifted, period. He is free to edit the article and the talk page as he see fit. For a year, if he causes trouble, the ban may be reinstated, and if he doesn't, it may be gone for good. So, this case should be checked only on the grounds of his actual comments. So far, I don't see anything wrong with them. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a liberal dose of WP:DROPTHESTICK to Keysanger, first the sockpuppet accusation was made in May 2014, that's over a year old, second, his ban was released in full by the Arb's, MarshalN20 on his own promised not to edit the articles and he's doing just that, the talk page is not the same as the article. Further, you | struck out some of what he wrote and claimed it was a personal attack, Dentren | removed your strike out and MarshalN20 actually | re-wrote the struck out parts even though they didn't qualify as a personal attack, further your were the sole | opposer of his request to release him from his Ban, and you went back to 2013 to show diffs of his supposed "bad behavior". (* Edited 10/14/2015 1525 EST * ) Looks like Keysanger tried to | close down part of this discussion as well, big time not cool, and I should know, I've been called on just that same thing. Let's have an admin close this up with a note to drop the stick. KoshVorlon 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kosh,

you didn't understand the issue. As I wrote below, sockpuppetry is not the case. MarshalN20 and WCM accusation was immediately rebuked by the admins. The case here is MarshalN20's "The root of the problem here is Keysanger". It is a personal attack under any consideration. --Keysanger (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is explained in my original posting at SPI [7]. The key points back then, remain the same now:

1. Keysanger is disruptive on the War of the Pacific, seeking to remove material on the grounds of a national POV basis. This doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV or the prevailing view in the literature. He's been raising the same issue on the article since September 2009 as far as I am aware.
2. Keysanger has repeatedly baited Marshal about his topic ban.
3. Keysanger has a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, disagree and you're an enemy. I thought long and hard before raising the SPI, largely for the wrong reason as at the time I regarded him as a wikifriend. As you can see above - [8] apparently I was "rebuked" by the SPI.

I would strongly urge Keysanger to drop the stick here, withdraw what is a frivolous complaint and take a break from the article before he sees a WP:BOOMERANG headed his way. WCM_email 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WCM analysis of Keysangers behaviour. He has long tried to impose a particular vision on the events sorrounding the War of the Pacific, one which avoids putting Chile as the "bad boy" diff. He has extended his activity to Economic history of Chile solely for the purpose of cleaning or creating a particular image of Chile regarding the causes of the War of the Pacific, and rejected mediation diff. Keysanger is an old user, active for more than 6 years, we should expect a minimum standard from him.

PS. In August Keysanger made a vitriolic attack on me diff after I brought up the issue of him using socks/meatsocks (if untrue, why react that way?). I declined to bring the issue up for ANI then, I bring it up now anyway, just to not let this behaviour pass by. Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the central point of the discussion, is MarshalN20's battleground mentality compatible with the goals of Wikipedia?. In my honest opinion, Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. --Keysanger (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, accusing me of having a battleground mentality is an extremely offensive personal attack. I let it slide when you presented the case here, but no more (i.e., stop). I also encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG, specifically:

“ A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. ”

Moreover, Dentren's diff ([9]) shows a good example of a potentially good contributor to the article (Ramirez) being driven out of the article by Keysanger.

This situation is what needs to stop. It is increasingly become clear to me that the only way to stop it is by banning Keysanger from the War of the Pacific article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of Clarification

Above Keysanger claims that Marshal accused him of sockpuppetry, this is not true. I started the SPI check after a new user appeared, with obvious knowledge of wiki processes and immediately began editing on the War of the Pacific and supporting Keysanger in talk. He was also disruptive on Chile-Peru football rivalry which was a bit of a pet project of Marshals. Check out Chelios123 (talk · contribs) for details. At the time it seemed a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Although not actively involved in the War of the Pacific I was previously one of the parade of editors that have tried to mediate the dispute on this article. WCM_email 11:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He accused me as he wrote "Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here." (diff), but that isn't the point in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire, Keysanger, this is very relevant to the case. Your opening statement here intends to portray the idea that I have an agenda against you, and also that you are appalled by my alleged breaking of an inconsequential "vow". However, this example and the one of your ArbComm comment (both which you brought up here on your own), demonstrate that you have raised this AN/I case in bad faith. Raising a frivolous AN/I report because you are still angry over a year-old SPI, but claiming it is for a good cause, fits the definition of a cynical gaming of the system. The boomerang is real.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is the epitome of battleground behavior. When is soon? Even if he "vowed" "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." the topic ban was lifted. Soon is undefined and in requesting a topic ban be lifted pretty much shows an intention of editing in this area. Arbcom lifting the topic ban allows for him to edit in this area. There's no actually need to wait for the "soon" time period, if this isn't already after "soon". While he does not softly kiss any ass I'm not really seeing any breach of Marshal's release from his topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Community proposal: Article Ban for Keysanger

Approximately since 2007, Keysanger has been editing War of the Pacific. He is the article's main contributor ([10]). After half a decade, the article does not even meet the standards for a GA; meanwhile, Keysanger has consistently exhibited ownership ([11],[12],[13]), POV-editing ([14],[15],[16],[17],[18]), inappropriate use of sources ([19],[20],[21]), and edit warring ([22]). This has effectively obfuscated discussions in the article's talk page ([23],), preventing other editors from contributing to the article. Moreover, there have been concerns raised about Keysanger's relationship to suspicious Australian IPs (most recent). Mediations have been attempted in the past, to no avail.
Therefore, in order to promote new contributions and less conflictive editing in War of the Pacific, I propose that the community place an indefinite article ban on Keysanger from the mainspace and the talk space of the War of the Pacific. This WP:ABAN can be appealed to the community after a year. Keysanger would be free to edit other topics about the War of the Pacific, but his WP:ABAN can be expanded to a topic ban if the aforementioned disruptive behavior continues in these other articles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. I thought about proposing a topic ban, but an article ban is more precise and less problematic for administrators to handle. It is also a way to encourage Keysanger to exhibit good, collaborative behavior while he works in areas that are of interest to him (there are plenty of articles in the War of the Pacific topic area [24]).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeYou mean it's not GA yet? OMG! How will it ever be completed by the deadline at this pace? Oh there is no deadline. With no deadline it's lack of GA status is irrelevant. I also see what seems to be an accusation of sock puppetry but there seems to be no evidence. I'm wondering how the SPI turned out? I'm also not really seeing any diffs that show anything that looks like misconduct. This pretty much suggests that there is no misconduct. No misconduct, no reason for any type of ban. I notice that there is currently no reason that you can't edit this article. Since your interested in it achieving GA status I encourage you to go forth and start taking action to get it to get it to GA status. I encourage the both of you to limit your interactions with each other solely to discussion of article content. Wikipedia has multiple means of dispute resolution to help form a consensus, such as a WP:RFC, so if you find that you can not form a consensus among yourselves I encourage you to use some form of dispute resolution to get a consensus. As I understand Marshaln20, you have already been topic banned from this area once and have been given a second chance. I wish you the best of luck with this second chance. I caution the both of you in your future interactions. Good luck.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I consider that this is a valid criticism. Thank you for highlighting the flaws in the proposal. I have added diffs, per the recommendations. I will add some more—there is plenty. I do not plan to add more evidence of Keysanger's bad use of language (I do not want to humiliate him). Also, the outcome of the SPI is not under question; a number of users (myself, WCM, Dentren) have expressed concern with Keysanger's relationship with users (Chelios, IggyAU/IggyAu) and IPs from Australia. I concur with the idea that there is no deadline; however, I consider that the purpose of article writing is to reach the standards set up by our community (the GA & the FA process). If we don't have a set goal, or focus, then what are we doing in Wikipedia? Keysanger has been working on War of the Pacific since 2007 and he is the article's top contributor; if he can't take the article to GA standards (at least), either because he can't or want, then the article should be open to other editors to contribute. At least that's my view on it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced. This is not to suggest that someone else won't be. I would honestly again recommend caution. Your free not to. But you do know what the boomerang is. And there is no deadline. You can set goals. Personal goals. Other people can share these personal goals if they wish to. This person may have a goal set. I don't know. I could ask them but they aren't required to answer and it doesn't matter because it's not relevant. If you want to see it GA then go there. Edit the article. Do not repeat the actions that have before lead to a ban. Don't talk to them unless it's about article content. If you can't come to a consensus then use [[WP:DISPUTE] Resolution. You just got your topic ban lifted. You are apparently interested in the subject. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I understand Joe, trust me that I do. I love to work in articles with editors such as yourself, because you know the procedures and can hold a friendly discussion in spite of disagreements. However, this doesn't happen in War of the Pacific. Ed best explains the difficulty of working in this particular article when he writes that "[it] has been in dispute for seven years" and that "[it] has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there" ([25]). Taking a controversial article through the GA/FA process is difficult, albeit not impossible. However, it requires that all parties strive towards a common goal. I know this to be true because that is how it was done in the Falkland Islands article, which I am proud to have helped in taking to FA status. I agree with Ed that admin attention is badly needed in War of the Pacific. I am proposing a solution to the problem; the community can agree or disagree, but at least I tried to help resolve this serious matter. Warm regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on principle. I will generally oppose sanctions proposed by involved parties. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Blackmane (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, the problematic editing on behalf of Keysanger has been an issue at least since 2009. I would like to hear how you would address it. Keysanger had had time to learn and acknowledge himself with Wikipedias rules and policies. Now I see he is just gaming the system having actual ownership of War of the Pacific trough persistently disrupting and tiring out anybody contributing there that does not agree with his preferences (you can take a look the history of the article). What should be done? Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Keysanger appears to be on a crusade to "get" MarshalN20. I say the actions (like the ones I noted above ) speak for themselves, loudly. As for Serialjoepsycho's argument about not usually supporting a ban notice by one of the involved parties, who the heck else would bring it. I don't think that's a reason to discount . KoshVorlon 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:As for my argument? Could you point out where I've made this argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Support, albeit reluctantly. I have to agree with Kosh Vorlon that Keysanger appears to have been pursuing Marshal seeking sanctions against that editor. In addition, despite being advised to, he appears unable to drop the stick and disengage as I and others have suggested. The thing that finally convinced me to support the proposal was the "this isn't about me, this is about them" statement, after he was warned by several commentators about the WP:BOOMERANG. WCM_email 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, agree with MarshalN20 analysis. There is long-term (5+ years, half a decade!) disruption and ownership issue. Keysanger is definitely hindering the development of this article, because he uncompromisingly try to enforce his particular view of the conflict. Dentren | ^Talk 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It seems Keysanger's English writing abilities have been called into question in these incidents. I not only don't see any big issue with their English here, but find the concept that they should be sanctioned also based on a perceived lack of grammar extremely worrying. If their edits contain English mistakes, correct them. It's a wiki. LjL (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Agree wholeheartedly, that isn't a reason for sanction. The continued battlefield mentality and refusal to drop the stick on the other hand is. WCM_email 16:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree as well. It was insensitive, and so I have removed it. Thank you for the comment LjL. As WCM indicates, there are other more serious behavior-based concerns here.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- Insensitive matters little when competence is required WP:CIR. Weak competence in English can be a justification for a ban. A few minor errors wouldn't be justification however.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CIR is just an essay - neither a guideline nor a policy - and stating that "weak competence in English can be a justification for a ban" is outright ridiculous. LjL (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR is just an essay. This is not a meaningful point. If a weak competence in English rises to a level of disruption it is a justification for a ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysangers comment

Who are the commentators of this accusation?

• MarshalN20 is an involved editor
• Wee Curry Monster is an involved editor
• Dentren is an involved editor
• Cambalachero is an involved editor

Why does matter who are the accusers and judges?

Because Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

Hence, comments must be done by neutral, independent and objective editors and not by the gang of friends.

What about my contribution to Wikipedia?

Well, you may like my English or not, but I have made many of the best contributions to the article War of the Pacific. That is the reason why, for example, Dentren's tag was deleted. They were not my friends, they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist. They analysed the content of the article, find out what Dentren wanted to say (!) and rebuked. They were volunteers from the Dispute Mediation that I, that is Keysanger, called to help. Is it my blame that:

• MarshalN20 was banned of all articles of Latin America history?
• Darkness Shines was blocked because Sockpuppetry?
• Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a SPA?
• etc, etc

If any one of you want to contribute to an article, e.g. War of the Pacific, he is free to do it. Keeping the rules of Wikipedia.

What can we learn from this "discussion"?

Most of the editors are tired to discuss with people that recur to vociferate and to bring his friends because they are unable to argue.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No Keysanger, I am not involved, I've never edited the article and my only involvement in talk was to act as a mediator. Which I remind you was at your request [26]. The only reason I commented was because of your inability to drop the stick. You really do need to disengage here. WCM_email 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is all also completely irrelevant. So what would be my question? So what if Marshaln20 was banned? So What? He's also been unbanned I notice. So what about what ever petty issue you've mentioned. What about your own Ownership issues? What about your own edit-warring? Even if they were some how involved how is this even remotely important? What about your own battleground behavior? Have you no answer for the charges(for lack of better term) that they have made?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Serialjoepsycho:

MarshalN20 was banned of all articles about Latin America history, hence, he wasn't allowed to edit the article, so, it wasn't my "ownership" the cause of the prohibition, but his battleground mentality as is indicated in the ban!. Dentren's contributions were rebuked by the volunteers of the Third Opinion team, Darkness shines was blocked because of sockpuppetry, and Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a {{Spa}}. So, I ask you: why do they accuse me of "ownership"?.

It is not remotely important, it is very important to judge independent, neutral and objective. You can't expect neutrality from a person that has an interest to get a goal from the discussion. This is the reason why there are a independent judiciary power in a republican system and also in Britain. Can you imagine that some one accuses you of murder and he call also the jurywomen and jurymen?. Would you accept it?. I can't accept it.

Do you want to now how it works: You accuse someone, get some votes from friends and as another says the libel is ridiculous you change the accusation ([27]), so you keep the old votes and get new ones.

Greetings, --Keysanger (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Marshaln20 is no longer banned from this topic area. This is not relevant. There's nothing to suggest that they are accusing you of ownership because they were banned. This also isn't a court of law. The votes aren't votes. Consensus is not a vote. If you get banned there will be a strong policy basis for it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that MarshalN20 had been topic banned because of a discussion about Juan Manuel de Rosas. An Argentine ruler, half a century before the War of the pacific, and with no links at all to that topic, besides the broad thing of taking place in the same continent at some point in the past. Now that his topic ban has been lifted, it is completely irrelevant to raise that point here for this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Actually specifically notes that mention of past sanctions, when the reason for them no longer exists is of itself uncivil. Which is immaterial in any respect as the topic ban was not imposed for incivility. WCM_email 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dentrens comment

I interpret the issues brought up here as evidence of Wikipedias grave problems. Editors are stuck in perpetual conflicts, some of them frozen, some of them re-activated. We seriously need to consider whether we will be able to solve problems being around here for over five years, when he haven't done so so far. Nothing Keysanger says makes me believe he will change his intransigence on putting forwards his particular view of Chile's role in the War of the Pacific. These prospects can easily be shaped into a pessimistic view on Wikipedias future: Aging editors locked on old disputes, biting and playing power-cards on newcomers. I seriously wish we had some new faces in the War of the Pacific and that we older editors move on to new topics so that we do not become temple guardians. Dentren | ^Talk 09:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You get nothing when you change an editor and put another one. You have to improve the quality of the contributions and the best way, until now, is the consensus. You tagged the article, delivered a rationale that was rebuked by the Third Opinion volunteers. That are the facts. --Keysanger (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to reality, there no such thing as consensus in the articles where Keysanger has proposed himself to defend a the state of Chile against information that puts the country as a "bad boy" in his eyes. Examples: War of the Pacific, Economic history of Chile#Saltpetre Republic (1873–1914). Sietecolores (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation from User:Thursby16

User in question never spoke to me and then, suddenly, send me a message: "You're racist" and nothing else. MYS77 ^✉ 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff is here. GAB^Hello! 23:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

have you asked them what they're talking about? Rather than throw NPA warnings, it might keep things calm to find out what their beef is. Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Asked him yesterday, no replies. MYS77 ^✉ 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps your edit summary here on a page he created has something to do with it: [28] I can't say I really understand what you meant, perhaps there is a linguistic barrier between the two of you. I see no issues with your edit, but mentioning prejudice in the summary could have been misinterpreted. Scr★pIron^IV 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That might be it. Looks like a misunderstanding more than anything else. Blackmane (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. But look at the page before my edits came in. It had no sources, almost. What I meant in my edit summary is: "why the people who create these pages (probably an English user - or fan - because the guy plays for an English team) do not look for proper sources", and showing with proof there's plenty of them in Spanish (a different language than English, of course). However, there's still no reason for him to call me a "racist". Everyone who can actually interpret it correctly can see it. I'll drop it, and if he personally attacks me again, then I'll try to "revive" this thread. Thanks everyone for your inputs. MYS77 ^✉ 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Marathon

This case was first taken to ArbCom, where the overwhelming consensus was that it should have been first posted at ANI. Therefore here it is:

Initiated by SBHarris at 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1[29] 2 [30]

Statement by Sbharris

I am user:Sbharris, on WP since 2005. Late last year I got into an edit dispute with user:Mark Marathon which turned immediately nasty. Not only did he erase my warning on his talk about edit warring, he came to my talk page to continue the debate and add an inappropriate template. Long after I had decided to WP:DROPTHESTICK, 2.5 months later he came back to my talk page to continue a demand for apologies, despite being factually wrong. See [31] This kind of aggression does not work on me.

I find this user has been editing since 2011, so is not a newb. He has in fact been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins, starting immediately in May 2011 and continuing to yesterday Oct 3, 2015, for various kinds of edit-warring. [32] Here is the last block—a war over a comma in a lede sentence: [33]

This user’s TALK page is a WP:battleground, and would be even more so, if he didn’t remove the many past complaints and warnings there [34], including mine. My own attempt to restore my own complaint to his TALK page was yesterday reverted by the blocking admin user:Bbb23, with the comment that I don’t get to edit other people’s TALK pages. Fair enough, but where then goes the full record of this kind of thing? I am talking about a pervasive, longstanding problem with no evidence that despite repeated warnings and blocks, the editor learns anything. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Rather than go to Bbb23’s talk page to complain about another editor (which would seem to violate WP:NPA), and having massively failed (along with many others) to mediate with Mark Marathon himself (so much for WP:Dispute resolution), I have no alternative but to come here. I ask that somebody block Mark Marathon to avoid further such battles. Which, from the record, are completely inevitable. If nobody wishes to unblock, it will turn into a community ban (here is your chance, user:Anthonyhcole). If banned, if Mark Marathon wishes to return to WP under another name in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER and behave himself, I won’t object. I believe in redemption. But I've personally had it.

Other “ordinary” editors who have tangled with Mark Marathon may wish to comment. A partial list (20 people) follows so that they are auto-notified. You don’t want to see a full list. I am not including the many warning notices from administrators, or the administrators themselves. I would like to include admin user:Anthonyhcole who seems to think that Mark Marathon has gotten a raw deal in the past [35], and should comment in this dispute.

User:AussieLegend, User:RTG, User:Afterwriting, User:Djapa84, User:Dougg,User:Varlaam,User:Mike18xx,User:Thomas.W,User:Barek User:Ronz,User:Tortie_tude,User:ImperfectlyInformed,User:Jusdafax,User:Shiftchange,User:Nomoskedasticity,User:Binksternet User:Gabby_Merger,User:Montanabw,User:Rstafursky

And of course you can add me to the list. SBHarris 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Müdigkeit

I haven't seen a single link or reasoning why this should be handled by arbitration and not at WP:ANI. Such cases should be handled there. If they cannot be solved there, then they may come back.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Simply a procedural note that it is typically the procedure that when a user removes a expired block or warning from their page they've acknowledged that they received the message. We don't permanently brand editors with scarlet letters for previous infractions. It is the responsibility of the editor bringing the complaint to research, determine, and present the diff backed narrative showing how a editor has a pattern of misbehavior. The editor's log page can help guide this research, but we do not depend entirely on the editor's talk page to help us understand their sanction/warning history. The only exception to the removal clause (as far as I know) is active sanctions may not be removed from the user's talk page.

Should this case be accepted, I do not wish to be included in any case updates. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

Seeing as how I was pinged (albeit the ping didn't work quite right, I got here via other notification), I'll just note my own experience. The full block of Mark Marathon was in part a WP:BOOMERANG that occurred when he filed at ANI on me here. On his talk page, the discussion targeted myself, RexxS, Wehwalt, Mark Arsten and DangerousPanda is more or less complete here. His generally hostile tone in edit summaries in that period is here. and talk page discussion links here. After his block in March 2014, he turned around and did the same thing again in December 2014 in a related article, straight to the bullying and the threats: [36]. And, I noticed today he was making similar pointy tags with snotty comments on yet another article earlier this summer. He also recently picked up the stick again on the same article. Further examples of tone include [37]. I don't necessarily think this is a case for ArbCom, ANI could probably review the pattern and act, but maybe if the other users mentioned above all have had similar experiences of pointy edits followed by hostility and threats, then maybe the overall pattern is something to consider. I'm not an Arb, it's why you all get the shiny badge. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Afterwriting

Apart from the frequent battleground problems mentioned by other editors I believe that there are also ownership and competence issues with this editor as my own unpleasant and very bizarre recent conflict with him at Waltzing Matilda indicates. I had made a number of mostly straightforward style and phrasing edits to the article which were all reverted by him with the claim that they weren't "Australian English". Apart from one innocent mistake, when I didn't realise that a place name was that of a property instead of a town, all of my edits were, in fact, consistent with both the MoS and conventional Australian English. He then made a number of comments on the article talk page about "my" editing "mistakes" which were nearly all about problems with the previous version of the article which he had reverted back to. In other words, I had actually corrected most of the problems he was complaining about but he had restored them. Even after I pointed this out to him with diffs he still kept criticising my edits for the same reason and reverting all of my subsequent attempts to improve the article's style and phrasing. His behaviour has been highly hypocritical and extremely petty. Despite providing the evidence to him he never admitted to restoring the problems he was falsely blaming me for. Very, very strange. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

It kind of looks like the last thing he did he received a block for. There's little in the way of evidence here and he doesn't have to keep your warnings on his talk page to the best of my knowledge.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting all the pings to individuals that may have a beef with this user I do wonder if the canvassing policy is relevant to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to ANI, yes. To arbcom... no. Arbcom is no consensus process. Notifying involved users is normal. And that above was originally posted at arbcom.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So all of these users are involved?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Question What is the desired affect here? It the proposal that we ban an editor for a snarky comment that was made 8 months ago? Is that it?--Adam in MO Talk 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I second this question.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also second this question. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal The OP doesn't seem interested in pursuing this and the report is stale. I suggest we close this and move about our business.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So long as everyone involved in this thread is okay with dropping it and moving on with no action taken, I think that's fine and dandy :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not okay with me, speaking for myself. The thread may be stale because ArbCom didn't want to look at it, not because nobody felt it didn't need to be dealt with period. See statements above. This is an editor blocked for edit-warring six times [38] and with at least an additional other editor pissed off for every time he did attract enough admin attention to get blocked. This is a persistent and ongoing behavior. If some kind of penalty and suspended sentence with parole is issued, that will probably stop the problem. On the other hand, if nothing is done, the problem will continue as it has since 2011.

Perhaps I erred taking this to ArbCom. If I've erred in taking it to AN/I as well, then say so. If AN/I is not concerned with persistent edit warriors and disruption that makes WP a real pain to edit, then please say so here now formally. SBHarris 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give diffs for the "ongoing" part? I think that's what's being asked above. Begoon ^talk 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are wiling to do the homework and present something to the community then this should be closed.--Adam in MO Talk 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate

RoseL2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is identified on Commons as an alternate account of A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A1candidate appears to be a clean start of Random user 39849958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly user:Levine2112. A1candidate has outstanding sanctions (0RR restriction )

• AN discussions of Levine2112
• AN discussions of A1candidate

It seems to me that the sanctions preclude a WP:CLEANSTART, which was in any case problematic when changing from Levine2112 to A1candidate. I think this user needs to be restricted to a single account, since making statements in arbitration cases with undisclosed prior history witht he participants is not in the least bit cool. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. If this is Levine2112, they should still stay away from alternative medicine articles, broadly construed, especially chiropractic. If this is A1Candidate, they have a serious COI regarding TCM and acupuncture, and should stay away from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of a clean start is not to "respawn" with clean logs to resume whatever arguments you were just in, if you're under DS you shouldn't try it all. And if (this point is a matter of interpretation) you're trying to give the impression you're a random, concerned Wikipedian that just found their way into an ArbCom case, oh and by the way, here's a huge pile of diffs...I'm particularly concerned by that. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. All the evidence suggests the Project would be better off without this user. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to allow the editor to change names, which in and of itself is fine, but if it has been done to, apparently, dodge existing sanctions, that is problematic. At the very least, the editor should acknowledge the prior account name and by extension the existing sanctions against them. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I really dont see that they have violated the existing sanctions. It doesnt appear they have edited let alone reverted more than one time on alt med articles or edited let alone reverted on acupuncture by looking at the contribs. There is a question of the clean start being an issue. But unless it was done and the sanctions were violated, not much should be done other than a possible single account restriction. They should be able to choose which account they use and the restriction acknowledged. But since none of the accounts has edited since Sep 28th, there may not be much that can be done. AlbinoFerret 22:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Daniel Schitine

Daniel Schitine (talk · contribs) ignores my warnings and continues updating Fred (footballer)'s career statistics without updating timestamp. See history. SLBedit (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• You posted comments in edit summaries, not warnings. And considering that you yourself stated that his/her edits were good faith edits, I'm not really sure why you brought this to ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Eeekster keeps posting speedy deletion notices on photographs that are clearly mine.

I am a photographer with a DSLR. I publish my photographs on Flickr (under my name) and on my website, www.takenbynora.com. I would like to reserve copyright for all my images by default, including on Flickr, but for certain images that I am uploading I choose to upload them under a free license on Wikipedia. It is extremely troublesome to update all the licensing for every instance I have published that photograph under my own copyright. Therefore I am asking to appeal the process here. I do not know why User:Eeekster keeps giving me such trouble and this is an unnecessary process for a photographer who would like to share her work on Wikipedia. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also contest if these photographs are really "published" if they were uploaded onto my Flickr account or on my website. They haven't like received notable media attention or anything (except for when I actually present my portfolio) to people. I could email "permissions" from my email (it's not like I have a Flickr email address?) but I am not sure why that must be done when I am clearly the photographer in question. Eeekster says that I could have simply created this account to "impersonate" the original creator of these photographs but I find this assertion kind of silly. Additionally, he keeps linking to an escort aggregator site which has actually used my photographs without my permission, not the other way round. (I am a transgender escort who advertises on backpage). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would further like that an artist I hate clutter in my descriptions (I often post prose or poetry) so having to edit my Flickr descriptions to accommodate every time I repost the photograph to Wikipedia under a free license would be extremely troublesome. I am enough of a scatterbrained artist as it is! Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Further proof that I am the photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanping Nora Soong (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

While it's frustrating for people who are the actual owners, this is protecting the cases where peoples' photos are being used without authorization. As a side compliment, I imagine that the quality of the photo and its composition might have made it compelling to ensure that your rights are being correctly represented. Have you followed up on the instructions left on your talk page? I am not certain, but there might be a process whereby your flickr account can be verified once by OTRS that you are the owner, to streamline future submissions. If it doesn't exist, it would certainly help to encourage photographers to continue contributing their quality works.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask for some emergency intervention? I don't have time to submit to OTRS right now. I updated my description on flickr for one of the images -- shouldn't that be enough?

Also "Quality" and "composition" are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement. I consider myself an artist. Though I have been hired for gigs, I doubt my own competency every day (I get suicidally depressed sometimes about my own ineffectiveness). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what it says on one of my flickr images: "I have attached this photograph (along with several other photographs) to Wikipedia under my account Yanping Nora Soong under a creative commons license. I would appreciate a speedy resolution of this matter. Thank you. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Also 'Quality' and 'composition' are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement": They aren't "evidence" per se. I was merely commenting that people are less likely to suspect fuzzy, poorly-framed photos are being passed off as someone else's work. It really is too bad a few rogue editors who steal credit for others' work make it harder for legitimate owners to contribute their photos, but it's unfortunately the world we live in. Tagged photos usually have at least a week to square things away with OTRS. I'd suggest contacting them to see what (if anything else) is needed, and arrange for a more convenient time frame, if necessary. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure I get it. You claim not to "have time to submit to OTRS," but you have time to make multiple posts to ANI? Ravenswing 11:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Great photographs! Some of my photos have also been tagged for deletion in this way, in the past. The people tagging your photos have no ill will against you, but are trying to protect Wikipedia. If you follow the OTRS procedures everything will be resolved. Good luck! -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

False accusation of edit-warring by Softlavender re: Ruritanian romance

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

---

While editing the page Ruritanian romance, I received notice of a deficiency in my edit from user:Ssilvers. I thanked the user, and proceeded to attempt to remove the deficiency.

While doing so, I was referred to the talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin, in which Softlavender broke WP:Civil first by referring to my edits as "mind-numbingly long" to Ssilvers, after which Softlavender and Ssilvers agreed between themselves to dramatically change my edits without consulting me - no attempt to reach consensus.

Softlavender then expressed doubt the subject of my edit (adding Ursula LeGuin's "Orsinia" to the list of literary settings similar to Ruritania) belonged in the section, saying that additional sources to verify the classification of "Orsinia" as a Ruritarian setting were needed (that weren't imposed on the other two editors in that section).

I tried to resolve these issues. I supplied two additional references which affirmed the point I was making. Meanwhile my edits were changed, again, with no attempt to reach a consensus with me by Softlavender.

The act which seems to have precipitated the templated warning to me in my own talk page not to engage in an edit war (with no private consultation with me beforehand) was my attempt to be conciliatory and remove certain citations as Softlavender requested earlier in the article talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance.

This provoked a reaction completely at odds with WP:Good faith and WP:DTR in which I was falsely accused of edit-warring - after making a change that Softlavender requested earlier - deleting my own citations because I believed in an earlier post that Softlavender wished me to make those citations in the Ursula LeGuin article.

I am following the procedure set forth in the templated edit warring warning left in my talk page to protest a false accusation by Softlavender in complete contravention of WP:Civil, WP:Good faith, WP:DTR and the guidance to seek consensus before changing another editor's edits. loupgarous (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The situation is deteriorating. In Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin Softlavender just ordered me not to remove citations in the article which I had placed there originally. My reaction was "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits?" Then I placed the notice which I'd earlier placed on Softlavender's talk page informing Softlavender that Softlavender is the subject of an Administrative Noticeboard/Incident discussion. loupgarous (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimately, you were attempting to add information that other users think was excessive or flat out unnecessary. After the first or second reversion you should have attempted to open a line of communication to figure out what exactly the issue at hand was and how you could best resolve it. I know you were trying to address the concerns in good faith, but repeatedly re-adding the content without starting discussion was edit warring. You can edit war in good faith. You can edit war with the best intentions. Softlavender did not ask you to remove references you added, you simply misunderstood, so let's just forget about that part. Softlavender did not refer to your edits as "dull", but "long", which is actually a pretty big difference. Had you followed WP:BRD, the situation would not have escalated to the point of warning messages and mild "incivility". Did Softlavender need to template you? Probably not. Was that the best way of going about things? Probably not. Does that warrant admin intervention? Absolutely not. We are all human and we don't intervene over minor instances of incivility. I don't think you are being bullied anyway. You were not behaving appropriately to begin with and that makes other editors frustrated. Bringing this here does not resolve problems, in fact, it just aggravates the animosity. Rather than worrying about Softlavender, why don't you worry about the content and seek out dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Being "edit-warring" templated on my talk page lent an air of officialdom to Softlavender's accusations. I didn't edit war. Softlavender was uncivil. Softlavender just forbade me to undo an edit I'd made originally - in fact, she reverted my removal of my own citations without consulting me.

I find that hard to reconcile with wikipedia's norms of behavior. Obviously you disagree. loupgarous (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I can see where this is heading. Sorry I wasted everybody's time. Carry on, everyone, the article will get on just fine without my help, and I just learned a little more about wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Vfrickey Please be aware that when you click on the edit button this statement is directly above the editing field "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." No one is "required" to inform you of any edits that they make. MarnetteD|Talk 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What I referred to was Softlavender's complete failure to engage me in discussion toward a consensus. I naively believed wikipedia required that. loupgarous (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, also, I did initiate a discussion. I did introduce sources on the talk page which specifically answered concerns Softlavender raised about my edit, and I repeatedly trimmed my edit to attempt to meet those concerns while keeping the edit reflective of what the source actually said. At one point an edit Softlavender made was at variance with the content of the source cited. I advised the other editors in the talk page discussion that I was changing the edit to make it reflect what the source cited actually said. If that's "edit warring," then every time I've edited an article to conform to the cited source, I've edit-warred. I have no way of knowing whether you read the discussion or not, but it's all there. I repeatedly tried to initiate a discussion toward a consensus, got ignored, patronized, templated, and then finally forbidden to move my own edits as Softlavender requested in the discussion. I didn't misunderstand anything - Softlavender said, clearly, "you can make your citations of the books in the LeGuin article." And, after being templated, I obeyed the injunction in the template to bring the discussion HERE. I have been trying to play by wikipedia's rules this entire time. loupgarous (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is some guidance I'd like an answer to. I made three citations of Ursula LeGuin's books in the Ruritarian romance article. Another editor consolidated these citations into a single reference. Softlavender referred to me in the third person:

"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article."

I took this as a request to move the Orsinian citations in the Ursula LeGuin article, and in preparation to do so, I deleted them from the Ruritarian_romance article with this explanatory edit summary: "Other Ruritanian settings in fiction: deleted references to LeGuin's publications at Softlavender's request" My intent was conciliatory. Softlavender reverted that edit with the following edit summary: "Undid revision 685936889 by Vfrickey (talk) replaced citations removed with no rationale" It was at this time she sent the "disruptive editing" and "edit warring" templates to my user talk page. I took this to mean she was proceeding with charges I'd edit-warred. I believe that if there was an edit war, both parties took part equally, at every stage of the exchange. I responded:

"Quoting you from earlier in this discussion:

"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article. Also, please learn Wikipedia mark-up (for things such as italics). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"

THAT is the rationale for deleting the citations in question, Softlavender. Your very own request. It was my attempt to be conciliatory and address an issue you raised. As far as the accusations of "disruptive editing" and other abusive behavior, I'll let this discussion and the change log speak for my actions, which were done in good faith. Remember WP:Good faith? loupgarous (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"

Softlavender's response was: "I made no request whatsoever to remove any citations from the article. Do not remove citations from this or any other articles. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)" My response: "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits? loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"

Is Softlavender justified to forbid me to revert my own edits? MarnetteD just told me that every editor agrees to have her edits changed by other editors on clicking the "Save page" button. My citations were combined, very correctly, by another editor into a single reference.

But on Softlavender's accusation I and I alone was edit-warring, can she forbid me to delete citations I'd made in the first place?

I'm not wikilawyering here, and the issue isn't content - it's conduct.

I was going to just walk away from this discussion, given that I fully expected to be piled on and Softlavender's accusations of edit-warring repeated.

However, I want as many other editors as possible to read Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin and consider that someone else may treat them in the way I've been treated, and tell me they'd accept (a) a false accusation of disruptive editing and edit-warring to stand unchallenged (b) a discourteous refusal to engage in discussion toward a consensus - Softlavender waited until she'd templated me to address me as anything but "the other editor" and in anything but the third person, and (c) repeated reversion of your edits without that attempt to achieve a consensus we're told to seek. I tried to do that, I troubled to look up those other sources Softlavender told Ssilvers - not me - she'd need to see until she even conceded that Ursula LeGuin's "Orsinia" met the criterion of "being similar to Ruritania."

At this point, the content isn't the issue. It's the conduct, gaming the edit-warring rule to avoid reaching a consensus or even discussion toward a consensus. Until this point I'd been willing to concede Softlavender's good faith, even after she assumed such bad faith on my part (or wished to create that impression) that she sent warning templates to my user talk page... and I took those templates as clear evidence of her intent to make precisely those charges to administrators.

I don't have much of a choice but to come here as each of those templates advises to make a defense against false charges I've edit-warred or edited Ruritanian romance in a disruptive manner. I could be reasonably sure that had I taken Swarm's advice and just forgotten about this or tried to seek dispute resolution that Softlavender's next move would be to bring edit-warring charges against me to administrators.

Read the discussion in Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin and the edit summaries for Ruritanian romance before you decide that I edit warred, or did so without just as an arbitrary reversion of my own edits. Ssilvers was the only user in this discussion to advise me my edits were being reverted and the reason for doing it - and I thanked Ssilvers for the constructive criticism and indicated my intent to locate a secondary source establishing the Ruritarian nature of Orsinia.

I won't ever touch another article of Softlavender's, but neither will I sit meekly while my character and actions are attacked without justification. It's possible I'll be gamed out of Wikipedia, but I won't slink away. loupgarous (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

loupgarous (or Vfrickey), Swarm just stated above the problem with your excessive content, and then you write a long complaint like this? At any rate, I really think it's time you drop the stick. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't victimize yourself any further. I already stated that Softlavender's methods weren't ideal, and I don't blame you for bringing this up here. It's okay. But there's nothing really disruptive here on either side which is why I don't understand why you won't drop this. I can look at the article's history and see that you edit warred—it's okay. We've all done it. It's usually not a big deal, just a side effect of legitimate content disputes. I never denied that you were acting in good faith, but you did edit war. It's okay. You're not going to be punished. But, again, you could have handled the situation better and I think you're ignoring the problem with your own conduct while complaining about a response you partially provoked. I'm not trying to pile onto Softlavender's side because this isn't a battleground. The simple fact of the matter is that they did not do anything to warrant administrator intervention. Disputes happen. Sometimes they get nasty. We're all real people, with real emotions, and we don't punish editors if they get worked up and become a little uncivil. There's really no reason to get so worked up over this. Softlavender has no power over you and they are not trying to harass you. You can continue to work with them, because we're all on the same team. If you find an editor unreasonable, appeal to the others, but there's no need for this. Move on. Please. Swarm ♠ 03:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume that Vfrickey is relatively new here, and so I am sympathetic to some of his/her problems in adding excessive content, using wiki-markup, reference format, etc. But I suggest that, instead of being defensive, Vfrickey read the WP:MOS, use the WP:Cheatsheet. Softlavender's first comment on the Talk page was based on experience concerning article balance and such Wikipedia policies as WP:V. That's why I adopted Softlavender's suggestion. When two experienced editors agree on something, it is very likely not arbitrary, so Vfrickey's next action was, indeed, edit-warring. Vfrickey, what you should do, instead, is to go to the Talk page and ask if it would be ok to restore certain content, and then I would have been glad to explain why it was too long and too tangential to the article's topic. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect assumption. This comment is from their user page; "I've edited wikipedia for over eleven years, and nothing, not even wikipedia's own inattention to all the supposed arbitration measures it boasts of will stop me from doing what I do well; which is edit articles for accuracy and concision."[39] I am not sure what is going on here but 'new editor caught up in the arcane machinations of Wikipedia' is not, per their own words, it. Jbh^Talk 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Waking up in the morning, reading this, and

(a) my wikimarkup skills are pretty atrocious. I will definitely, before I edit again, learn the current wikimarkup protocols. And

(b) I apologize sincerely to Softlavender and Ssilvers that they had to "clean up my mess," i.e., replace HTML italics with wikimarkup italics. They shouldn't have had to do that, or

(c) deal with my reverting Ssilvers' change so I could pare it down in my way (which they found to be unacceptable, too). My intent wasn't edit warring, but there are sandboxes for what I was trying and I ought to have used one (perhaps learned from my tomcat and buried my edits in it, then walked away).

(d) I sure apologize to all of you for indulging myself in massive logorrhea last night.

I appreciate your input. You gave me what I asked for, your candid opinions. And you were civil. I've taken your points, and again, thank you all. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors. loupgarous (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

convert imagenames from unicode to ascii

@JzG, MarnetteD, and BlackMane:found images whose filename is in unicode letters, almost impossible to type in ascii-limited keyboards, copypasting difficult in android. requesting admin oversight, are unicode filenames allowed to remain?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC) @GiantSnowman and David Biddulph:pinging more adminMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No filename is mentioned above, but the user's edit history indicates that they edited a template which uses File:বাংলাদেশ কমিউনিস্ট পার্টির পতাকা.svg, the flag of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. That filename translates to "Communist Party of Bangladesh flag". It's on Commons, not English Wikipedia, and was uploaded for use on the Bangladeshi wikipedia.[40] So there's nothing wrong here. (Hint: Although a rarely used feature, Android's OS supports both USB and Bluetooth mice, which may help with the cutting and pasting problem.) Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle, JzG, and GiantSnowman:can admins edit filenames uploaded in commons?also, there is one more image in my edit history with non-ascii nameMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

commons:Commons:File renaming#Which files should not be renamed? says: "Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just asking, only because I don't know, but is there precedent for creating a copy under a more accessible name? --Jayron32 12:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Copies should never be created. File pages have other information like license and description which should be maintained in one place. It's possible to make file redirects but commons:Help:File redirect#Unwanted use of file redirects says: "Creation of redirects in alternative languages is not wanted. Multi-lingual translations on the file's description page are used instead." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and Jayron32:file uploads in commons where filename is smilies, imagine problemMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In nearly all cases, a filename which is all smilies could be renamed "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays" Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the OP is using, but my Android can copy and paste Unicode characters just fine. That is once I figured out how to copy and paste. :P —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix:OP make post for sake of all editor, not personalMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with unicode characters for article and file names. The "problem" you mention doesn't actually exist unless your Android device is misconfigured. —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP said copy and pasting was difficult, not that it doesn't work, and didn't mention anything about unicode in relation to copying and pasting.

I think the OP's point was probably that on many touch screen devices (and this actually applies to Android, iOS and Windows, except that most iOS devices are in the higher end range), particular a small phone with a low res not that good in terms of touch, screen), selecting what you want to copy and paste can be difficult at times. It gets even worse if it's a link or very near one. I think John Nagle had the same idea, hence the mention of mice. Copy and pasting from an edit window can help in some cases, but that depends on other factors. Plus multitabbing a browser can be slow on a low end device with limited RAM and slow flash (and also CPU although I'm not sure if that's a big contributor), so using a seperate tab to ensure you can copy and paste all you need can slow things down a fair bit. (Let's not even mention some old versions of iOS Safari, where there's no guarantee anything you were typing in the edit window will still be there when you come back to it after changing just one tab.)

In case it's unclear I actually agree it does create problems, even with experience, depending on the device, where you're trying to copy and paste it from etc, however since there's no good solution it's something people will have to put up with. (Remembering that people who don't use the latin/roman alphabet will have problems with any file name that's in it too.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaint regarding paid editing results (needs admin/CU + OTRS)

I almost responded to Ticket:2015101610012722 - but an enwiki admin/CU may be better suited to follow this up. Storkk (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Having failed to garner an admin OTRS member, I've replied to the ticket, but my interpretation of the OTRS privacy agreement forbids me from naming the article or paid editor. Storkk (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Pound Sterling and N0n3up (talk · contribs)

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

---

I do not have the time or the inclination to continually revert the vandalism that this user is inflicting upon the article, or put up with his non-stop personal attacks.

His initial initial edit removed reference that the British debt of 850 million dollars was owed largely to the United States. He claimed that, despite there being a source in the article, that this claim was un-referenced. Repeated requests for N0n3up to address if he accessed the source used have gone unanswered.

References were provided, initially in the edit summary and then on an off-article talkpage (since copied onto the article's talk page) providing evidence that the US was the main holder of British debt following the First World War. Despite this, the same - what I would now like to call vandalism as it included ignoring and misreading sources - vandalism was repeated: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert, and this revert from an un-involved 3rd party, who attempted to mediate. As the talk page discussion shows, the sources were all ignored with completely invalid and irrelevant reasons.

Next, N0n3up focused on mis-reading only one of the sources provided to make a series of edits that resulted in this revert, which he subsequently reverted, and after it being taken to the talkpage and barely discussed he once again reverted. Despite being informed that Admin intervention was being sought, he once again reverted the edit: diff. Please note the change in wording over his previous version, despite his edit summary comments.

Finally, his posts are littered with trollish comments aimed at my nationality (Anglo-American). The user has demonstrated little understanding of the subject, combativeness from day one, an unwillingness to engage with the sources, answer questions directed at them, and completely misuse sources. I acknowledge that my own attitute has been far from perfect, yet this needs to end and this user needs to either start reading the sources for what they say (not what he thinks they say) or be banned from editing from this article.

Regards 204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

He said at first that my edit was wrong. Then after a long dispute with the IP, I made the change according to source but he now put back an unsupported source that contains unsupported data. I showed him where in the given sources shows the cited part, but he refuses to acknowledge. As seen in the discussion page (N0n3up (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Incorrect, and the diffs show that you are lying. You claimed that the sources were of no use and attempted to discredit them. Then, you made the unsupported assertion that war debt caused the Great Depression. Then, finally, you claim that the 40 per cent figure is unsupported; a quick search (sources provided on the talkpage) highlights that the article is roughly correct.204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Where in the talk page does it say of the 40%? At first you were right, but now that you continue to edit, I never said that said point lead to the great depression. Indicating that you didn't read or misread my posts. (N0n3up (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

"This war-debt became a contributing part to the development of the great depression". At any rate, I'll just note that both of you went ridiculously over WP:3RR (I count 7 reverts by 204.116.6.232 and another 7 by N0n3up). If it were up to me, I know what I'd do. LjL (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive WP:NOTHERE editor making spiteful reverts on various articles

SundayRequiem (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on multiple articles, namely Microsoft, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning and Saturn AL-41.

• On Microsoft, he has reverted edits by Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) and JzG (talk · contribs), and refuses to accept the talk page WP:CONSENSUS.
• On Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, after I warn him that he should adhere to the Manual of Style at WP:MOS-ZH, he replied that, quote, "I don't need to refer to anything."
• He is being a huge dick on my personal user talkpage. (Per WP:TALK, I have the right to remove comments from my talk page.)

I'd like to request an external third-party to resolve this issue, as they see fit. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just reviewed SundayRequiem's edits, at the least, he needs a stern talking to by an admin. Benlisquare, I know you feel that you are the aggrieved party, but please try to be polite. Darx9url (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

He certainly needs a talking to, but c'mon. Reverting warning templates on your talk page isn't being a "huge dick." It's being clueless. Let's not overhype this to be some manner of epic rampage. Ravenswing 11:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "somewhat of an annoyance" would have been a better way for me to word my original line. It was a spur of the moment; my vocabulary tends to simplify when I'm hot-headed, you see. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, their edits in that Saturn article are troublesome. There's no edit summaries, so when Benlisquare says "rv unexplained removal" they have a valid point; this edit of theirs, claiming vandalism, was rightly reverted by BilCat, and the reference to 3R is dickish. Edits on Pakistani cuisine are reasonable except for that there also most edits are unexplained and they reverted a revert there as well. Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning sees the editor edit warring; they've now been reverted by three editors, including Nick Thorne. Comments on Talk:Microsoft are from a few days ago, but they are asinine. SundayRequiem, you're treading on dangerous ground here, combining of a lack of good faith, a refusal to communicate, disruption, personal attacks, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• I agree, I just issued a final warning. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Courtier1978

• Personal attacks and accusations of sock/meatpuppetry: The user has engaged in a recurrent series of personal attacks against me and other users that has exceeded the point of being disturbing and is now discouraging me from contributing.
  • This started on Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus, when he/she was explained that his additions were not properly substantiated by reliable sources and constituted original research: "You are the number one source of POV, in the articles related to Cyprus and yet you continue lying to yourself and others thinking that anyone will believe you. You are imagining things, you blame others for what you are, and then you are engaging in edit warring with anyone adding anything in the articles that you don't like. You will make Cyprus a favor if you stop filling the articles related to it, with your POV". He/she is clearly aware and has been made aware of the policy on personal attacks (as seen below his comment there + previously warned by me, a warning that he removed from his talk page). Following a revert of his additions by User:Alakzi, he wrote "Team work is not permitted by the way, under Wikipedia rules. You may want to tell this to the account that has reverted the article, for you". His personal attacks, along with his persistent refusal of understanding of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V and his polarizing (Greek vs. Turkish) tone was at this time so unbearable to me that I just let the article be for months, until Mikrobølgeovn reverted it a few days ago.
  • In the past two days, this has reached intolerable dimensions in a campaign he started across a number of articles: here, he calls me "a massacre denier", says "You don't seem to mind about all that, and the POV degree of the article aren't you, yet you hate the fact that I have said the truth about a totally pro-Turkish POV article and you are trying to distort it and portray me in a very false and negative way. The article at this point, is a totally pro-Turkish POV article, and your edits are highly contributing to this POV. If you are not realizing that, then you don't know what NPOV is and is better to stay away from the articles." Here, he calls a now-inactive user a "totally pro-Turkish user". Mikrobølgeovn, a user who has not engaged in personal attacks and is trying to adhere to Wikipedia policies as far as possible from what I see (he has filed a dispute resolution request), has been dismissed by him saying "I see only one Norwegian to be pushing plain POV here, and only towards and totally to the Turkish side, and no one else, and this is going for a whole year now. I definitely don't see any Greeks here. Stop trying to foul people, it is not working. The only thing that it needs to be checked is your motives and your ego and nothing else". He has written an extensive attack on Mikrobølgeovn here.
  • He/She has even gone so far open a sockpuppet investigation claiming that I and Alakzi are sockpuppets of Mikrobølgeovn! + tried to get me blocked for edit warring when there was clearly no violation, of which he was informed: [41]. I am very, very tired of this.
• A definite lack of understanding WP:BRD, WP:OR and WP:RS: His lack of understanding of consensus-building is very apparent on several articles: the aforementioned article on wars in Cyprus where he kept reverting to his edition and refusing intermediate proposals, here and here. He has insisted on using everyculture.com, a website that is by no stretch of imagination reliable, and supported it by a marxists.org link to support his thesis that the Cypriot intercommunal violence ended with a "Greek Cypriot victory" - and his source from everyculture.com does not even properly support his thesis (it says that only about a series of clashes in 1967 and with no substantiation). He has been referred to the relevant policies many times, yet he keeps making comments such as "Lets add some communist sources then, since everything else seems to be Greek nationalists for you". He has also repeatedly removed information supported by VERY reliable sources: [42] in favor of original research. His lack of appreciation of BRD is also evident here.
• On another note, he/she remained inactive after I let the article on wars in Cyprus be as he desired for about two months, and the moment that Mikrobølgeovn reverted him/her, he/she re-emerged: [43].
• The situation is perhaps best illustrated by the history of this page. He/she has no intention of accepting even this neutral version and keeps reverting to this. This topic is currently open on the dispute resolution noticeboard but this user conduct issue needs to be resolved urgently. The user's activities explicitly display numerous WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "Is tendentious", "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability", "Does not engage in consensus building", "Rejects or ignores community input", "Campaign to drive away productive contributors", and honestly WP:NOTHERE: "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Treating editing as a battleground" (extensive activity against what he perceives as "pro-Turkish" across several articles). On a final note, I hate having to do this, but my previous work has included addition of details about the Armenian Genocide (especially on rape), significant expansion of Assyrian genocide and addition of atrocities against Greek Cypriots to Turkish invasion of Cyprus (e.g. [44]), all of which are antithetical to "pro-Turkish activities". Sorry for this lengthy text and taking the reader's time. --GGT (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

-GGT that is making another false accusation as usual, has being edit warring the article list of wars involving Cyprus since April, in cooperation with user Mikrobølgeovn that he has being edit warring the article for a whole year now, and he is also cooperates with user Alakzi in reverting edits of other users. This can be shown from their history. GGT in specific is very active in pushing pro-Turkish POV in the highest degree possible in the articles related to Cyprus and Turkey. Anyone adding any NPOV version, is seeing his edits deleted, and then accused by them as nationalist and other false accusations, and then they cooperate in pushing him on edit warring, and reporting him to the administrators. This has being going on for a very long time now. You can see this from their history. They have even permanently blocked other users like this, and now they are pushing the highest degree of pro Turkish POV in the articles related, since no one seems to be editing them for the reasons above. Even on this GGT has asked the help of user Mikrobølgeovn, as it shows from the message left in his talk page.

Due to their actions several users adding NPOV versions have being blocked or stopped editing, and now only pro-Turkish users are editing, which has as a result the articles related to Cyprus and Tukrey to have been evolved to the highest degree of pro-Turkish POV possible.

I will give a few examples.

GGT and user Mikrobølgeovn are keep deleting ALL the victories of the Greek side in the article list of wars involving Cyprus for a whole year now and edit warring the article since then.

GGT is edit warring the article Cypriot inter communal violence since April, pushing a totally pro-Turkish POV version and deleting all the rest. User Mikrobølgeovn is helping him. The amount of POV can be seen from the article. For example in the 1963-64: "Bloody Christmas" and Battle of Tillyria section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated in a very POV way and in the Outbreak of intercommunal violence section, only alleged Greek Cypriot propaganda spreading is stated, again in a very POV way.

GGT is the main one editor for many months now in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Anyone adding anything that he doesn't like, is seeing his edits deleted. The totally pro-Turkish POV nature of the article is obvious for this reason. For example in the First Turkish invasion, July 1974 section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated and in a very POV way. In the article, the Greek Cypriot EOKA is stated as a nationalist group, and portrayed in a very bad way, Greek Cypriot EOKA B as a terrorist organization, while the Turkish Cypriot TMT is stated as an excused resistance organization and portrayed in the brightest and more excused way. The article is saying that in 1957, EOKA forces began targeting and killing Turkish Cypriot police deliberately to provoke Turkish Cypriot riots in Nicosia, something that is a total POV. In addition only Greek Cypriot alleged massacres are stated in the article, and the 1963–1974 section is given in a totally pro-Turkish way.

Those are just a few of examples on what user GGT is doing. A look in his history and someone can see much more POV pushing in much more articles and much more edit warring and cooperation in edit warring with other users, always in pushing the highest degree possible of pro-Turkish POV that they can, and stop anyone else for editing, using tactics from false accusations to the administrators, to what the rules of Wikipedia describe as meat puppetry.

Me from the other hand, it is fair to say that I have being adding only NPOV versions to the articles, adding both sides victories in an NPOV manner and adding what the people of the island have in common as it shows from my history. In addition I have discussed extensively, in the talk pages, and cooperate with other users like that, in adding NPOV versions, in the articles that I am editing, and left other edits after me unchanged. Ron1978 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Disputes involving the Balkan region tend to be polarizing here and do not easily get resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Are there discretionary sanctions that include Cyprus to be enforced, however? Never in my entire editing life here have I seen reference to any such decision concerning Cyprus and it is certainly not referred to in Talk:Cyprus or Talk:Northern Cyprus. --GGT (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:ARBMAC, with its associated sanctions, including blocks, is about the Balkans, broadly defined. Greek-Turkish animosity has stretched historically from Macedonia, to the Hellespont, to the currently Greek isles of Turkey, to Rhodes, and to Cyprus. Regards to all. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

False claims of vandalism

WP:VANDALISM states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. ", and further that "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." An editor has been following me around to multiple articles , repeatedly undoing my good faith edits, and labeling them as vandalism - see list below. Can someone have word with them and get them to stop? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• [45]
• [46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]

This is almost certainly a sockpuppet account of an old editor. Either way, the account's sole purpose here is to make Palestinians and Muslims look as awful as possible, and to remove and soften critical information about Israel. Wikipedia's tolerance for editors whose agendas are to denigrate whole groups of people is a wonder to behold.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a no tolerance for editors like you, who have been repeatedly blocked for harassment. Control yourself, and if you can't, go find another hobby. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has zero tolerance for WP:DUCKs. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP for blatantly disruptive editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? Dan Murphy made serious accusations without a single diff to support them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The diffs provided against Dan Murphy show reversions of disruptive editing on the part of the op. Not really much to elaborate on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What disruptive editing? Putting a single dead link tag next to a dead link (referred to as "vandalism" by Murphy)? Having a content dispute about a header (referred to as "vandalism" by Murphy)? Removing information inserted by an ip that is not only ridiculously worded, but easily ascertained as false (referred to, again, as "vandalism")? Please be specific as to what exactly is disruptive here, because I'm not seeing it or at least not from the guy who got blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User Jss199

Jss199 (talk · contribs) has made 173 edits since February 2014. I think he intends for some of his edits to be constructive, but he has a pattern of making unconstructive edits even after he has been warned. Some examples: removal of citations, removal of sourced content, adding unsourced content, introducing deliberate factual errors. He has received a number of warnings from several editors. He never responds to a warning or request for explanation or discusses on an article talk page or user talk page. He marks all of his edits as minor, including removal of entire paragraphs and other significant content changes, even after being asked not to do so numerous times. He rarely leaves an edit summary. Perhaps someone here will be more successful in getting him to communicate. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein

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

---

Involved parties:

MarkBernstein

Note: I cannot notify MarkBernstein because his talk page is locked.

Initiating filer:

Sanstalk (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Diffs:

"No one outside Gamergate associates #Gamergate with "attempted ethical critique," while the term has become a byword for harassment, bullying, and low-grade domestic terrorism -- witness, for example, the CSI episode based on Gamergate crimes."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=686235733

"If we want to say, "Gamergate is a terrorist conspiracy", that would be clearer and consistent with the best sources."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=684637856

"As is my custom when a fresh editor arrives here eager to rebalance the lede, I'd like to remind people that, while Gamergate is at best tenuously termed a "movement", there is no question that it is a terrorist organization[...]"

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=684574755

"We do know what Gamergate does: it sends emails and broadcasts through Wikipedia and other social media sites its intention to assault, rape, and murder women in the computing industry."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=686061684

Also worth noting:

Individuals such as Mark Kern and John Bain have aligned themselves with GamerGate in the past. This may be BLP as well, but I'll let more experienced members be the judge of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanstalk (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• And your point is ....? Whatever it is, it holds no water as your account has never edited Wikipedia. Recommend closing this immediately. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Can I just go and call the Republican primary a terrorist gathering now because I don't like them? There have been no arrests made or deaths caused by GamerGate. To call it a terrorist organization and the fact that this is being defended by you is reprehensible.--Sanstalk (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Article on Political Correctness is being controlled by two bully editors

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

---

Note: I am not seeking any specific action. Pincrete intimidated me with some sort of a report of a personal attack unless I make this listing here.

Aquillion returned to edit Political Correctness on May 20 2015 after 7-8 years of not editing it. He then added pejorative and a large bit about Dinesh D'Souza to the introduction. 4 days later on May 24 2015 Pincrete came to support Aquillion on editing the article. The two have controlled the article ever since. They have removed large amounts and added and modified it to their liking. Through their group power they have bullied any disagreers into submission.

Dinesh D'Souza obviously does not belong to the introduction. In order of importance in popularizing the term, he doesn't even rank in top 5. George H. W. Bush is the most notable one:

http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1599&lang=en http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/05/us/political-correctness-new-bias-test.html

So when the U.S. President George Bush, Snr., declared from the right in 1991 that »the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land« (Aufderheide, 1992: 227) left activists were puzzled, affirming no such notion or noun.

and The New York Times with its two journalists bringing the matter to the wide public: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all

Last weekend, a meeting of the Western Humanities Conference in Berkeley, Calif., was called " 'Political Correctness' and Cultural Studies," and it examined what effect the pressure to conform to currently fashionable ideas is having on scholarship.

and the plethora of magazines that followed suit in the short time following. The original modern popularizers in the context appear to be the Californian academics mentioned in the above bit.

Dinesh D'Souza apparently began using the term in 1992, in his second Illiberal Education book, which is different from the first one that appeared a year earlier. It seems for long the two mentioned editors confused the books for the same one. But now that I pointed it out, they aren't even close to budging from their stance.

I believe some editors may be trying to color the term Political Correctness as being directly linked to "neonazi" ideas like opposing multiculturalism, even though it enjoys massive mainstream usage in describing sensibilities of all kinds of matters — for example normal people politely inform each other something's not politically correct, not as a pejorative.

The talk page has had people before me putting to question the pejorative title and the overburdening labeling of things as conservative yet lack of opposite labeling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Political_correctness_is_not_pejorative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Scope_of_Existing_Content_Ignores_Rampant_Abuse_of_the_Original_Concept

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#cry_foul_as_to_objectivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#American_centric_view_of_political_correctness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Regarding_Modern_Usage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Pejorative.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#How_did_this_article_devolve.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Extremely_biased.2Fone-sided

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Congratulations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Not_pejorative_in_my_part_of_the_world

Most of the talk page bonanza regarding me (not included here) is about when I tried to add two labelings of left-wing affiliation to two journalists describing Political Correctness as ones from a camp generally hating the term would, as in a fairly biased fashion. The article is full of labelings of conservative and right-wing. I provided 6 sources, one of which has the journalist describing himself as left-wing. I changed the descriptions to "left-affiliated" when they weren't accepted by the two. They were constantly removed and what happened was an edit war, in which only I were blocked for a day, even though I tried to keep the reverts to a limit.

Concerning the labeling, from WP:RS:

• Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Note: I didn't originally care much about the introduction part of the article, until someone edited it to be more neutral while our arguments were going on. Then I realized just how silly the introduction had been. Aquillion quickly reverted the editor's edit, stating the reason to be their constant argument of WP:OR even though pretty much everything they have ever edited to the article is WP:OR, only utilizing sources which vaguely mention similar words. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References

COMMENT:Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I 'intimidated' you to the extent that I warned you that unless you stopped making personal attacks and accusations of 'tag editing' against myself and an other editor Aquillion, or substantiated those accusations by filing an ANI or SPI about OUR BEHAVIOUR, I would report you. I WILL report you unless you agree to do so.

The content above is a waste of your, my and the ANI's time since an ANI cannot and will not settle 'content' matters. I suggest to you that you voluntarily close it yourself and either open one about our behaviour, or agree to stop making these accuations. I will be unavailable for the next 10-12 hours.Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You told me to put this matter here? You specifically wrote ANI. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, most of the above is content stuff and doesn't belong here; for what it's worth, I do believe I've made efforts to compromise on the content in question (eg. my current version of the affiliations section does make it clear that it's presenting the journalists in question as examples of liberal viewpoints). I'm also willing to try and reach a compromise on some of the other things in dispute; I don't think he's entirely wrong about everything. But it's been hard to work with him, mostly because he isn't really willing to assume good faith. See these diffs: Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and so on. (The last one is somewhat reproduced in his complaint above, but it's a good example.) When Pincrete said 'take it to ANI', it was in response to things like those. --Aquillion (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You made that appeasal only yesterday and you added a covert "such" to try to mask the affiliation the best you can. Also, those diffs you pointed out were there for a brief moment, too brief for you to even notice without going to check the history page. Petty. You wouldn't have even seen them if you didn't go fishing for ammunition. In fact, I think that's all of them. You went through the history and saved every single one you could find, all of them quickly deleted. You really do act in good faith in crushing your opposition by any means necessary. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And he went on to edit the article to his view again. See here and here.

This is the presidential bit he's talking about, where it's stated that people heard the term for the first time:

• So when the U.S. President George Bush, Snr., declared from the right in 1991 that »the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land« (Aufderheide, 1992: 227) left activists were puzzled, affirming no such notion or noun.

His own Dinesh is nowhere mentioned to have had anything to do with the term itself. He's attributed to the academy debate in a few sources, but not the term. The first apparent use he has of it is in 1992. That 1992 32-page book is also a tiny sidenote in the history of the entire matter. I really don't understand why he still forces this view. The only reason must be that he is the one who added it to the introduction; thus no one may ever remove it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems entirely like a content dispute. How are either of these two users bullying you? Brustopher (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not me, the article. I pointed out 10 disputes on the talk page, all of which have ended in favor of the two — due to resilience and power in numbers (two). This isn't concensus. This is people getting tired of fighting. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So they're bullying the article or something? If you think there's a false consensus emerging on an article the correct response is to start an RfC and get more eyes on the issue. Brustopher (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't my goal originally to have a notice anywhere, and I created this for the aforementioned point. I tried to make a point on the talk page, but I guess that was foolish as we were the only ones reading it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This is a content dispute, but Magoo was pretty close to being reported here himself. The diffs Aquillion gave above are just a sampling, Magoo has made a whopping 326 edits to the article's talk page since Sept 30, often refusing to AGF and very persistently refusing to drop the stick. I don't it's quite reached the point where we need a boomerang here, but a warning from an un-invovled admin to AGF and not bludgeon discussions quite so thoroughly is probably called for.

In terms of the content dispute, the people Magoo is arguing with (that includes me, btw) have actually offered an olive branch and compromise solutions several times (I tried again just last night), but Magoo does not seem interested in that. If he (or anyone else) feels that strongly then we can settle this with an RFC, but I'm about 90% confident that un-involved editors who take the time to look at the sources and the talk page will find that he's being pretty pedantic here, and is ignoring sources that contradict his view.Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, they were quickly deleted, before anyone could read them. They are only found because Aquillion took his time to scour the history for any mistakes to use against me. I also make a lot of tiny edits, because I often push save and then notice I made a mistake. I have also constantly dropped my edits to more appeasing ones. I have tried to find common ground. Most of my original edit abandoned. From left-wing to left-affiliated. After that I kept asking which term would you accept, perhaps simply anticonservative? You don't seem to want any. The first appeasal Aquillion ever made was yesterday, probably scared by the admin. You state I weren't interested in your olive branch, but provide no evidence of such. I replied and talked more about the sources. In fact I liked your approach, until Aquillion showed up to ruin the party again. I like you a lot better. Oh and note: I don't think Fyddle is much attached to the article or the other two, but I edit warred with him in a different article through which he found me and his way to the Political Correctness article. All of us but Pincrete are edit warrers. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of hard to interpret statements like "I'm not assuming good faith from any of you three. I believe all you simply want to color the term as some neonazi terminology" as anything other than a rejection of a proposed compromise.

And just to quickly note, I didn't follow you to Political Correctness, I have had that page on my watchlist since at least Sept 23, your first edit was a week later than that. I had been following the debate but wasn't to keen on jumping in until I noticed that you were the same editor who had been causing a similar ruckus over at Antifeminism. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You could have not posted when you saw it had closed. But I did have to edit the quote marks because they were screwing up the closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Legal threat at Talk:53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) by User:91.140.146.201 as this diff - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Section and Subsection Titles

I apologize if this is not the appropriate venue to address such a question. Although I’ve been around Wiki quite awhile now, the only time I was ever involved in an incident was the result of a misunderstanding that was easily clarified. (I know the word “misunderstanding” is often overused, but in this case it was literally such and the nonexistent conflict was resolved before we got here.) If this is not the appropriate venue, perhaps an administrator or experienced editors can steer me to where I should have addressed this question for future reference. I am currently not involved with a conflict, though I shortly would (almost certainly) have been had not one of my allies in the potential conflict rendered the question moot. So all that is left is to ask my question.

We all the know the importance and power of headline writing in newspapers and headline writers are often accused of bias. My question is is there any Wikipedia regulation that addresses the matter of writing titles for sections and subsections within Wiki articles? Is there anything mandating that a section or subsection title should reflect the majority content of such?

Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV covers a lot of ground - section titles which appear to show a specific POV would run afoul of that non-negotiable policy. And "headlines" are not written by the reporter as a rule - but by specialists whose aim is t0 hook readers Collect (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick and informative response. It is most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: You may want to also take a look at WP:COATRACK. While sections titled "Controversy", "Criticism", and such may seem benign at first, they often serves as "bug lights" for anyone wants to spread negative information about the subject. A section that focuses on a negative aspect of the subject should be rewritten with the relevant information incorporated elsewhere in the article. —Farix (t | c) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Farix Thank you as well. I think you were sufficiently curious as to track my recent Wiki haunts and comments. I understand what you are saying. The curious aspect of this dispute (at least to my mind) was that those on the other side are contesting a mere name change (actually, an addition to the current one) that would bring a subsection’s title in line with 88% of its content rather than lobbying to remove or mitigate the material itself. But as I said, one of my allies unwittingly (I think) threw a monkey wrench into my plans to bring the conflict here. Therefore, I must concede defeat and that’s the end of it. Thank you, again. I have bookmarked both offered pages for future reference.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:SyrianObserver2015

Let me start by giving some background. User:SyrianObserver2015 is essentially a WP:SPA who opened his account for the sole purpose of disrupting one article (Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War), the associated module map (Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map) and the associated talk page. WP:SPA says: “… a significant number (of SPA) appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed (WP:NOTADVOCACY). (my emphasis added). This person is not here to help build an encyclopedia.

He is very biased and nominated the article for deletion a couple of months ago. After the failure of his Afd, he came back to the talk page and started threatening editors by saying that if they don’t make the edits he wants them to make on the map, he will nominate the article for deletion again. Then he threatens again here by saying: “I am very close to nominating this map again.” And here again by saying: “So you can start to change or you can see your map nominated for deletion every week untill it is gone.”

To illustrate his general attitude, here he calls another user: “degenerate zombie”. And here he calls collectively all editors of the map: “you little terrorist supporting shit”. And here, he deletes a whole section from the talk page (4000 characters, with 5 participants). Here he is referring to another editor and “his support for his foreign invaders.” Here he is talking to another editor: “calm down young boy, don't behead me virtually lol.”

The editors refused his threats, so he went to editing the map by reverting legitimate edits that he didn’t like without providing any source or making edit summary. We reverted his edits and gave him an explanation about the need to provide sources here. We also opened a total of 3 sections on his talk page as well as explained to him again on the map talk page. This didn’t do anything since he came back and reverted back the map many times without edit summary or sources, breaking 1RR twice. Some of his edits were relating to major cities like Zabadani and he gave it a status that is completely unrealistic and unclaimed by anyone. It is hard to argue that these could be good faith edits. This could be viewed as intentional sabotage of the map that he failed to delete (and that he is threatening to delete). His message could be interpreted as: “Do what I ask you to do, or I will make your map a complete mess!” Right after this, an admin gave him a few templated warnings, including one about sanctions.

Unfortunately, all these warnings did not suffice. He kept insulting everyone (for example, he is calling an editor: “ISIS fan boy”) He also kept making bad faith edits on the map. Here is a stark example where he writes in the edit summary that he is changing the town “Al-Basha”, but then you can see that he changed the town “Salma”! And again broke 1RR and got blocked on 28 August. Again, this did not suffice as he kept insulting everyone (for example, he is saying the map “is becoming a scum pit of ISIS and jihadi supporters” and again calling editors: “Jihadi boys”.) Here he is promising “a wave of Government supporting editors coming here to fix it”. Here a user writes a long message trying to reason him and encourage good behavior. This is in addition to many messages on the talk page of article… But again he breaks 1RR and gets blocked on 21 September.

During his latest block, User:SyrianObserver2015 evaded his block with IP sockpuppets. So the insulting continued during his block: Accusing editors: “terrorist supporting editors on this map.”, accusing an editor: “ISIS beheader supporter”, ranting about an editor: “Just another biased editor trying to make things look nicer for the terrorists.”, antagonizing another editor: “The butthurt from you Dajesuz your Isis whabbiboys are burning alive”; "all you can do is cry"; "you do support Isis the terrorists scum".

After his latest block ended, he came back with the same attitude. Here he is calling an editor: “ISIS terrorist supporter”, and “all you Al Nusrat and Free Shit Army guys” and “You support a dirty terrorist organization” and “a fucking dirty scumbag terrorist supporter”. Here he accuses another editor: “you support the terrorist moderate beheaders.” Here he insults everyone by saying: “Hail Putin bitches.” In addition, yesterday and today (October 17/18), he reverted the map many times, breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 Undid revision 686171591 by Rhocagil (talk).
• Edit 2 Revert 2 Undid revision 686286892 by DaJesuZ (talk).

This person is not here to help build an encyclopedia. I do not recall him making an edit to the map that did not get reverted. Also, you can notice that the article on which the disruption occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I am requesting for User:SyrianObserver2015 to be permanently banned from editing Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map for WP:NOTHERE. Tradedia^talk 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

i totally agree with Tadedia.that editor is soo annoying and is definitely not here to contribute.Alhanuty (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

SyrianObserver2015 better have a good rebuttal, else an indef block is certainly on the way. Blackmane (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

His contributions more than speak for themselves. Despite the OP being a bit lengthy, a mere skim of it should convince the community that this user is definitely not here to contribute meaningfully. He first came to my attention when he mockingly proposed a page on my watchlist for deletion in August. All of his contributions are clearly agenda-driven and in favor of the official Iranian regime POV. I would endorse any type of block, or perhaps a broad topic ban from Middle Eastern topics. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another day, another indef. GAB^Hello! 01:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like these isis fanboys are having a field day, better make 5 new accounts the lies is sickening here, you all support isis terrorists, and Tradeia you have made many vandalizing edits . You can ban me all you want but remember this, your losing the war. And many scores of Government supporters now reside on your biased map because of me. You yourself tried to delete all the edit history because the person investigating would see all Ducks un edited sources and AlAboud aswell there is currently a topic about your many un-sourced edits. A little pack of isis fan boys trying to get me banned, good luck with that, I have made no edits in the last month(only re-sizing) also, so what are you trying to get me banned for now?? I do not support head chopping civilian killing terrorist like all you here that have come to blacken my good reputation on your biased map?? Every edit I ever made was sourced. ISIS are terrorists and their supporters are terrorists meaning all of you above.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For that comment alone I support an indefinite block if not a site ban. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever come across a more blatant case of WP:NOTHERE than this one. Can an admin just levy the indef and we can all move on. Blackmane (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

better make five new accounts is also an interesting comment, though maybe my sarcastometer is just broken. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Its amazing all these people coming here making rash judgements and none of you besides Tradiea have anything got to do with the map in question, just let them ban me for some reason they will make up. We all know wikipedia is run by Jihadi fools sitting in a basement, go on ban me please give me an excuse to rally a few hundred Government supporters to this biased map, and show you terrorist supporting fools real moderation.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Sweepy

Ho hum, User:Sweepy continues to mass sort dabs alphabetically. This is against the consensus and warnings of several editors [52] [53] [54] [55] final [56] (and WP:MOSDAB). This disruption hasn't stopped after a final warning, or threats of being blocked for this the next time by User:Xezbeth. Several of us are spending time undoing them before the dabs get edited. The disruption has been going on for months, and apart from dab edits, the editor is making good edits so it's a shame that all attempts at persuasion have failed. (details at User_talk:Sweepy#Sorting_disambiguation_pages User_talk:Sweepy#Talkback Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Mass_sorting_dabs) Widefox; talk 22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the problem. Alphabetical makes it easier to find what you're looking for, rather than all jumbled up. I think Sweepy's doing a great job, and , yes I saw you point to WP:MOSDAB, remember, however, that it's a guideline and not a hard and fast rule, and common sense needs to be applied. I believe Sweepy's doing just that, it's more common sense to use alphabetical ordering than anything else. Also, "order of importance"? Important to whom, that's subjective. KoshVorlon 11:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not doing a "great job". Many of these dab pages have sections in chronological order, which is equally as valid as alphabetical. Even more of these dab pages have two or three topics that are vastly more significant and likely to be searched for than the others, and should not be shunted down the page just because of where they rank alphabetically. Sweepy has given no thought to any of that, they have just indiscriminately sorted random dab pages for months on end without anyone stopping them. They were reverted on a few dab pages by several different editors, but Sweepy simply ignored that and ploughed ahead anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

He's obviously not applying common sense since many people are complaining about it. Do you know what the "common" part of common sense means? Also, just because WP:MOSDAB is not policy but a guideline, doesn't mean you are free to ignore it. It reflects general consensus on how disambiguation pages should be organized. You are free to take it up there if you do not agree with it. Kudos to your powers of persuasion if you can convince everyone the World Toilet Organization should come before the World Trade Organization on WTO--Atlan (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Sweepy is probably acting in good faith (albeit stubbornly, which may justify extreme measures such as this), but their edits aren't possibly justified by common sense since they go against consensus that was established specifically about that topic (not even some related topic it is being transposed from). Alphabetical order "making it easier to find" things is debatable, it depends on the specifics, and clearly the community has decided that in the case of these disambiguation pages, it does not; that should be respected. LjL (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to me it's common sense to arrange in alphabetical order, the list he's changing around is not designated in chronological order ( like a bibliography or a discography would be ), therefore, yeah, he's not doing anything wrong changing the list to alphabetical. Atlan remember, WP:IAR is ALSO a guideline, which actually does give us permission to ignore all rules to improve the wikipedia, placing the see also pages in alphabetical order does just that. Also, note that he (I'm assuming) doesn't speak English very well, judging by his English, he likely speaks Hindi, so we may also be facing a language barrier. KoshVorlon 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Their mother language is German, it's stated on their user page. I thought the changes being made where not limited to "See also" sections (which I do believe are meant to be in alphabetical order), but to disambiguation pages at large. LjL (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So the answer seems to be no, you do not know what the word "common" in "common sense" means. WP:IAR is policy, not a guideline. It is a invoked when a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia. It is implied that when one invokes IAR, one is aware of the rule that is ignored and that consideration has been given to ignoring it. That is not the case here, as Sweepy is indiscriminately alphabetizing DAB pages. IAR is not a blanket permission to ignore all rules whenever you feel like it. Your interpretation seems to be that it is. And like LjL says, this is not about "see also" sections but about DAB pages. Do some basic fact finding before commenting on threads.--Atlan (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:KoshVorlon: Congratulation to you! You are a rare user understanding the sense of all encyclopedias, namely to edit so, that all users find all his informations he want, faster!

@the others: By sorting DAB alphabetically their's not any advantage for anyone!, p.e. clubs, religions, sports clubs, parties, companies and so on, and so on! Coincidence is given and all administrators or controllers have therefore no problems to prefer somebody! Is'nt wonderful for all of you in your WP? Please consider this... -- Sweepy (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to help change the consensus and guidelines on disambiguation pages, you should discuss on a relevant talk page. This is not the place for it (nor is it the time to be bold and just change pages, when you have met with clear opposition). LjL (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Atlan Comment on content not contributor, ok ? I'm well aware that IAR is not a blank check to do what we want to do. It's to be used for the purpose of improving wikipedia, even if the house rule says we can't do what we think would improve it. His contributors do just that, hence the application of IAR. KoshVorlon 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And now an expample for not alphabetial sorting: Hayes High School DAB. Please clear me up, why an alphabetical sorting is undesired in your eyes because neither the sorting now or the towns are alphabetical sorted! The reason, please for my correct doing an your reverting? Looking forward for the Councils answer and the rule for it, as always done...-- Sweepy (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss (not ignore) MOSDAB is there, not here. The correct place to discuss a dab is on their talk. Both can be discussed at the project (where Sweepy has not replied). Here is the correct place to discuss an editor that willfully is ignoring consensus (edit, MOSDAB MOS:FORLANG, + warnings + block warning) on mass. The mass disruption isn't confined to dabs. Widefox; talk 17:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions in re: editor Trackinfo on Caitlyn Jenner article (Result: )

• Request for Discretionary sanctions

• Editor

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

• Article

In re: [[Caitlyn Jenner]] article:

• Warning

Diff to Discretionary Sanctions Alert (with "pa" parameter): [57]

• Latest edit

Diff to latest edit in violation: [58]

• Reported by

Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments

What exactly is being reported here? Is Trackinfo subject to a 0RR sanction on articles relating to transgender issues? @Checkingfax:, you're going to have to do better than just vaguely report another editor with no request for administrator action. Are you asking for a block? warning? editing restriction? You should not expect admins to play a guessing game. Also, if you're asking for sanctions, which are covered by arbcom cases, against another editor you should go to WP:AE Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[[Caitlyn Jenner]] is a DS page, not an 0RR page. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

Here is the editing guideline we all work under:

The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline,[[MOS:IDENTITY]]. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion.

There is also a DS that takes it a step further. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

Here is the violation basis:

Request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions;

Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From your diff, Trackinfo reverted reverted to a version where there was no gender pronoun, so I can't see how your "editing guideline" applies. Also, Trackinfo is correct that there is a discussion currently underway. A notification was posted here, talk:Caitlyn Jenner#MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition? with discussions going on at WP:VPP#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_about_transgender_individuals and WP:VPP#Clarifying_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_in_which_transgender_individuals_are_mentioned_in_passing. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From the diff, Trackinfo changed [...]"Jenner married 'her'"[...], to: [...]"Jenner married"[...]. That is the pronoun removal. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 02:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Talk page boilerplate regarding pronouns

Because this article contains material about one or more [[trans women]], it should adhere to Wikipedia's guideline on gender identity, even if it is not a biography. According to [[MOS:IDENTITY]], such a subject should be referred to using the gendered nouns and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect that person's latest expressed [[gender self-identification]]". This applies in references to any phase of her life. Quotations and titles of published works are notable exceptions. Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child). Finally, please note that this talk page is [[not a forum]]. If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to [[WT:LGBT]] or, in the case of living trans women, to [[WP:BLPN]].

Your report is inconsistent. First you complain that Trackinfo is changing a feminine pronoun to a masculine pronoun. Then you point to a pronoun removal as the problem. So which is it? In any case, the discussion at WP:VPP will establish a policy to dictate this. IMO, this is a total non issue. Admins may disagree with my view. Rather than fill this thread up as a discussion between you and me, I'm going to step back and let others comment as I've made my stance clear. Blackmane (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am reporting the pronoun removal ("her"). There is no inconsistency by me. It's right there in the diff I submitted above. We are supposed to leave pronouns in articles and not make transgender articles gender neutral by removing pronouns. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 03:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the phrase:

Quotations and titles of published works are notable exceptions. Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child).

Clearly 1) the pronoun was unnecessary. I wrote the original phrase without a pronoun. 2) Inserting the pronoun is thus deliberately forcing a clear WP:BLP violation on Chrystie Crownover. Is there a sourceable statement that she approves of wikipedia stating that she married a woman? Is there any question that a rational reader might get confused by this phrasing? Trackinfo (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK and his chronic edit warring problem

User:Beyond My Ken has been at the heart of a discussion under active discussion at WP:AN, relating to a matter where he was blocked for his actions regarding the article Anna Politkovskaya, for which he made eight separate reverts of give different editors in one day. With much tendentious arguing and wikilawyering, BMK was able to convince an admin to undo his block.

The problem is that BMK is no stranger to edit warring, having a block list that includes five previous blocks for edit warring in the past five-plus years, including two blocks this year alone; three if you include the aborted block for his edit warring at Politkovskaya.

Those five blocks are just a small sample of his actual edit warring history, which includes a total of 22 reports at WP:3RRN from 18 different editors. Six of those have resulted in blocks, and a handful of these reports may not have met the 3RR standard. But there are several other reports where BMK had managed to evade blocks through various warnings and other evasions. The edit warring pattern here is chronic and largely unaddressed.

In addition to the Politkovskaya article this past week, BMK was also caught edit warring at Union Square, Manhattan and reported here. As he had already been blocked for his actions at Politkovskaya, the Union Square case was closed as "already blocked".

With the block for Politkovskaya lifted, it seems that the best way to deal with this issue is to reopen the Union Square case and impose a lengthy preventative block for a situation where BLP is a non-issue and where the evidence is open and shut. I'm not sure why BMK has been allowed to evade justice here and persist in his edit wars, but we in the Wikipedia community have a way to end this chronic problem once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[59] BMK (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your comparison, the last time Alansohn was blocked was in 2009, ample time for them to learn from their mistakes. clpo13_(talk) 06:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you speak of what you know not of. Check the AN/ANI database. BMK (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to enlighten me? I don't feel like digging through noticeboard archives looking for who knows what. clpo13_(talk) 08:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like Forum shopping to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I could not have said it better. This is not forum-shopping, this is a long-term problem with no end in sight. I don't recall if I have ever reported BMK for edit warring but I sure as hell have experienced it. He edit wars everything and when he's not edit warring, he's throwing out insults and constant personal attacks. If this behavior was anything close to the norm here, I'd have been gone long ago. I truly don't know how he wriggled out of this latest block on such a specious claim that his behavior was excused by BLP. I don't actually dislike BMK, I just wish he could see himself as others see him and recognize just how unpleasant and unnecessary his behavior is. Everything is a WP:BATTLEGROUND with this fellow. It's time to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude toward this stuff until and unless he gets the message and stops once and for all. Msnicki (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Time to start escalating block length for edit warring. Clearly somebody who has been around as long as this editor has knows better; time to fire a shot across the bow. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's not forumshopping, so where is the evidence of the misconduct that BMK has done since the ban was lifted?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the condition he agreed to in return for the block being lifted was that he was going to stop reverting and if he had BLP concerns, he would take them to BLPN. That lasted a mere 50 hours before he was at it again, [60] and [61], again asserting the same specious BLP claims related to Anna Politkovskaya that got him blocked. Msnicki (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocking BMK for the Union Square edit war would be unproductive, as blocking is preventative, not punitive and the disruption there appears to have ended when BMK was blocked for the Politkovskaya edit war. However, given the history of edit warring, future consequences should be more severe if the behavior continues, like a 1RR restriction sitewide. clpo13_(talk) 06:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Msnicki can we get a little better than your understanding, like perhaps the diff that shows his unblock conditions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

NP. Here is Drmies insisting he should take it to BLPN rather than reverting: [62] and again [63]. And here is BMK agreeing to those terms: [64] and [65]. Msnicki (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Unblock conditons:

• "BMK, I do want to hear from you that you won't return to reverting (Anna Politkovskaya‎‎), at least not for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Yes, I will take my own advice (see above) and "let things go", take the article off my watchlist, and never return to it. It won't be my concern anymore. BMK (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Well, I don't want it to not be your concern anymore, and I would like you to take the matter up again at the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Thank you very much for the unblock, I appreciate it. I have taken the article off my watchlist, and will post to BLPN. BMK (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"

Diffs: [66], [67], [68], [69]

Later comments on User talk:Drmies:

• @Drmies: Regarding this, I don't need or expect you to say anything about it, but I would appreciate your letting me know if I do go beyond what you intended to be the conditions on my unblock. I don't believe that I have, and because of that I don't think I'm testing any boundaries or editing in "bad faith", but if you think I am, I'll pull back (which, as you know, was my initial impulse in the first place). Thanks, BMK (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [70]

• BMK (and Volunteer Marek), I asked you to not to return to that article and I would unblock you. Whatever you do elsewhere is really not my concern: it is not my place (and not my intent) to issue some sort of a topic ban. The problem, and the reason for the block, was the edit warring. So you removed it on an associated article as well, I believe (don't really want to start digging around right now), but if you're not edit warring there, I don't see what the problem is. I think (sorry Marek et al.) that the focus should be on the more important matter, not on what BMK is messing with this time. Removing the material until there is some sort of consensus that it's not a BLP material should be the proper way to go--call me old-fashioned. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [71]

So it appears to me that Drmies, the unblocking admin, has no trouble with my subsequent edits, including to the article Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, to which I made a single revert, and have not edit warred on. (Nor, for that matter, have I edited the article Anna Politkovskaya since my unblock, which was the actual sole condition of that unblock.) As for Msnicki's comment concerning BLPN, she seems not to be aware that I fulfilled Drmies request, and started this thread on that board, even though I would have preferred to walk away from this mess, because I wanted to honor Drmies request to do so, even though it was not a condition of the unblock.

I will note for the record that Alansohn-- an inveterate edit-warrior himself] -- has had a bug up his behind about me ever since I commented on AN/I that I thought he was the primary problem in the I-Ban dispute between himself and Magnolia-whatever-his-number-is, and that Msnicki and I have been unfriendly since she helped to railroad Dangerous Panda, someone I considered to be a valuable admin, off the site. I see nothing in this thread except blatant retaliation for old and moldering beefs, and I shall not comment on this silly thread again, especially since I've had to deal with this untrue accusations on the BLPN thread, and on a thread just closed on AN. How many more times, and in how many more places am I going to be required to defend myself against blatantly false accusations of bad faith editing from users with an axe to grind? BMK (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no question BMK has been nasty to me, so I'm glad he's not denying it. But I have never returned in kind, not in the Dangerous Panda discussion nor anywhere else. For more, consider the interaction last month at Talk:Flatiron Building#Concerning edits to "Original tenants and subsequent history" where BMK repeatedly insults me and another editor, claiming neither of you will ever be a good writer and that I must be a piss-poor judge of writing, repeatedly questions my good faith, insists wrongly I must be following him and claims WP:OWNERSHIP as his excuse for edit warring and bullying: being the editor with the most edits to it (316, as opposed to your 3), who took it from 8,600 bytes to 15,000 bytes, and then from 18,500 to 37,000 bytes, so you'll excuse me if I have something of a vested interest. Nowhere on that page will you find me responding in kind. I behaved myself. All I did was keep repeating my request that he WP:AGF and, when it still continued, I threatened that if couldn't drop the WP:STICK and persisted with the insults, that I would take it to ANI. I didn't back down but I was NEVER disrespectful. That's just not me. Msnicki (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not responsible for your, or any other editor's, inability to write or edit. When I see bad writing, or bad editing, I revert it, as a matter of course. AGF does not require me to lie to you about your capabilities or lack thereof. My primary responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to the quality of our articles, not towards making you feel good about yourself inappropriately. If you want that, I suggest you check into a self-help clinic, where they'll be glad to take your money and assure you of your self-worth.

In the case at hand, that's really not an issue, except that you have decided to use your own hurt feelings as an excuse for expressing an opinoon about an issue which you have not been involved in, and apparently know nothing about, simply because you assume that anything I do must be wrong. I suggest that you would be better off putting some effort into understanding the issue before you sound off about it. BMK (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case. Msnicki (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So... you believe you've proven (or, rather, I've proven) that I should be blocked? Because I think your writing and editing is sub-standard? Is there a particular policy you had in mind that I should be blocked under? BMK (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This text, which some of you are arguing for keeping in the article, is a blatant BLP violation. Just because Putin is unlikely to file suit against Wikipedia is no excuse for attempting to put him on trial within Wikipedia. You all should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is an RfC concerning that text at Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. BMK (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That there's even a debate about this is an abomination. If it were an American or British leader instead of Putin, that text would be shot down, and those pushing for it would be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not a fact. Msnicki (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying it IS a fact that Putin orchestrated the assassination? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK was edit warring on Anna Politkovskaya. He was blocked. He agreed to stop edit warring, was unblocked, and has not been edit warring since. He is, of course, mistaken about his responsibility: his responsibility is to follow the Terms of use, which specifically include:

• Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
• Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.

Therefore while he is not responsible for the quality of any other editor's edit, he responsible for acting like a dick. Unfortunately with the closing of WP:RFC/U as ineffective and the lack of an effective civility policy (see WP:Civility meme), there's no quick solution. The majority of the time is he on point (i.e. knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and reasonable in expressing that), but I have observed the chronic pattern Msnicki notes. Personally I find it easiest to ignore his ad hominem nonsense (see WP:Other duck and User:Heimstern/Ignoring_incivility) and refute his occasional misrepresentations of Wikipedia policies with wikilinks to the actual policy. Presumably an interested editor could collect sufficient (i.e. lots) of diffs to show a pattern and present a case for some sort of sanction, but that would be a huge time sink. This ill formed ANI thread -- invalid grounds (edit warring) and wrong forum (this is not "an incident") is unlucky to bring about anything usefulNE Ent 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations cannot be tolerated. Allowing gross BLP violations to stand is thousands of times worse than "incivility". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You realize that incivility towards our editors are generally against living persons? Why is it that saying something negative against a living article subject is "thousands of times worse" than saying something negative against a living editor here? I personally find our volunteers to be as deserving of protection as our article subjects. HighInBC 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I strongly agree with BLP rules. However, in this particular case, that was not a BLP violation, but simply something that all reliable sources tell [72]. Not telling something that almost all RS tell and removing reliably sourced information (that is what BMK was doing) was an outright violation of WP:NPOV, which is our main policy. Based on their comments, I believe that BMK and some other contributors simply do not not know this subject, which is rather complicated. If they knew, they suppose to discuss like here. Please note that among five contributors who reverted edits by BMK on this page four contributors were people who knew these subjects. That was also an edit war by BMK against WP:ConsensusMy very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You say it's not a BLP violation. Baseball Bugs is not the first one to say that it is. As for "knowing the subject", I am not sure what kind of inside knowledge is necessary that cannot be gleaned from the sources. One might as well way--gasp--that those five are not neutral on the topic. I don't wish to make that argument, but it's one that you yourself used in these matters against your opponent. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am only telling that one should really know the subject to make a qualified judgement. That means to study a lot of available sources and to know the underlying political and historical background, writings and biography of the person described on the page, etc. And no, these four contributors have very different views. I have argued a lot with two of them on various noticeboards. If they agreed about something, that means a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Australian dollar article needs a lock

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

---

Australian dollar is being targeted by vandals who think they're funny, on the back of a petition to change the article to "Dollarydoos" (The Simpsons reference). Can we please put a temporary lock on the article until this fad passes? Ck786 (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's vandalism but it seems attached to a current active movement to rename Aussie Currency Dollarydoos. I don't think it's to be funny per se.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN has protected the article for a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

By odd coincidence... (Most of the jokes would probably only make sense to residents, but do note the "A" from AC/DC as a security feature on the $ 50 note.) --Shirt58 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please block this obvious troll?

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

---

User:Udoks is an obvious troll. For those not in the know, some Gamergate supporters have a plan to destroy Wikipedia by making it so "pro-SJW," that no one can take it seriously. This guy is clearly trying to execute such a plan. The obvious sarcasm in their actions can be seen by reading their comments at Talk:Air conditioning (I've left an analysis below the hat). Now they are pulling similar crap at [Breitbar News Network https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breitbart_News_Network&diff=prev&oldid=686104089] and on its talk page. Can someone please block this person so they stop wasting our time. Brustopher (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE, and there's a good chance that they're already blocked under another account, the rhetoric looks familiar. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

OWN TV and User:RobinColclough

• OWN TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RobinColclough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today saw the latest in a long series of attempts by the self-serving single purpose account User:RobinColclough. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia but instead considers Wikipedia a personal soapbox, advertising platform and legal battleground possibly centered on Trademark trolling. I've no idea what to do about. Please help. Here is the latest diff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OWN_TV&type=revision&diff=686485073&oldid=659963762

Thanks. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#OWN_TV before seeing this. Deli nk (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through their contribs and can't see a single edit where they haven't been promoting their products/trademark. e.g. [73] [74] which added information about ViewPoint 3D (deleted at AFD). WP:NOTHERE appears to apply. Note that this came up here in April but no action was taken. SmartSE (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

SageGreenRider what is your problem?! OWNTV is my legal trademark, if someone tries to use it for their own business, such as Oprah Winfrey Network has, then you seem to think I should shut up, and let them also promote it through Wikipedia? Any page or reference to OWNTV or so very similar OWN TV must only refer to the legally registered trademark, not a commercial business. Clearly a lawyer needs to give you some advice on this. I start to wonder if you have a commercial or personal interest in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And look at the ViewPoint3D page that you guys took out! Its a viable 3D software, with a growing user-base, but you decided to erase it because its not got a big enough following? I thought Wikipedia was about sharing information, as you´re not 3D experts, why should you be able to decided to remove a page about a new 3D software, the only one that directly produces multiview autostereoscopic output with live data? Are some of the wiki decision makers, in this case two of you, making decisions that don't follow public interest? RobinColclough (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE, as noted above, and the user seems to carrying an external legal dispute onto Wikipedia (with associated possible WP:NLT implications in some of RobinColclough's statements), perhaps an administrator should just block the user and refer them to Wikipedia's legal department. Deli nk (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@RobinColclough, I have no commercial or personal interest in Oprah Winfrey. I'm aware of her, but I'm not a fan and I don't ever remember watching even one of her shows. At most I've see a few clips here and there. My issue is clearly stated in my original Notification here. Wikipedia is a community-built encyclopedia, not the righter of wrongs, not a champion of the underdog, not a legal battleground, not a soapbox, and not an advertising platform. Please see WP:FIVEPILLARS SageGreenRider (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Keynesian economics page "criticisms" in edit war

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

---

There was disagreement between several users about how a criticism of Keynesian economics should be worded. As per wikipedia rules, I so stated on the "Talk" page, and requested third parties to give their input.

Instead of complying with wikipedia rules, two users took it upon themselves to undo my edits, without discussion or consensus. User "Darx9url" even went so far as to complain on the talk page under my request for discussion -- so he obviously knew there was a debate. Yet he arrogantly deleted my edit as though he was the final arbiter of a debate that never happened. His stated reasons were hopelessly hypocritical, accusing me of using the same "non neutral point of view" words that are all over the austrian economics page. Why are these criticism words it OK on one page, yet not on another?

And what possible excuse does this biased "journalist" Darx9url have for deleting another users edit when he sees the matter is up for discussion and comment? What happened to the idea that wikipedians are supposed to build consensus and not have a select group of arrogant users dictate opinion? The user Darx9url must be suspended for wikipedia to maintain any credibility on any economics page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogreggy (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:81.156.94.220

For at least the last couple months, 81.156.94.220 has been removing content without explanation and making other strange edits. The user most often removes dubbing roles (i.e., roles originally in another language) from Japanese voice actor articles (e.g., these edits [75] [76] and tons of similar edits - see Special:Contributions/81.156.94.220). The user has also made some other nonsensical edits such as [77], which seemed to edit a character description to add information on a completely different character from a completely different TV show. The user has already been blocked once for these edits, but continues to make the same kind of edits. As far as I can tell, the person has never given any explanation for the edits or communicated with anyone anywhere. Can something please be done about that user? Calathan (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Jithan 2

pn the page, Jithan 2, there are two IP addresses that have changed the producer and director to Rahul. I have a difficult time believing that the producer is also the director. I'm sure there are mistakes in there, but I don't know exactly what they are and who made them. CLCStudent (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)