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

Adult supervision needed at Talk:Energetically modified cement

I havent been following closely or participating in the discussion with the involved IPs for a while, but its on my watchlist and the situation appears to be spiraling out of appropriate scope. At least one of the IPs appears to have a COI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've intervened, making my non-admin status clear, and tried to make both parties aware that their flagrant disregard for WP:Civility is inappropriate. The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits -- neither of them has the least clue about how to form a policy argument and the discussion has devolved into constant and voluminous mud-slinging and arguments without traction. Add to that the fact that neither seems inclined to apply indentation or other talk page style convention or organizational feature that might keep the discussion focused and on-track and you have a real mess. It's not exactly an article of high interest for me, but I'll try to stick around and oversee some adjustments to the page to improve its tone and verifiability a bit, though I'm dubious I'll be able to get the two of them to work constructively to improve the page between them. Snow (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me preface my next remark by saying that, as a fully-certified admin, I am fully aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NONASTYWORDSPLEASE, but still: HOLY SHIT, that's the worst-looking talk page I've seen in a while. Can we burn it, via MfD or IAR? Drmies (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• I removed the last rant and left a note on Uncle Karl's talk page. Who is the "other" editor? The 213 IP? I find it very difficult to find specific civility infractions in those walls of words, though IP 71.33.155.41's shouting etc is uncivil enough--their very layout is offensive. Anyway, y'all's efforts are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Short Precis by 213.66.81.80

I hope this helps:

• I really dont want to answer towards TRPoD because his antipathy toward the page goes back some months back and he represents a particularly estreme view of what the entire "promotional debate". Let's just say this is not the first time he has tried to strip the article. Nor is he immune from being warned regarding his aggressive edits to others' works. Just go to his talk page. I note he "watches the page", and stalks my talk page. For ex, I was tidying my talk page and he sent me a very "odd" message on my talk page a couple of evenings back (as if I was a naughty schoolboy "Your will be deemed to be wilfull" language.). And he posted this here, and raised the assertion that it is me with COI ---- at a time it was clear the ANGRY user was losing control.

• I have 35 years material science. I live in Stockholm. Swedish is my first language. On the page, I wrote the section (you'll maybe never heard of it), tribochemisry and the section dealing with pozzolanic concrete chemistry. So, there is at least a flavor of my knowledge base. I have no connection to EMC. As I understand from the AfDs, no one from LTU or Ronin wanted this page, because they have low opinion of Wikipedia.

• This said no one of real material science knowledge has ever questioned the page. Most of the comments have been novices who needed a greater explanation, which because of my love of the material sciences subject, I have willingly given.

• I hope this page is giving greater "exposure" to EMCs. Both in terms sf novice reader and expert readers. I also hope it is aiding to a much deeper resource on material sciences, which Wikipedia is very poor.

• The page already has a "B" rating. I wanted to improve it to a "GA" and even contacted an editor who I really trust called FeydHuxtable. See my talk page.

• This "incident" started about a week ago when a user called KARL attacked MY work stating I was, among others, lying, fake, and that I have no knowledge of the subject. As time went on he made a number of demonstrably bogus comments. When asked to state his sources, all he would do is respond with what you call "wall of Texts". I did not respond to them as they were TLDR.

• But, just as the Snows comments above show, if one throws a little mud, a little might stick. Throw lots, many times and it WILL stick. To the point now where Snow is proving the point by stating

"The problem is that, despite the fact that one editor has more relevant arguments -- there is, as you noted, a COI issue with the other IP and a fairly strong promotional slant to his edits"

• Snow: I will not be bullied by a poster posting TLDRs to be disruptive. Do you see how many times that user uses the word "ANGER" and "ANGRY"? LIAR, STUPID, FAKE (ALL in CAPS, so the casual visitor cannot help see it)?

• EVERY TIME I have chosen just one of the many wild assertions made, ANGRY user has then deflected (with more walls of texts / TLDRs). The very last post I made before Snow posted his comments, proved it. But now it has been collapsed. So let me show you how "bananas" it has been, AFTER an ENTIRE week of this ANGRY user SHOUTING AT ME. This is what I wrote:

Look, I do not know how much of your gobbledygook you actually read back to yourself. But it just goes on and on. You say:

"I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete."

"This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same."

This is completely contradictory. How can it possibly be (sic) "sleight of hand"? Since when does one burn coal expressly to make a waste product? It is just utter gobbledygook. And yet I have then had to endure days upon day of this endless personal attacks by you because I CANNOT understand your logic. You have accused me of lying, or not being a scientist, and basically of being stupid. I ask you to post me one decent question - and all I get is TLDRs again.

This is the "classic" case of a Portland cement "spook" that peddles this nonsense and won't stop. This has gone on for nearly a week. And you won't stop. I said it before, I say it again: it is all too odd and persistent.

• Snow: you do realize that several days ago, he got an immediate LEVEL 4 warning for his personal attacks against me and yet still persisted? Nothing stops him. It is relentless.

• I refute any suggestion what I have written is "promotional". Indeed, please tell me where the section on EMC Activation and Pozzolanic concrete chemistry is promotional.

• There are only two possibilities: The ANGRY user, does not have any knowledge. But then why so persistent and why make such obviously odd points? Or the said ANGRY user does have knowledge and is playing "divisive" and being highly provocative and manipulative. Which, if so, all the more underscores it is Portland Cement industry "spook".

213.66.81.80 (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

i do not think that word "short" means what you think it means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If that's a "short precis", I daren't even look at the abovementioned "holy shit" talkpage. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

You were smarter than the rest of us then. Imagine the scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Arc when the Arc is opened.Snow (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The incivility at this article has been going on for a year. You can see the heated language at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination), and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ronin. User:Jono13 was very confrontational, and so was IP 213 which is clearly the same person. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

While I very much hate to throw in the towel so quickly on solving this dilemma amicably, new facts have come to light which rather tend to suggest that is a hopeless cause. Specifically, the editor currently operating from 213.66.81.80 is an established sockpuppet of the article's creator User:Jono2013, as per this SPI, with additional suspected socks. Both accounts have previous blocks resulting from this sockpuppetry, legal threats, and general uncivil behaviour.

Between the registered account and the IPs, he appears, for the better part of a year, to have remained consistently hostile towards all of the number of editors who have attempted to question the apparently promotional nature of the article and its dubious consistency with regard to WP:V, often leveling personal attacks against them and making accusations of conflict of interest, though he himself seems to have had at least tangential contact with the inventor of the product which is the subject of the article. Further, he refuses to keep discussion focused on the content and its consistency to policy, routinely targeting what he perceives to be deficiencies in the professional credentials of other editors and questioning their involvement in the article and talk processes, though he has been told repeatedly that such not relevant to content discussion.

It is my strong takeaway from my short involvement in the article and my review of the talk page and the article's time in AfD, that the editor in question lacks the basic neutrality on the subject, and requisite respect for his fellow editors, necessary to be involved in the article in a non-disruptive fashion. It is in fact my impression, and one I would dare to venture is shared by most of the other editors involved with the article, that any effort to rescue the article and move it towards a stable state consistent with policy cannot be affected while he is involved there and that a topic ban should be strongly considered by any admin who decides to investigate the matter further. The editor himself should try to recognize that his lack of perspective and the lack of trust the other involved editors have for him is becoming the main driver for renewed calls to delete the article outright, but I rather tend to doubt that he will remove himself from the process.

Edit: I should also note that the other IP involved in the most recent round of mud-slinging, 71.33.155.41, has not exactly been a peach himself, but that Jono2013/213.66.81.80's history of incivility and conflict with other editors very evidently pre-dates the involvement of that editor and in fact goes back to the inception of the article, which, along with the article for the product's creator and articles for competing products, constitute the entirety of his narrow efforts on Wikipedia. Snow (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Snow: I ask you to now please leave this debate. You have had more than your share of comment. The "latest round" of "mudslinging" (your words) implies by using the words "latest round" that I have "invited" or acted poorly against the enormous number of very hostile attacks made against me by ANGRY user. He is the one who was warned to level 4 - I was not. If you look at my edits to "Maproom" and "XFM Skier" last week, they were entirely helpful (I will post them here if you wish). I made it clear to ANGRY user that I would not respond to bullying by way of persistent TLDRS which accused me of being "FAKE", "LYING" "STUPID", on so many occasions half of it could be enough. You say "71.33.155.41, has not exactly been a peach himself" - that is way short of the mark of the attacks I have had to suffer and then get patronised on top. In the meantime, the text below might assist. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope the following assists

• Jono 2013 lived in England and from his posts was a retired biochemistry professor. I was SPI'd because I had collaborated with him very early on in writing the beginnings of the article, and had not disclosed this (I was in those days a complete novice to wikipedia) when I THEN I made the "mistake" of voting in the second Afd.

• Jono made the vast majority of the page. I was on business in Singapore anyhow. Then he disappeared. By all accounts, he collapsed due to the stress of the second Afd which had been brought on in a week. When I got back from Singapore, I culd not believe the nature of the Afd debate and so I made a comment.

• Go on my talk page and you will see FeydHuxtable asking me if I had seen Jono. I have not and I have not heard from him. I sent emails to his family and I got one back from a relative saying that apparently his wife had banned him from ever returning. From what I see, he has kept his promise to her first. He has never made any further edit on Wikipedia, which is a shame because he actually contributed to a biochemistry page which was his "core". Wikipedia lost a very committed and passionate editor. Jono made the mistake of being too passionate.

• One of the reasons I was banned included the fact that I was Swedish. Another Swedish user called "Swedish Gold" was banned also for being Swedish. Swedis Gold and I know one another in ex-professional circles and are acquaintances. He is placed in the Swedish Government. There is another Swedish user, who made an edit (and his IP resolves to the far north of Sweden). And he was banned for being Swedish from what I can see.

• I also add that the second Afd, a user who voted to 'delete was perpetrated by a bogus user masquerading as a professor at Berkeley University. The user "Swedish Gold" called him out on that. And rightly so. That was how "wild" the second Afd became.

• The demise of Jono2013 generated angry comments, all of which were deleted by those against whom the assertions were made. I understand the editor FiddleFaddle did email "swedish gold" last summer. "Swedish Gold" told me but I have not seen those emails. I believe Swedish Gold was very "upset" at the way that anyone Swedish was banned. I was also told that FiddleFaddle had even written an essay on wikipedia, "inspired" by the whole debacle. You have to check with him.

• I suppose because the technology is Swedish therefore (I am guessing) open to the innuendo of some sort of "national bias".

• After several months, I decided to add certain aspects to give greater detail as to its history and recognition (because in the Afd "notability" had been raised). I had hoped that maybe from time to time Jono2013 would see that I was picking up where he had left off.

• When it became obvious the article needed improving over and beyond Jono's original work - because he did not have the technical knowledge, there were aspects on the page which he never tackled in his days. Hence as I said, I have written the sections on Pozzolanic concrete chemistry and added to the section on EMC Activation, with reference to publicly available documents and my knowledge of this rather "specialist" area of Chemistry which ANGRY users refers to as (alternatively) FAKE (he uses the word in caps multiple times) and "Rubber Ducky".

• I added those section in direct response to a user request for a deeper understanding of why EMCs "do what they do". This is a "two dimensional" consideration because one has to look first at the cement compound produced and then why that produces "better" concretes (and the last past can be explained only by reference to concrete chemistry). I also add that "concrete chemistry" is also an entirely separate academic discipline to "cement chemistry", which confirms the "two dimensional" nature of the considerations. I wrote the section on pozzolanic concrete chemistry before Chritsmas. I was uncomfortable about the tribochemistry section that would be needed so I sought guidance before xmas and hoped someone would give me guidance on the extents of Original Research.

• So, before Christmas, having written the section regarding pozzolanic concrete chemistry, I posted several messages on Wikipedia asking for guidance regarding original research before I wrote the section on Tribochemistry.

• I waited 2.5 months hoping for an answers. No one responded. So I wrote it last week. And then, "all hell" happened. Because it is clear the scientific basis for EMCs are very real --- and so the only way to then disparage the page is to attack that aspect. You look at ANGRY userr's posts. It is all about "fake science". Coincidence?

• As for me, I live in Stockholm, Sweden. And I am not passionate about keeping this article. I am however passionate about people making grave accusations either that I am "stupid", or that I am "lying" or that what I write is "fake science" (all of which ANGRY editor repeated several times over). I think I have a right to be "passionate" about that.

• So if you want to Afd the article, do so. I may add initial comments in a third Afd, but beyond that, I am not going to make the mistake of Jono2013, by getting acutely anxious about losing my work. But if the article is lost, I will probably go to Arbcom and take it there. Not because the article is lost, but because I have been accused and the science has been accused and I do care about that - and from what I see that aspects is being "lost". I will also state, that I asked for guidance on Original Research nobody assisted me despite waiting 2.5 months, and that by contrast, the EMC page has been put under the spotlight endlessly and the air poisoned beyond rational debate by a user whose motivations are at the very least "questionable", whereas the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. When it has been made clear that no editor connected to EMC has contributed and that Ronin and LTU never supported the page. I believe I will have "earned" that right if my worik is delelted when I have been accused of promoting "FAKE" science (in CAPS) and of being a "LIAR" (in caps) over and over and over again by a user who has never backed such serious assertions-up in any meaningful substantive manner.

• You cannot "cheat" science. Wikipedia can delete the page, but it cannot "cheat" science. It is real. 4.5 million cubic yards cast by 2010 for TXDOT demonstrates this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Because all the concrete poured is within specification. Unlike Geopolymer_cement, which maybe if the regulations are changed, might in many years (say, 10 to 15 years earliest) start production in any meaningful volumes (and even then, that is if one can afford the hazard, environmental and financial costs brought about by it requirements of copious supplies of 14M NaOH for its synthesis, by comparison)

213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean one of the reasons you and others "was banned included the fact that .... was Swedish"? Are you saying that because if similarity in geolocation along with other factors, it was suspected that you (and others) were sock or meatpuppets or had an undeclared COI (relating to your place of employeement not your country) and edited inappropriately? Or are you say you and the others were discriminated against because you were Swedish? If you're saying the later, I suspect many like me will find this unbelievable particularly since you provided no diffs. It basically destroys any credibility as well as ensures I'm not going to bother reading anything else you said in this long statement. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

:: Hi: I mentioned it because I recall reading on a talk page somewhere words that were "And if you see anyone else Swedish who has an interest in cement let me know" in the context of banning contributors to any debate. You have to excuse me but I do not locate comments that were made on someone's user pages in May of last year. I don't know how. But I recall it clearly because Swedish Gold called me and was absolutely furious. Then I read it myself. I want to say this is why I do not have a user account - because my IP address is record and in Stockholm. Jono2013 is British and live in England. I do not believe that I have ever edited anything substantive during the Afd debate - I simply made an honest mistake (I was a novice) of not declaring that (when I added my comment on the Afd) I had helped start the article right at the beginning, which as I said, was when I came back from Singapore and could not believe my eyes (so I made my comment on the Afd). Swedish Gold knows a lot of people including academics in Berkeley who are very respected (who also know Ronin and "supportive" of his work with Prof. Elfgren). So he got incensed when a person on the Afd started masquerading as a professor from Berkeley. Swedish Gold exposed the fraud. It is all at the end of the second Afd. And then he got banned despite his "services" to such respects. And then I was banned even though I was in Stockholm. Meanwhile Jono2013 had already "collapsed" never to return... and FiddleFaddle got inspired for an essay about how experts on Wikipedia can be treated. So something "good" came of it - yes? Maybe you read it. But you need to ask FiddleFaddle where it is because I cannot remember its title. I hope this helps 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

213.66.81.80, I suggest you focus on content rather than on user conduct. you have made a decent start to the article, but perhaps you should just step back, take a deep breath, maybe even a short WP:wikibreak, and come back, ready to calmly collaborate with other editors, to fix the issues the page does have. good pages for you to read are probably WP:DGAF and WP:DR. if you feel that someone is making personal attacks, it is better to warn them, and if the persist, take it here, rather than responding in kind. we're all (or mostly) adults here, so let's act like it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tack for that! I have taken 2.5 month break after waiting for assistance. But got none. I think there is a deeper issue here, and if you see my response to Nil Eine above, there are deeper issues which FiddleFaddle exposed. The fact is I have added very high standard chemistry sections on the page, and I get accused of fake science, lying, being stupid (IN CAPS) about 30 times over (by a single purpose account) and suddenly the debate is not about that, but about banning me. Which is why I think that the only way to resolve the deeper issue (of the way experts are treated) is something like Arbcom, and hence sensitive editors like FiddleFaddle and FeydHuxtable could contribute constructively. Because this cannot keep happening. I am now the second substantive writer being "driven off" this wikipedia agape ---- when in reality my expertise is much deeper than Jono2013s ever was. And why? Well from my view it feels simply because I refused to be bullied into responding to multiple abusive TLDRs? The record is clear. And surely we must all agree no one should have to put up with a week of extreme bullying only then to be told "let's delete all your work anyhow and while we are at it ban you". The focus should be how the heck was a bully allowed to pollute the talk page to such a degree and not only get away with it (despite a level 4 warning), but to such a degree that others not only believe that "editor's" BS, but also cause a change in the debate - so the focus is on me. Serious science, real science has been accused of being fake, me a liar and stupid, - and I am being threatened with censure despite it being clear I was dealing with (or trying to deal) with extremely hostile bullying. The attacks persistence and oddness is a feature I have raised several times - and it speaks for itself. Yet I see no one picking up on that. This is pure Arbcom territory, surely? Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

not yet, but can you link diffs of the attacks? that is the key. people don't want to have to dig through edit history to find stuff, you should provide evidence. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

actually, I see what you mean, and I am mildly surprised that he/she has not be blocked yet, however, drmies appears to have his eye on things over there, and he's usually pretty good about such things. just ignore that IP user. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there: I am very embarrassed to say I have no idea how to make "diff/edits". I can format an article really nicely (I learned how to make nice chemical equations and collapse the section), but (ahem) there are certain things I don't know how to do. Anyway, as you say, they speak for themselves. The user page User_talk:71.33.155.41 shows that Jim1138 issued the level 4. But that did not stop it. I hope this helps. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah, I was wondering about that. here's a good tutorial: WP:D&L. perhaps you can go, and work on some other articles for a while, you seem to have a good handle on how articles are written. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Snow Rise dropped me a line about the IP/Jono thing. This edit suggests they're not the same--or maybe that's why the edit was made. Who knows. I read over that talk page again, and the edit history of both the IP and the Jono account, and I think that maybe the simplest thing is to bar both IP editors (and Jono) from touching that article or its talk page again, to trim the article down to a stub, and to start afresh. Surely there's others besides those two editors who care for cement. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hi there, For the final time, I am NOT Jono2013 - and finally the penny has dropped. Jono did all his edits in England didn't he? I am in Stockholm SWEDEN - yes? This is why I do not have a named account...

  Also, CI am hoping you can read my comments above to Aunva? And now I have looked at the history from May of last year, can you also declare whether you acted in as part of the blocking me or removing all the edits of Swedish Gold so that no record of his defense of Jono2013 remains? Now I have looked at the history, your role should be clearly stated because then I am hoping you can tell me why, given you are good at blocking bullies, as Aunva says, you did nothing but allow me to be bullied for more than a week? This is not a debate about the page. Nor my conduct when I have done nothing wrong. As I said to Aunva, I want to know how the heck was a bully allowed to pollute the talk page to such a degree and not only get away with it (despite a level 4 warning), but to such a degree that others not only believe that "editor's" BS, but also cause a change in the debate - so the focus is on me.

  This said, if you do think me being 'persistently bullied is not important, then maybe you should say so. But I must say, I take this bullying that I had to endure very seriously and hope you do too. So I want this debate focused on that. Because I am the one who has had to suffer it. Thanks 213.66.81.80 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • That other editor has been warned. The mudslinging comes from both sides. That you're from Stockholm doesn't mean you can't have a named account, and at any rate the Jono thing is immaterial to my argument: that this awful article is better off without the two of you. My focus is on the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

    Drmies it's fairly common for a sockpuppet (i.e. someone intentionally abusing multiple accounts) to make comments in reply to the other account with the intention I guess as you implied, to make it seem like they're different people. So I don't think the post on Jono's talk page means much other that proving that this is either intentional abuse of multiple accounts or they are different people. I.E. That it can't be appropriate use of multiple accounts. But editing the same article or article talk page already rules out the later anyway.

    In reply to the IP, the comment you quoted does sound bad in isolation, but without context I can't really say for sure that it is bad. That's why I said I needed diffs. If you don't know how to provide them, you really should have asked before posting a long list of complaints backed up by zero evidence thats easy for someone to review. Besides that, if you don't want to go digging up the evidence, you really should consider whether it's appropriate to make the claim. The simple fact is a serious accusation unsupport by evidence is always going to make you look bad. At the very least you could have provided some context like you have now (paraphrasing what was said and where you think it was said) which would give people an idea of what you're referring to and where to look for it.

    Energetically modified cement apparently has a strong Swedish connection but it doesn't sound like the sort of thing that everyone in Sweden is going to know or care about or that mostly people in Sweden are going to know or care about. (In other words, it's not like we're talking about Västerås here.) So if likely sockpuppets (based on behavioural evidence) have shown up in the past all coming from Sweden, it's probably a fair call to investigate more closely (but probably not automatically block all contributions from) new contributors who show up and fit that profile in the future. I wouldn't say it any different for people from Australia or the Los Angeles area (both of which have a higher population than Sweden) in some similar dispute.

    As for your claims about Jono, I don't see how we can know where they come from. As an account, no CU is ever going to confirm or deny whether the evidence supports their claims, and definitely not link the to any IP due to our privacy policy. So all we can know about is what they claim.

    Interestingly, if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jono2013/Archive, it was suggested by a CU that Jono2013 is between possible to likely the same as Swedish Gold. We obviously don't know what the actually evidence is (and at this late stage, it's unlikely the evidence is even still available). But even presuming the user agent and other details are exactly the same, it seems unlikely a CU is going to conclude that they are 'possible bordering likely' if the IP details suggest a completely different geographical area, unless they also have a reason to think that the IP details may not give the person's actual geographical location, e.g. a proxy may have been used. This would suggest either the IP details can't be trusted or one of the people either Jono or Swedish Gold even presuming they aren't sockpuppets, wasn't telling the truth about where they came from.

    On the whole though, I don't really know or care who's a sockpuppet of who. However I do agree with others that the talk page of that article is a real mess. And it sounds like you care a lot about this article and the subject. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, given the history here it's probably not a good idea you get too heavily involved at this early stage. There are surely many people articles related to chemistry and material science but mostly unrelated to this article that you could edit. Once you have learnt more how edit and interact with others, perhaps you can return to editing the article in question. (If you have no interest in editing anything but the article or stuff highly related, this suggests a WP:SPA. While SPAs are not intrinsicly bad nor banned, they don't generally last long in articles with a history of problems and contentious behaviour.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, its useful that Drmies brought that diff up -- I had lost track of where it was to be found, but I had remembered the comment when I read the SPI. Note that the IP makes his introductory comment on the talk page on May 27. However, ten days earlier on May 17, in the midst of the SPI, his personal knowledge of Jono2013 is intimate enough for him to be the one informing us that Jono has "collapsed" from the stress of being harassed and has been barred from continuing editing on Wikipedia by his wife and that "We are all appalled at the constant harassment of Jono2013 and the EMC Page." And that's really just the least of the evidence; between the article's talk page, the AfDs, the SPI and talk pages of other users, I can't imagine many experienced editors reading even a smattering of the pair's posts could walk away with anything but the impression that they are the same person -- it's pretty cut an dry. If nothing else, the CU's finding that they geolocate to the same area shows that the IP's insistence that the operate from separate countries is more than likely to be false. I don't want to belabour this point too much, because action has been taken and we should try to move foreward, but given the editor's past ambivalence to oversight, I think it bears noting just how long and consistent his efforts to confuse process have been whenever he's called out for inappropriate behaviour. He has pattern, repeated ad nauseum (and again, immediately obvious to anyone reviewing the course of his involvement in this project), of responding to criticism (of him or his content) with disparaging and vitriolic comments (read his last comment in AfD from near a year ago and then compare it to his more recent behaviour on Talk:Energetically modified cement to see just how little he has learned to control his temper and not take disagreement about his edits personally) and then crying "harrasment" whenever this beahviour catches up with him, trumping up the the most asinine claims. Take his most recent claims that he has been labelled as having a "national bias" -- no one made any such claims anywhere at the locations he's suggested; he's misrepresenting the fact that other editors were on guard for additional IP's bearing the exact profile as two identities he had already assumed, as noted in the SPI. Whether this is a case of a victim complex actually causing him the believe this ludicrous non-sequitor or whether he is simply trying to confuse the discussion is really a rather moot point -- his behaviour is, regardless, highly disruptive and uncivil and it has to stop. There was a comment in his SPI by an editor suggesting that he should admit to his sockpuppetry (presumably before having the ban lifted); had that approach been followed, he would have one less trick to fall back on the confuse the issue of his long-running antipathy towards proper process. If we don't do better this time around, we're just going to be back here again, because nowhere in this discussion (or any that I've reviewed), has he ever admitted to the least particle of fault in his caustic interactions with others - he's always the victim. That approach is clearly not going away until it is abundantly clear to him that he can't keep that up forever as a means of avoiding consequences for his combative attitude towards other editors who are doing nothing more than applying routine process. Snow (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)yeah, I saw that, although, from what I can see, 213.66.81.80's contributions to the article itself have been constructive, albeit the refs mostly point to one research organization, but he DOES have other sources. he just needs to not let stuff get under his skin, and he should take a look at WP:MOS. he's not that much different from any other new editor, which is what he really is. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'RESPONSE TO DRMIES

Excuse me....the "mudslinging" does NOT come from both sides. The record must not be distorted. I repeatedly said to ANGRY user I would not engage in abusive TLDRs, only then to get the same foul messages back - accusing me of LYING (in CAPS), of FAKE science (in CAPS), essentially being a fraud, being stupid for an entire week. It went on and on and on and on! And yes he was warned to level 4 in one step and I congratulate the admin who did this! But that was not you. I have been persistently bullied for a week - and you do nothing. YET the moment it comes to discuss this, you are promoting the idea that the page is deleted and that I am banned. And make a pejorative statement "awful article".

• As I said above, the EMC page has been put under the spotlight endlessly and the air poisoned beyond rational debate by an ANGRY user (he used that word in CAPS so many time) whose motivations are at the very least "questionable", bullied me to no end, whereas the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. When it has been made clear that no editor connected to EMC has contributed and that Ronin and LTU never supported the page.

• The reason why Snow has made his comments is because of the SPI that was imposed on me for supposed being a sockpuppet of Jono2013. There is not even a record of it on my page. In fact, at the time it was done in such a way that I could not even appeal it. And NOW you say --finally-- I am NOT a "sockpuppet" of Jono2013.

• I don't have a named account to prove I am in SWEDEN. But when I tried to report ANGRY user here? After finally thinking I understood how to do it, and typing my complaint, I hit the save page button, to then be informed that I had to have a NAMED account. Do you see how helpless I have been?

Drmies: I believe this summaries your posture regarding me being bullied: I was banned last year for 3 months with no prospect of appeal, for being Swedish, only now for it finally to be concede I am not a scokpuppet of Jono2013 who was British all along. My IP address was a visible then as it is now. Then when I am bullied persistently for a week, because of defending bogus accusations of FAKE science (in CAPs) time and time and time again, despite that fact no warning was ever issued to me over last weeks dreadful occurrences, whereas the ANGRY user got an immediate "level 4", you now suggest I am BANNED from editing the page. Is that about right? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

chill out, like I said, just forget about that IP user, and let others deal with it. if someone told you that you needed a registered account to report to AN/I, AFAIK, they are wrong. in fact, even when this page gets semiprotected, there is an alternate page, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed_posts. i suggest, that you be the better person, and let drmies and other editors deal with it. maybe you need to step back, and take a breather, do something else for a couple hours, and come back calmly. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Aunva for your kind post. I only want to make sure the record is preserved because I was the one who was bullied. I have been through the most horrible week imaginable and I cannot have it implied that I accept that I was mudslinging. Time and again I said I would not respond to TLDRS. Time and again bogus accusations were made. Every time I picked one of them, I got gobbledygook back and even more accusations. It was just relentless.

For example, the said ANGRY user made the assertion not that everything I had written was refutable, but that he demonstrably refuted it (there is an enormous distinction in forensic terms). To say one has "refuted" serious and credible science (let alone proven science), you must be able to demonstrate that. Not by endless gobbledygook, but by solid referenced articles. What this person has done is make to very serious allegations without ever backing it up, bullied me no end and so that there is no "insult to injury" I do not want this debate "morphed" into something that makes me look equally the aggressor.

I hope you see these words not as someone who is angry, but someone who is very concerned that a week of extremely vile and persistent bullying is not mis-categorized, so that the focus is shifted.

Thank you again for your kind words Auvna. I believe that any admin can show that Jono2013 only edited in England, and the idea that three old farts like me, Jono2013 and Swedish Gold using fancy technology to "cloak IPs" (per Nil Einne) when half the time I'm just trying to make sure my glasses dont fall off my nose as I type, is seen for what it is. I struggle with a lot of this but try my best. Not all of us were born with laptops dangling from the Christmas tree you know.... I remember when computers had punch cards :)

Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

well, it's not hard to figure out an ip address's ISP, and proxies are usually on commercial ISP's. keep in mind, we don't know who you actually are, this is the internet after all. all we know for sure is what you do here. I just try to Assume Good Faith, unless the editor in question demonstrates bad-faith actions. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that confirms how wet behind thums I am as I thought an IP in wikipedia stood for "internet protocol". It goes to show I don't know what an "IP" stands for on Wikipedia, I just see a lot people using it here and assumed it meant "internet protocol". Again, your greater knowledge causes my red ears... and yes, if by your comment, you mean the quality of my substantive edits, that much is I hope clear. I have always been very precise in my writing substantives which is why my editing on the page is so like a snail. But i do not assert unless there is a reference. The section I wrote last week on tribochemisrty was difficult because it is very heuristic and, as such, based on observable effects rather than provable causes. But I stand by my edits because the SINTEF report I referenced is clear. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

well, there is such a thing as being too detailed, or not having a balance of detail. you ned to remember that we're writing for the general public, not as much experts in the associated fields. and yeah, we refer to editors without a registered account as "IP editors" or IP's. you'll get the hang of things, even I am still learning new things, and I think the same goes for even jimbo, and he founded this place. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

this is a very interesting point. Wikipedia has very detailed articles in science which is way beyond "general public" level. Look at some of the wonderful pages on maths, chemistry, etc. So this has what has always puzzled me. Because it is clear, Wikipedia has a very serious side.

So this is what I tried to do: balance the need to show that the article is writing by someone who knows his sciences, and also try to contextualize the information imparted. The difficulty with "contextualization" is that it can be seen a "promotional" in my view. Because if I say 4.5 million cubic yards of concrete, well I would not expect you to know what that means. But if I said to you that is more than the entire Hoover dam plus also of its associated slipways and access roads etc., you then have a "mind's eye" contextualization - yes? So you learn two facts - one that 4.5 million cu.yds are cast in TXDOT projects and also that the hoover dam etc was (in your minds eye) somewhere in that region of volume. Now, that simple contextualization can then being interpreted as "promotional" for those editing Wikipedia who are "hyper sensitive" to this aspect. But I don't see it that way, rather I think contextualization aids the teaching process which is what a good encyclopedia should do. In other words, it should explain and educate and not just "state". 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It is more then contextualizing the information that has caused the issue. The style and tone are both very promotional. The consensus was that it was promotional. Both IPs seem to be there to push agendas. Both are more then happy to claim they are not but say the other clearly is. The promotional wording makes editors immediately jump the the conclusion that the page it crap. The opening a week ago was bad enough to make me not want to delve into it and the contention on the talk page made me confident that all edits would be regarded by one of the two IPs as disparaging something. Other clearly agreed as it ended up here. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There's certainly no doubt that the two of them worked themselves and eachother into a frenzy with accusations of unmitigated bias without any sense of the irony at play. However, I think it needs to be said in User:71.33.155.41( Aka, "Uncle Karl")'s defense, for all of his bombastic approach before hand, he has, since the involvement of Dmries, acquiesced to calls for a calmer, more civil, and less-personalized debate. He's made but one posting since, has kept his comments focused on matters of policy and not directed at other parties, and has even made huge changes in how he formats his posts for the sake of making them easier to read to other editors. I don't think it's fair, at this point, to consider him an equal contributor to the continuing issues there. In that respect, the IPs are polar opposites in how they have responded to community involvement in their spat. Mind you, he is probably comforted by knowing his perspective is closer to the consensus as regards issues of sourcing and NPOV, but that can hardly be held against him and it doesn't in the least alter how striking the disparity is between how he has responded to feedback and how the other IP has. Snow (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You know that is self serving rubbish. Very promotional? You want to see "VERY promotional" go to the Geopolymer_cement page, which by comparison is extremely "promotional" and written by Professor Davidovits (the main proponent of geopolymers) remains. I simply tried to cope with multiple attacks and accusations of FAKE science. And that is as simple as it is, despite my spending time to answer your questions? Have you seen the page now, 22,000 bytes erased in 2 minutes. Without discussion. And you reverted Aunva's edits.

I think the page should be deleted 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

He has now added deleting the talk contributions of other editors when they are critical of him to his repertoire. Snow (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I removed your deliberately flaming words which comprised words I find unacceptable in advancing a debate. Your words to me including "digging of graves" were not only sinister but uncivil. I am asking you to stop flaming. But since you reverted it, it is obvious you intended it. So what can I do? 01:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A warning about uncivil behaviour on an article that an admin just hours ago suggested you avoid, and the discussion of polices relevant to that situation, amongst others, is not in any sense "flaming". Nor are you empowered to remove the talk page contributions of other editors. As to "digging your own grave", that is a common English idiom; it means simply that you are working against your own interests. It has no sinister connotations whatsoever -- it is used when you are suggesting someone is acting as their own biggest liability. Normally I pass on comment of such issues non-native English speakers on such a matter, but I don't really think this is a comprehension issue for you --is it?-- and I'll not have you turn this into the newest entry in your habitual efforts to cast yourself as the victim on the most asinine of pretexts after being called out for uncivil behaviour. That behaviour is well-catalogued at this point as well and if you think these histrionics and hyperbole are going to cover you from scrutiny as regards your ongoing habit to denigrate every editor who disagrees with you in the slightest, I think you're shortly in for a surprise. Snow (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

proposal: topic ban

Having seen nothing to convince me of voluntary positive outcomes: I propose a 1 year ban on topics related to cement for 213.66.81.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.33.155.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, of course we will have to wait to see what the admins think is appropriate in the circumstances, but I'll make no secret of the fact that I doubt 213.66.81.80 will ever desist in his uncivil allegations against other editors on the talk page short of such a move. Having reviewed scores of his discussion postings the last couple of days, I can say that I did not see a single incident of another editor being on the opposite side of an issue from him that he did not take the difference of opinion to a personal, uncivil, derogatory place. He will clearly continue to obstruct any efforts he disagrees with and caste them in the light of being the result of nefarious ulterior motives and harassment focused on him, regardless of consensus or policy. He lacks the rudimentary patience, civility, restraint, and respect for his fellow contributors to contribute in a non-disruptive fashion. In short, he is a textbook bad-faith contributor; if I were overseeing admin, I'd block him indefinitely from the entirety of the project; he's certainly given little enough reason to believe he has any interest in learning policy and adapting his approach to apply the community's standards before his own in even the smallest or most centrally important of ways.
• 71.33.155.41 is, I believe, another matter. I think he has sufficiently rehabilitated his approach to the point where he should be given the benefit of the doubt for the present time. Since Drmies' warning, I believe he is genuinely trying to take policies that have been quoted to him into account, he has slowed and tempered his commentary markedly and has avoided personalized arguments.

On a final note - Good golly. Snow (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban on topics related to cement for 213.66.81.80 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban on topics related to cement for 71.33.155.41 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban on cement topics for 213 IP. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both. unfortunately, 213 hhas not really gotten the message, and even seems to have a WP:OWN attitude towards the article. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for 213. Editor has shown a lack of understanding of his actions causing disruption and seems to believe that it is other people whom are causing the problems. XFEM Skier (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both 71.33.155.41 and 213.66.81.80. Their interminable arguments are severely disrupting the article talk page. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

213.66.81.80's response to proposal

• Comment: Under no circumstances have I attacked anyone. I have stated clearly that I will do all I can to aid on technical details. The one thing I am not interested in is taking a serious discussion about substance into a "side show" of personality. The only persno to my knowledge since this was placed here, who has made a number of accusations, is SNOW. I have repeatedly said, I will not get drawn into these. I also at the time said of user 71, that I would not respond to abusive TLDRS accusing me of lying, being a faud, of fake science and that the science was not merely refutable, but refuted. SNOW has shown time and again that despite my endeavors to keep matters on the substantives, that instead, the debate should be moved into my meeting his admonishments. I have not responded to SNOW at all in the hope he will moderate. In fact, if you add up the text, he has written probably 10 time more against me that I have ever said in response.

• But now, when a user (who for the record, claims expertise, and I am not here to doubt that, but merely check that I did understand him correctly) makes a statement that is factually wrong, the next step seems this. Although I am not going to respond to SNOWS comments, I have added technical knowledge to ensure accuracy.

• For example, my (latest) substantive exchange with XFM SKier [here] show this. Do I criticize him for getting things wrong? No. I simply said "I beg your pardon" and placed the facts before his eyes with a reference. I said nothing more. I am not here to "make foolish" anyone. I am simply ensuring that the required expertise is brought on key technical considerations that others have raised. I even start my post with the words "Sorry this is long, but I am trying to meet your comments."

• As another example, when XFM Skier asked another question, I responded even with the words "I hope this is helpful, Kind regards" ([here])

• I accept there is debate. And welcome it. And I accept there a difference in points of view on substantives. But re 71. you only have to see his talk page User_talk:71.33.155.41 to see that he received an immediate level 4 warning and yet all of my responses were civil, but on the strict understanding I was not going to respond to his multiple abusive TLDRs. You only have to look at the collapsed section of the talk page to see how abusive he was. By contrast, during his persistent attacks, I did not receive any warning at all 213.66.81.80 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As the user you are referring to I feel like I have to weigh in that your statements of our interactions. I feel like your take on them are fabrications in order to avoid this ban. First I never claimed to be an expert on the topic simply claimed that I had more experience then the target audience, have degrees in related fields. One of the first interchanges [1] no major offense but made sure to belittle me a little to make everyone know who was smarter and the expert, it continues here [2] and ending with this one [3]. In general I don't care but to characterize them as you did above is just not the way I see them or for that matter other editors (user:Snow Rise) [4]. Note also that 218 likes deleting comments on talk pages. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say, all the exchanges I referenced, and the ones you referenced, were made without me knowing about this. I was not informed on my talk page of this and only responded when I read (this afternoon Swedish time) TRPoD's message to me on the subject-matter talk page. Regarding deleting comments on Talk page, I thought one could do so, and if not the case, then it is complete ignoramus on my part, and it was during the period of prolonged and sustained allegations of being a liar and a fraud and fake science etc by user 71, (which like I said, I did not get one warning for because I refused to be drawn into his abusive TLDRS). But I would be a liar to say that I was not stressed, but even then, as your references show, even during the storm of this prolonged attack by user 71 (which had been going on by then for a week), nevertheless in answering your substantive points, I was entirely civil to you. I said to you if you had an further questions just to let me know - because frankly I was, by then, "gasping" for the "oxygen" of a decent discussion. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave some serious thought to making a solid block posting composed solely of enumerated difs for scores of the above editor's abusive comments towards other editors, made upon zero provocation than that they questioned some source or claim being made in the article. After spending some time over the last couple of days reviewing his actions over the last year, I know that can be done, and I thought perhaps it might help to illustrate the disparity between how he is presenting his actions and how they have played out during his efforts to preserve the article in the state he prefers, especially as regards these comments:

• "Under no circumstances have I attacked anyone."
• "I accept there is debate. And welcome it."

But the truth is, I have hard time defending that as a productive use of time for any editor. Besides, it's clear that he is now trying to leverage my involvement by casting me as the latest in his long line of boogeymen "harrassers", so I'll keep this as short as I can under the circumstances as an attempt to starve that contrivance of oxygen. In any event, any editor who wishes to investigate the veracity of his most recent assertions and accusations can find all of the information they need on the following handful of pages, without much need for specific versions or difs:

• First there is the SPI establishing that IP 213.66.81.80, Swedish Gold, and possibly a number of other IP's involved in the article are all socks of Jono2013
• The Talk page for Energetically modified cement
• The article's first AfD
• The second AfD,
• User contributions in User-talk spaces for Jono2013 and 213.66.81.80; for the sake of space here, I decided not to pull out multiple specific incidents from these revisions but even short searches through them should turn up plenty of instances of the editor in question making uncivil and combative comments on user talk pages similar to those made the article talk page and AfDs above.

Finally, I'll speak to a few of your points directly, 213. Why would I have a personal issue with, and cause to attack, you? I only came to that article as a result of this very ANI. I had, and continue to have, no particularly strong opinions on the subject of industrial cement. The only person who is making these discussions about your personality is you. Aside from the other IP, who has been admonished, you haven't been called out by any other editor except for the purposes of reminding you to keep your comments confined to policy and avoid making arguments based on your perceptions of the knowledge, character, or motives of other editors, as well as other uncivil behaviour which you seem to feel your creation of the article and interest in the subject entitle you to. Though to be fair, every editor involved there has had to do that a time or two. In fact, perhaps the above links would serve you better than anyone --if in fact you believe you are the victim here-- to go back over your exchanges and see just consistently this has been your response to the involvement of other editors when their opinions conflict with your own in the slightest. How do you reconcile your opinion of how you operate here and your assertion that you are being set-upon with the fact that immediately above, every involved editor who has been polled --including those who, like me, initially reached out to you and tried to defuse the situation-- supports a topic ban for you as the best way of salvaging the article and sheltering other contributors there from your behaviour? People are lining up around the block to comment on your behaviour, and it's no wonder - for nearly a year now, you have gotten away with behaviour that gets most users banned within days. You are not being admonished because we get our kicks out of spending our valuable and limited time on this project making you miserable about your article (which, as Aunva6 points out, you seem to think you own), but because you refuse to try to understand WP:Civility, amongst other pillar policies of this community, because you refuse to respect the other contributors here and the process by which we operate. Your problems with other users here do not ultimately arise from the fact that they are agents of the cement industry or they want to break you down, or any of the other fantastical theories you have suggested -- it's mostly because of the condescending, confrontational way you treat people and your insistence on having everything exactly your way. I don't know, maybe you are an academic, maybe not. But one thing you are definitely not is at the podium of a lecture hall when working on this project. You are amongst peers. Act like it and you might find you are having a very different experience here. Snow (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Look I do not know why you are laboring all of this but for the last and final time, I am not and never have been Jono2013. I live in Sweden and am Swedish. Jono2013 lived/lives (I hope he's is not dead) in England. I have not heard from Jono2013 since Early may of last year. I understand he collapsed because of the extreme stress brought on by the AfD. He went through 2 of them in a week. And he took it badly. I have only revived an email from a relative last summer, telling me his wife had banned him from having anything to to with this ever again. And from what I can tell, he has never returned. And that is all I know. I have not been to England for 12 years. My work is far East or US and recently a little in Africa. I have a much deeper knowledge of material science since than Jono2013 because that is where I made my money in California many years ago and now I consult for a living. Jono2013 was at least 10 years older than me. And yes, we met in Stockholm. I have never made a secret of this. I have said, I do not want to be involved in personalizing matters. I ask you to have in mind that I suffered a long prolonged attack for a week and I do not want any type of engagement like that -- especially when I am preparing for a business trip and therefore all things considered, I have devoted my remaining time to pointing out observations on the substantives. I have not told XFM skier "how to think" or "you must be crazy" or made any such comments.

I have NEVER been admonished for my behavior. Further, I have asked for collaboration several times. I have a very high regard for user:FeydHuxtable as my talk page shows. I also have a very high regard for a whole number of editors on Wkipedia --- especially the one's who "blow my head" with their knowledge of tricky difficult subjects. That is what I liked about Jono2013. He had a first class mind. And he contacted me because he had been pestering Ronin for a couple of years to write a page on here because there was a small article that was incorrect. Ronin and I know each other from years back, strictly professional, but he lives 100 Swedish miles (1000 kms) north from me and we have not seen each other for maybe 6 years - maybe more. Jono2013 emailed me having been given my address from Ronin. Jono2013 came to Stockholm and we spent a few days together --- old farts talking crap together but also talking science. We started the page, and he then went to England and I had no more to do with it until late September of last year. I never made any secret of this because there is no "shame" to it. When all hell broke loose over the AfDs I was in Singapore - I knew nothing about most of it but managed to make a contribution when I got back to Stockholm. Like I say, I knew nothing about any of it till I took a look at how the page was coming along and then saw the AfD which completely shocked me. So I posted a comment but I made an error because I was completely novice to state I had written a very small part right at the beginning. It was an honest mistake and one which I never hid at the time and do not hide now. To explain:

• Since September, I have added only certain sections to the page - largely response to comments made on the talk page: EMC Activation, I expanded with reference to patent and tribochemistry (the last part last week -- but it is all erased anyhow). Section on pozzolanic concrete chemistry, I completely wrote, including the reference to Hagia Sofia. Section on the historical significance of the California results, I wrote. The references to Lord Stern giving 2 lectures about EMCs (including the Robb lecture) I wrote (that has been erased too). I added bits here and there maybe, but largely that is it.

• I have only ever written on that page. Except to correct an entry about the Swedish Rock singer Tommy Nilsson, who is my next door neighbor ---- and I simply corrected some grammar on that. That's all. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's rather odd, given that the check-user at the time of SPI seems to have shown that Jono geolocated to Sweden, along with Swedish Gold (unsurprisingly). There's also the fact that you and Jono have an identical and highly distinctive posting style that is full of idiosyncrasies. You both post extremely long messages composed of short paragraphs of a few sentences each with a header and foot sections at end and long lists of bulleted points in-between. You both use ALL CAPS words interspersed with regular typography, when REALLY want to drive a point HOME, but only EVER in posts responding to when someone has CHALLENGED YOU. I'll let the editors here compare your texts throughout this ANI with those Jono in the first AfD and the article talk page. Most importantly of all, whenever anyone has ever (and I mean ever) dared to question your interpretation of a source or a matter of content, you both fly off the handle in the exact same way, questioning the credentials of the other editor and their right to second guess you. Let's look at Jono's response to someone in the second AfD:

" Excuse me???? WHERE is it promotional? It is discussing the phenomenon in a manner which is substantiated by over 50 journal entries spanning 20 years. Dont just use words, justify them. The journal entries you mention are just two of them, and are listed in the references. You've not written ONE scientific article let alone have any background in what is a highly specialized and rarefied discipline. Have you even read the talk page of the article? For godsake."'

And here's you yesterday, on the article talk page:

"XFM Skier: What do you mean "fantastic claims"? Will you curb pejorative language? 4.5 MILLION cubic yards for TXDOT? I spent an hour writing to you last week. I thought you said you were an expert???? How can you possibly use a pejorative term like "fantastic" when 4.5 million have been cast in spec for a formal DOT? Do you understand the meaning of the word "in spec"? Have you EVER worked on a real U.S. civil engineering project ?"

Taking all of those evidence together, combined with the timing of your posts and Jono's, your shared aims, claims of expertise, locations, and a whole bevy of other converging factors, it's pretty clear that you are the same person. In matters of sockpuppetry, this is called the duck test. And you quack very loudly indeed, my friend. And if somehow you weren't the same person, it would be a clear case of meatpuppetry --which amounts to the same thing-- since your arrived on this IP account in time to support and repeat every element of his argument on the second AfD. But I tell you what, how about I request another checkuser and see if you geolocate to the same place that Jono did, just to put to rest which it is once and for all?

On a side note, please stop outdenting every one of your many posts. This feature is meant to be used sparingly in cases where the postings have become exceptionally narrow. The way you use it constantly in unnecessary situations is causing the posts of other editors to seem to respond to messages that they were not intended to respond to. Indenting is an important feature to allow others to follow the flow and chronology of a discussion more easily, and you are disrupting that function.Snow (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To say you have never been admonished, for your behavior seems consistent with your behaviour here, in which many have done you wrong but you have never done anyone wrong, and represents a reality that is different then the one percieved by the vast majority of editors here. It has hard to assume that your percieved reality is in good faith when you have shown clear lack of caring about what other editors think and say. There are numerous instances of people telling you to be civil both on this page and on the talk page in question. While maybe people should have given you more direct warnings on your talk page, it is obvious that you have seen these warning, because you even removed one that you did not like. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Request filed at SPI

I have made a request at SPI to re-open the case for User:Jono2013 so we can hopefully determine the nature of the link between that user and IP 213 more definitively. I encourage editors involved here to take a look at it, as it has details I think are germane to this discussion. Needless to say, if you have evidence to present one way or another, please provide them in the comments there. Snow (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you persist?

• If I was a sock-puppet of Jono2013, why would I wait until end of September before I made my first edit, when Jono2013 was banned for a ONE week only on 21 May?

• Jono2013 disappeared and never returned. His last edit was the 7 May. Check the record his ban was TWO WEEKS later. He never appealed it.

• for the last final time I am SWEDISH and live in STOCKHOLM 2000 kms away from LONDON as the plane flies. My next door neighbor is the Swedish Rock star Tommy Nilsson --- and that is why that is the only other edit I have ever made on this "project" as you call it. See final point I made immediately above.

I have said it this "project" before - we have a word in Sweden difficult to translate into English: LAGOM.

ps you say User Jono2013 "geolocated to Sweden". Impossible. You are reading what you want to see.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

why would I wait until end of September before I made my first edit, when Jono2013 was banned for a ONE week only on 21 May? - There are a number of reasons for waiting. The length of time from May to September (5 months) is convenient for technical reasons I'd rather not expand on. Also, it's common to observe long periods of inactivity for people who use sockpuppets (sometimes a year or more). It could be because they get bored before getting a renewed interest, it could be because personal matters keep them busy, it could be that there was another sockpuppet used in the interval that we're unaware of. I've seen editors leave in a huff when they receive a short block, just to return a long time later with a different account in an effort to avoid scrutiny. Suffice to say that it's not really something that makes the possibility any less likely. -- Atama頭 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme and BLP violations

User:Atsme appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to defaming users and subjects she or he disagrees with and promoting those with which he does agree, specifically on the subject of Islam. He or she has repeatedly posted BLP violations and conspiracy theories, the latter exemplified by his or her recent claim to have filed for mediation on the grounds of TAGTEAMING (the evidence for this being that more than one user disagrees with him or her, so clearly it's a TAGTEAM). I warned him/her about this behavior, but the user waved it off and today posted another such BLP violation with regard to the alleged affiliations of a living person, which I will not repeat the substance of here because, you know, BLP. [5] A block seems like the only way to get this user to take policy seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she is a SPA. I think that she really just doesn't understand policy. While she has ignored you I think she is expcting more of a hierarchical structure. Pretty much she exibits the behavoir of new users. Before any kind of a topic ban I'd really like to see an univolved party just peek in. Maybe this situation can be fixed without penalty. And even if it is address with penalty an attempt to amek it very clear why should be made.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps mentorship might aid, if she truly does not know policy and doesn't really know that she's going against it as you say. KonveyorBelt 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if she doesn't understand policy she needs to be willing to defer to people who do. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I could be absolutely wrong. But I think she is expecting some type of hierarchical structure here. Maybe she might defer to someone uninvolved. They can try to help address her concerns in a way she can understand. Ignorance can only be a defense for so long. But I think if you topic ban her then that will do nothing. I'm not sure she will really understand why she got banned. That's an invitation to do the same thing elsewhere.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

She's irritating but she's not disruptive. She's trying hard after her manner. I, for one, hope that that's the worst that can be said of me. I don't see any grounds for sanctions against her and I don't see that it'd help anything either. She's not a SPA, she's just interested in Islamic extremism right now. A couple years ago she was interested in fish and had the same kind of issues. No harm, no foul, says I.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You just made some pretty bold accusations against me, Roscelese. FYI - I'm a she. About your warning - I did respond to you, and asked what you were talking about, and I also asked who you were. Here is the page for all to see.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&oldid=598929217 You never responded, so I removed it from my Talk page. I have not posted any BLP violations. What you're doing now is making groundless allegations against me, and I happen to be a living person. I probably should have brought your warning to ANI the minute I received it, but I didn't want to bother admins with something so petty. I have not once defamed any users, or subjects, or repeatedly posted conspiracy theories. As for WP:TAGTEAM, don't you think maybe the prior warning you posted on my Talk page and then ignored my questions, and now your groundless accusations here might explain some of my concerns? Are you doing this to me because I opposed the Islamophobia template on IPT, and you support it? I've had little to no prior dealings with you, yet here you are making all these groundless accusations against me. Unbelievable. You aren't even one of the editors I've worked with, so why are you even involving yourself with me? The editors I've worked with, and consider my mentors are User:SerialJoepsycho and User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. They've been pretty demanding of my edits, and it sometimes felt like they were teaming up on me, but we always managed to work through it. They've taught me a lot, and I admire what they've done as editors, so don't think for one minute I don't appreciate their patience and understanding. I can even understand why Alf would think I'm irritating, and I'm sure he can understand why I might get that way at times. Serialjoepsycho has also been very patient, understanding, and helpful. He even gave me advice on how to file for mediation, and even arbitration. Now that's pretty special in my book. I don't think I filed for mediation properly, but it doesn't matter. We're working through the article, and they've both been quite helpful, although still very demanding. I have no ill-will toward anyone, and I am certainly not a SPA, and I would never intentionally violate WP policy, so please stop trying to get me blocked because of groundless allegations. Shame on you. Atsme ☯ talk 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhhhh this "you are violating BLP by disagreeing with my editing and you're lucky I didn't report you for warning me" is not the sort of thing we hear from a constructive user. I hope the adoption goes well, but like I said, you can only claim ignorance for so long. You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: Perhaps this can just be attributed to a miscommunication. However it would be a stretch to call this completely groundless. There is a question of your behavoir. Consider not being offended about that for a moment. I think me and @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: feel you are really trying here and putting forth alot of effort. I don't wish to put words in her mouth but I think @Roscelese: is kind of just looking for that effort. I'm not your mentor. Maybe Alf wouldn't mind that but you should talk to him first. If not however I do have to suggest that you consider @Konveyor Belt:s suggestion in that you do seek mentorship. Unless I'm mistaken you can find out more here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:Thank you. I just visited the Adopt-a-user/ page, and requested adoption. Atsme ☯ talk 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Another bold statement from Roscelese: You are pretty damn lucky that your repeated BLP violations haven't got you blocked. Hopefully, an admin can explain what I have done to deserve such language, and treatment? Will someone please provide a link to the purported "BLP violation"? My understanding of BLP is that if a statement is true, and properly sourced it can be included. Do indictments and a plea of guilty that is directly related to the quote not fall under that category? Is it not clear right here on ANI that Roscelese is threatening me? My behavior may be "persistent in learning" which some may classify as "irritable", but it has never been to the degree that I've used profanity in a threat to anyone, and yet I am the one under the looking glass being threatened now. How could an editor who is consistently being attacked and disrupted in such a way not be concerned? Atsme ☯ talk 15:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's linked in the post and I warned you about similar comments earlier. Your comment about indictments is meaningless. ANI process is not a "threat," and you need to stop letting your paranoia overcome whatever willingness to edit collaboratively you might ever have had. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese failed to present a single diff in support of her accusations that Atsme is engaging in BLP violations. I've seen Atsme in dispute before and there were no cases of BLP violations visible. So I'd suggest Roscelese retracts her accusation or backs it up. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided a diff in my original post. Either you didn't read it carefully, or you are unaware that the BLP policy applies to all namespaces - you can't make unsupported controversial claims about living people in talk space, user space, or anywhere. Now you know! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, the information in the diff link is not specific to your claim that I violated BLP policy. Are you referring to the quote from CAP, or are you referring to my question to you when you called Front Page Magazine a "fringe source"? There was no comment from you anywhere during that discussion that I violated BLP policy. Your comment was about NPOV. If I violated BLP, why did you not say something right then and there, and why are you being so evasive now? We don't know what you're referencing, and your blanket answer about BLP policy doesn't point out any violation specifically by me. Please be more specific. When you came to the ANI with a complaint about me to the point that you used profanity in a threatening manner, and flat out accused me of a BLP violation, and being a SPA, you should be able to back up your statements with direct links and factual information. You have failed to do that at this point. I think it is important in a claim such as this one that you be more specific about the charges you've brought against me. Atsme ☯ talk 21:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: The BLP violation is when you claimed that the report was written by people with ties to an organization considered by multiple governments to be a terrorist organization. That's a pretty serious allegation to make when not backed up by a reliable source, which is what our BLP policy does not allow you to do. -- Atama頭 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:, thank you for the information. The source I used is ranked in the top 10 of conservative magazines, which is a higher ranked source than the local newspaper that was used as a secondary source for the CAP report. If you'll look at the diff link, there is no mention of a BLP violation, only NPOV. I am inclined to believe there was no mention of a BLP violation at the time because there was no BLP violation. Had it been mentioned to me beforehand, I could have provided additional reliable sources. Atsme ☯ talk 23:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the BLP violation is Atsme saying that the CAP folks who wrote Fear Inc are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Nation was quite dismissive of this kind of reaction, calling it "near-cartoonish". If Atsme wants to reduce the scholarship of Fear Inc she will have to find some other method. Defaming the CAP people is not the way forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Atsme, since you ask above for an admin to explain what you have done to deserve such "language" (the use of the "profanity" "pretty damn lucky", really?) and "treatment" from Roscelese, I'll try. What you did to provoke Roscelese's response above was to invoke WP:BLP in regard to Roscelese criticizing your editing, because you, Atsme, are a living person. That shows an extremely poor understanding of the policy. Do you believe Roscelese should only be allowed to criticize the editing of dead users..? Also, may I ask what you meant by asking Roscelese who she is? You mentioned that question above as if you're proud of it, and expressed resentment that she didn't answer it. "Roscelese" is the account name of an anonymous person, and it's none of your business who she is. (If you meant "Who are you on Wikipedia", in the sense of "If you're not an admin you can't tell me stuff", then that would also be in appropriate. You need to learn from experienced users, whether they're admins or not.)
• @Serialjoepsycho, I agree with you that Atsme "really just doesn't understand policy", but in my opinion she's running out of excuses to exhibit what you call "the behavior of new users". She's been editing here since 2011 (with large gaps, granted, and unfortunately I can't give the number of her edits, as X!'s tools seem to be down). I've been following her editing for a while — it's been substantial in 2014 — and have seen her receive a lot of good advice and information about how to edit Wikipedia properly, which seems to have bounced right off. I believe it may be time to bring WP:CIR into play. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I'm just pointing out my insights here. It maybe time to play wp:CIR. But all I'm saying is if any otherway to handle this then that should be done first. If this wake up call here doesn't work then throw the book. Atsme is considering alot of the advice here. Such as to getting some help from a mentor.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen:It appears you may have misunderstood me, so please allow me to explain. You said in regard to Roscelese criticizing your editing, because you, Atsme, are a living person. That shows an extremely poor understanding of the policy. When I said I was a living person, I meant that I didn't deserve the profanity and the threat from Roscelese anymore than any other living person. I am a human being, not a static computer page. I understand BLP, and I felt those same guidelines should also apply to editors posting about other editors. It's common courtesy. With regards to my comment about the Muslim Brotherhood and the CAP report, it is extremely important for any Admin evaluating this case to understand how it came to be rather than evaluating this case on a simple diff link that Roscelese included in an attempt to get me blocked. To see what work I've done, please compare the following before and after links: Before and After. And that is after half of my edits had been reverted, or deleted for reasons I felt were not solidly backed up by policy.

The sources I cited were as reliable as the CAP report, if not more so. I will simply point out what one of the editors who was collaborating on the project stated: Originally I was just going to move it into the "Funding" section under the CAP report material, but as I was checking the sources I realized that much of this material is problematic, both intrinsically and in relation to this article. I'm not opposed to doing to doing something with it in this article, but it's not clear what. Level three subsections follow.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC) And that was the same editor who originally included the CAP report, and had second thoughts after I disputed it. We both knew we were dealing with controversial subjects, but I certainly did not intentionally violate WP:BLP policy. I acted in good faith, the points I've made are valid, and were backed up with WP policy quotes. It's easy for those who want someone removed to say the opposite, but all an admin has to do is look at the edit history. I may not fully understand the technical aspects of editing, but I am not incompetent, or disruptive. I am the only one who has added most of the positive substance to that article. It was a stub before I started editing, and that should speak volumes about this ANI complaint. Atsme ☯ talk 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:You've added a considerable amount to the article but the quality of your edits are in question. Welcome to Wikipedia. Be bold. If we revert it you can go to the talk page and discuss it. You say your sources are golden. Others have questioned that. I also have to question if you are understanding what people are saying here. I understand you defending yourself but I don't really see that you understand that people are calling your behavoir into question. Not just your noobishness but your overall behavoir.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

When did it become a WP violation or behavioral issue to ask questions when one's edits are constantly being reverted or altered? I was told after the first few reverts to take my edit proposals to the Talk page first, but the others were free to edit at will. I wasn't edit warring, vandalizing, hounding, harassing, using profanity, or being impolite. I was simply editing, and still managed to add another 50% to the article despite all the reverts and deletions of my work. User:Roscelese and User:Serialjoepsycho have done very little in the way of editing on the IPT article, and yet they are here criticizing me with groundless claims. I took the article from being a neglected stub to being halfway decent in spite of all the disruptions I was forced to endure by all the hounding. The edit history for both IPT and the Talk page will tell the true story. The sources I used are being used by editors all over WP, and they are reliable according to policy. The article was slowly coming together, but I'm worn down from the constant hounding of these same editors over and over again. They are following me wherever I go. The sad part is that it has disrupted my ability to edit and improve a WP article. It's just plain discouraging. I seriously doubt there will be further improvements made to the article now. My edits are being whittled away little by little, and soon there will be nothing left. The edit history will show that pattern, too. User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah mentioned a while back on the Talk page that he thought IPT was nothing more than a front for Emerson, and that it should be redirected. Well, I just posted a question on the talk page about redirecting it, so we'll see what happens. My guess is that the article will once again become a stub placeholder for the Islamphobia template. No one else will want to work on it under this kind of pressure. In retrospect, the IPT article was probably never going to grow into anything while there are still editors using Islamophobia templates. Again, the edit history tells the story. If this discussion results in admins wanting to punish me for trying to be a good editor, then so be it. I only ask that you please review the edit history of the IPT article, and the Talk page before making any judgements. Thank you. Atsme ☯ talk 09:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm done. @Atsme:I'm following you everywhere? I've been on two articles that you've been on. On Anjem Choudary was the first. There on the talk page you bring up the IPT page well before I ever posted on IPT. You got a 36 hour block from the Anjem Choudary for your behavoir. Seems similar to the behavoir on IPT. My claims are groundless? Ok fine. I redact everything I've said here.

Please don't take ANYTHING I've said into account when making a decision about Atsme, since it's all groundless.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The block went to both editors for edit warring, and the other editor was reprimanded for name calling. You knew that when you made yet another attempt to make me look incompetent. The changes I attempted to make for Anjem Choudary eventually happened by other editors who agreed with the points I made, and the facts are on that Talk page as well, but that isn't the issue here. It appears that whenever a new or inexperienced editor first comes onto the scene, and tries to improve an article, they tend to make mistakes. That's normal. Every editor who is reading this paragraph has either experienced it themselves, or they've seen it happen to others. I learned my lesson about edit warring, and I have not been guilty of it since, but it appears it will haunt me for the rest of my WP life. The only thing I'm guilty of now is trying to do a good job editing. From March 1st until today, I have been accused of crazy things that are far from the truth, ranging from being called a racist and a bigot to being called an SPA, and noobish, whatever the latter means. I certainly hope the admins realize that I am not incompetent, that I did follow policy, and in the few places I may have misunderstood a policy, my edit was quickly corrected. Perhaps it was a mistake to try to defend myself in this forum. I don't fully understand why a few editors are now trying to make it appear as though I've done something terribly wrong. There's only one reason I can think of for all the effort that's being put into getting me blocked - I made the fatal mistake of trying to get the Islamophobia template removed from the IPT article, and from Wikipedia in general. Of course that debate is still ongoing. I won't even attempt to defend myself anymore. I apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings, or irritated anyone, or if my "noobishness" violated policy. Please rest assured, it was not intentional. My intentions have always been in good faith, but a person can take just so much before they are forced to speak up in defense of themselves. I just wanted to do a good job making the stub articles GA, and stagnant articles come back to life with updates. I've since learned about stewardship, and what now appears to be guardianship. Again, the edit history and talk pages are where the true and relevant facts can be found. Atsme ☯ talk 17:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thus far the meat of this thread boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page. What administrator action is being sought, and on what grounds? See WP:GRA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said in my original post, I am requesting a block on the basis of Atsme's continued posting of BLP violations after being warned. BLP also applies on talk pages, in case you didn't know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:GRA (I wikilinked it but I guess you didn't read it?): When you say that you or another user did something on Wikipedia, always include a diff of that edit. This allows others to quickly check for themselves what happened. You should include the date and time as part of the diff, unless the timing is not relevant to your request.

Don't worry if there actually have been any BLP violations! Administrators are able to revdel unambiguous BLP violations, but also, if you include diffs, they can still see any BLP violations for which you include diffs. Administrators will then be able to make a decision on the merits of the evidence you provide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a diff provided for the BLP violation she is talking about and a diff for the warning she gave Atsme. Are you asking for diffs that show other BLP violations like the one that caused her to give Atsme that warning?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, thus far the meat of this thread boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What you call "discussing sources" is Atsme deciding that a source isn't usable because of an unsourced alleged terrorist affiliation of one of its authors. As I said, BLP violations are not acceptable in any namespace. You don't get a free pass on calling a living person a terrorist because you did it on a talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The only one who has even mentioned the word "terrorist" is Roscelese in her frivolous attempt to get me blocked. Does that warrant blocking her? It is not against WP policy to discuss different organizations, and their reliably sourced ties, links, or connections. I have ties to FB because I have a FB page. Ok, so what does that mean? I don't run their organization, and their organization doesn't run me. Would I be a little biased to FB in a debate? Possibly, depending on the issue, so it would probably be best for me to recuse myself in such a debate. It's a common sense evaluation. It is a indisputable fact that one of the authors revealed in a video that he had been a Board member of the Muslim Students Association, video here, an association which reputable sources have cited as having connections to the MB. One source cited a link to actual documentation showing the MSA was organized by the MB. See here. To me that is having ties to the MB. I don't consider CAP a reliable source, and neither did the editor I was collaborating with on the article. I never said the CAP authors were members of the MB, or that they were affiliated with them, and I certainly never mentioned the word "terrorist" which Roscelese has done repeatedly. The CAP report is indisputably problematic. My discussion was about NPOV, and it was perfectly within WP guidelines. If this isn't a clear case of WP:Harrassment by Roscelese, I don't know what is. Can an admin please advise me if I have to file a separate ANI for WP:Harrassment, or can it be done right now based on her false accusations against me, her misuse of the Warning template on my Talk page, her refusal to have any kind of neutral discourse with me regarding her warnings after I responded and specifically asked who she was and why I had the warning template on my user page, and now this relentless, groundless persecution of me on ANI? Do I have any recourse? She has made it quite evident that she has nothing on which to base any of her claims. I am trying to introduce a new article on WP which requires my undivided attention, and this ANI is really cutting into my ability to edit. Atsme ☯ talk 18:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those links are reliable sources - posting them here is a BLP violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really not a good idea to deny that you've done something wrong and then do it again in the ANI thread. Can we have some action, please? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin Demiurge1000 has already provided 2 responses that negate your claims. The time stamps in this thread are (1) 23:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC), and (2) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC). The admin's summary was that it "boils down to exactly one diff of an edit which appears to show Atsme discussing sources on an article talk page." Atsme ☯ talk 18:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I think it might be better if you drop this discussion. Or rather, if you'd dropped it a day or two ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Sources states specifically: Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. Are you saying a video interview with a person who was one of the authors of a problematic report is not a reliable source? I checked the credentials of the writers for both the sources I cited, and they aren't anymore unreliable or biased than the reports and sources that were originally cause for the discussion. Wiki policy encourages opposing views. One of the authors has a WP:BLP, and so does the source, both of which were discussed in detail on their respective Talk pages. If you are searching for real BLP violations, perhaps you should check out those Talk pages, and stop harassing me. I've done nothing wrong. My edit was about NPOV, and now I'm just trying to provide pertinent information in an effort to dispel these false allegations. The other source cites the following List as their resources, which include multiple reliable sources, and here is a list of their contributors [6]. Please don't lose sight of what the original allegation is about; i.e., a diff [7] showing a discussion about NPOV on a Talk page. WP policy requires neutrality, so if one editor is citing only criticisms by sources that harbor a prejudice toward the organization, it is perfectly acceptable to balance the overweighted article with opposing views, which is exactly what I did. To do so required pointing out why I felt the initial criticisms were biased, and not reliable. The other editor admitted to the fact the original source was problematic. Either way, the bottom line is still that there was no BLP violation, regardless of an editor's personal opinion about source reliability. These groundless accusations have to stop. Atsme ☯ talk 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection review - Political status of Crimea

I'm asking for review of my actions at Political status of Crimea as they come close to, if not actually, violate WP:PREFER. This is a continuation of the saga reported at WP:ANI#Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country and elsewhere. I protected Republic of Crimea (country) yesterday due to the edit war going on there as a result of Dennis's close. Part of that edit war included User:Incnis Mrsi restoring the article, changing the scope a bit and then moving it to a new title. This was then all reverted by others. As I had protected the article Incnis Mrsi then simply did a copy and paste move of the old article to Political status of Crimea. I reverted this and protected that page as it seems an end around our processes and a backdoor way to ignore Dennis's close that may escape all attention. Once my protection has worn off they simply reverted me. I think my actions are justified in the circumstances but given the unusual circumstances I invite review. More admin eyes at this wouldn't go amiss anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Very proper actions on your part, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone should probably merge this discussion with the one immediately below but it's obviously not my place to do so. Dpmuk (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear sysops!

In short, you can see a content disruption and abuse of privileges by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who used it, namely WP:page protection, to degrade Wikipedia, specifically to obstruct a new article creation and push politically biased redirects (although probably without an explicit intent). Henceforth I ask for urgent intervention. The conflict shares its beginning with the scandal around “Republic of Crimea (country)”, but after Dpmuk’s actions it became a separate case. The relevant part of story is as following:

1. Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) redirected Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Republic of Crimea.
2. Users Tibet2014 (talk · contribs) and XavierGreen (talk · contribs) reverted Dennis Brown’s action and his supporters.
3. I entered into edit war as the third side, by moving the article to Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), rewriting it to match the new scope.
4. RGloucester (talk · contribs) argued that my page move is not backed by a consensus, but explicitly clarified that sees nothing wrong in creation of the “Political status of Crimea” article.
5. RGloucester reverted my page move, so, Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) became a redirect as a standard page move side effect.
6. Dpmuk protected “Republic of Crimea (country)”, citing edit warring (I don’t disprove the reason of this single action, of course).
7. When I came back, the original article was protected. The only thing I can do was overwriting an (inadvertently created) redirect at “Political status of Crimea” with a relevant article. Hence a new article, with a new page_id, was created. It had noticeable chunks of recently created content, that wasn’t ever obstructed by editors, and indeed implicitly approved by RGloucester.
8. Soon at WP:Administrators' noticeboard, No such user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) expressed certain concerns about spawning of articles citing various multiletter acronyms. One can easily check that nine such articles already existed, and if the tenth is not sufficiently good, then it is so because started to be built only recently.
9. Dpmuk overwrote “my” article with another redirect to Republic of Crimea, a Russia’s federal subject, apparently prompted by No_such_user and trying to mimic Dennis Brown, but without understanding the situation. This redirect might deserve WP:Redirect#DELETE under points 2 and possibly 5, but in any case, it is grossly confusing and this edit certainly would be branded as a politically motivated WP:vandalism were effected by an IP or a newbie.
10. Dpmuk protected the page (a new article a minute before that) with a nonsensical explanation To match protection on Republic of Crimea (country), then dodged my attempt to discuss the matter and continued to obstruct the new article.

I do not deny that acted as a minor participant in the known edit war, in “Republic of Crimea (country)”, but Dpmuk’s actions on “Political status of Crimea” were purely disruptive and grossly incompetent since, before Dpmuk, there never was any war (I repeat: RGloucester stated that doesn’t object against a new article). A person who will resolve the problem on his/her own responsibility, without deliberations and protractions, will earn my respect, and possibly one of several reasonable users too. Independently, I ask somebody of smart (and sufficiently courageous) sysops to watch both the article and my user_talk, to deter possible further Dpmuk’s disruptions.

The offending person is notified both of the abuse (2 hours ago) and this discussion. The title Political status of Crimea, a hot topic, as well as its aliases recently created by me, namely Crimea question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crimean question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), now point to another article in a manner suggesting that Wikipedia unilaterally supports the annexation.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Only 1 person tried to do things unilaterally, and now they're here because they didn't get their way. ES&L 18:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• What I see from you is edit-warring followed by a failure to even attempt a discussion (saying "I give you exactly two hours to correct your mistake before appealing to the community" doesn't count). Then you bring it to the drama board, with an accusatory thread title (which is generally frowned upon). This doesn't reflect well on you. -- Atama頭 19:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Incnis Mrsi might be so-and-such bad, but the incompetence is an incompetence, and the abuse in an abuse. Dpmuk saw a content fork? Perhaps. What a competent admin should do in this situation? I’ll answer:

1. Check whether an obvious fix is possible. In this case it wasn’t, because Dennis Brown’s “closure” was under a heavy criticism, if only because the discussion was interrupted prematurely.
2. Identify whether the internal copyright was infringed. I hint: it wasn’t.
3. Identify whether less obvious fixes are possible. Yes, they were: merging to 2014 Crimean crisis, for example, because all this stuff originated from there. Or a merger with accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
4. Try to discuss these less obvious fixes. You can easily check whether Dpmuk, or something else, attempted something of that sort.

Instead, we see sysops that do nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to mimic senior admins such as Dennis Brown (this is similar to that I saw in ru.wikipedia; you can ask user:Ymblanter about that as he saw it too and even took part for some time in his previous life), sysops that defend arbitrary redirects, “closures”, and protections because they are committed by other sysops, and no one of them, who are present here, did anything to fix an obvious wrongdoing in an acceptable way during several hours, preferring to babble about accusatory titles, unilateral actions, and so. I detest such conduct and do not attempt to earn a respect of most of this people. Yes, I “acted unilaterally” and didn’t evade responsibility for it, unlike most of you who ever hides behind someone’s back. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown is a senior administrator? Is there a SRfA for that? I've heard of Chief Administrator, that being Courcelles, but neither Chief Administrator nor Senior Administrator exists. And if there were one, well Dennis Brown is still quite an administrator novice having not even reached 2 years on the job yet. Dennis isn't respected for being a "Senior Administrator", he's respected for making respectable decisions and acting in a respectable manner. There is no reason not to mimic Dennis. He's very often cited as containing an element that is sorely needed in most administrators. If Dpmuk, who has seniority over Dennis, wanted to mimic Dennis, it's not because he's a senior admin. It's probably because Dpmuk sees some merit there. So please, save your logically fallible and demonstrably untrue accusations to yourself.--v/r - TP 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been an admin since 2009 and I still don't consider myself a "senior" anything. -- Atama頭 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Instead, we see sysops that do nothing but (unsuccessfully) try to mimic senior admins... sysops that defend arbitrary redirects, “closures”, and protections because they are committed by other sysops, and no one of them, who are present here, did anything to fix an obvious wrongdoing..."

You might have a legitimate case, Incnis Mrsi, but you do realize that you are coming to the Administrators' noticeboard and making broad generalization about how ineffectual and cowardly you think admins are. This finger pointing will not get you the result you are looking for. I'd adjust my approach because you are insulting the people you are asking to help you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In Incnis Mrsi's defense, this really is the best place to bring this matter. We don't have a noticeboard specifically for reporting administrator misconduct. Your advice about not insulting administrators is good, though I try not to take such comments too personally (even though I'm surely included personally in this particular insult). Incnis Mrsi is clearly upset and I view everything they're saying with that in mind. However, having said all that, it looks like this is ending up as a rant and won't lead to anything productive. Incnis Mrsi got off on the wrong foot to begin with by threatening an administrator if their demands were not met (which was somewhat circumvented by the admin asking on this noticeboard for a review of the protection) instead of discussing the issue civilly as they should have. This is clear battleground behavior and Incnis Mrsi is going to need to take it down a notch if they want to be taken seriously. -- Atama頭 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, Atama, I was trying to be helpful! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I've never seen you not trying to be helpful. :) -- Atama頭 03:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I’m not especially upset. This community is rotten: several years ago a guy making his edit war with the help of page protection feature would certainly be ostracised, even having a legitimate pretext for his actions. Now the guy who put a bunch of rubbish to “… summary” fields, pushed his web interface several times, and eventually protected the page indefinitely, in an apparent attempt to win the favour of Dennis Brown, is tolerable. This guy already demonstrated an outrageous misunderstanding of wiki when implied that I have to ask for a community consensus to reuse certain Wikipedia content in a new article. You, gregarious beings, read it because you accustomed to hide behind each other and nobody is willing to intervene in conflicts of such kind on his/her own responsibility. Wikipedia shall cleanse itself of it, or lose. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we arn't hiding behind anything. We don't like being bullied by your temper. You came here making wild accusations without an ounce of credibility to them, demanded blood, and then proceeded to make wilder accusations about all of us. It's your behavior that has tuned us out to your cry for help. You are responsible for the response you're getting. Had you come here with a calm head and laid out just the facts without any additional commentary or drama, then we might have given it a careful review. Similarly, had you approached Dpmuk without the threats, he may have given you a polite response or considered another solution. Your anger, threats, and accusations are the root of all of this.--v/r - TP 17:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, only one person tried to do things unilaterally: the admin. He cannot block a page simply because an editor dissents. The editor can in his own right create a completely new article if he wishes so. Per WP:FIVEPILLARS he doesn't need to ask permission or seek consensus when creating a new article (see also WP:BEBOLD). I, too, agree with @Incnis Mrsi that this article has all the merits to be a standalone article. Do I have to ask permission to create Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol? No I don't. WP:FIVEPILLARS and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH gives me the right to do that. But this admin went in and blocked the guy that had a differing point of view by unilaterally blocking the article indefinitely without any basis. That seems extremely harsh for a page with only 8 edits of which 3 were performed by the admin himself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that he did not "create a new article". He moved an article that was merged to a new title and expanded the scope, which is an unacceptable way of doing things. If he had just gone and created Political status of Crimea, then there would not've been this nonsensical issue. RGloucester — ☎ 02:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that Wikipedia should have been invited at today's G7 meeting on Crimea then. Count Iblis (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No one in Amsterdam wants to see a bunch of geeky slobs fouling up the city. Come on, Count. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Under what basis did you protect this indefinitely? He only reverted it twice so he did not violate WP:3RR. Furthermore, I just reviewed the page history and I only see one edit war that involves you as an admin and another editor. Since when can administrators silence editors that dissent? I don't see your action as justified:

1. first because the edit war only included two people,
2. second because you were one of those two persons,
3. third because there were no violations of WP:3RR, and
4. fourth because there are other venues (such as WP:AN/EW and WP:RFPP) but you chose to unilaterally block the page indefinitely.

Even worse, you opened a request at ANI and I'm now being told that since this discussion is ongoing here at ANI that I can't request the page to be unprotected because of this. You are an admin. You must use the tools you were given with extreme care. I think you erred this time.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support actions by Dpmuk and Dennis Brown. Editors who want to urgently tell the world the true facts should use some other website because articles follow due process. Protecting a page indefinitely (meaning until the fire is put out) is doing the edit warriors a favor because the alternative would be blocking the editors who are trying to workaround the standard procedures. The above claims of "involved" are mistaken. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Your assessment is incorrect. Per WP:EDIT, one of our core policies, "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide the better it is." Then, a little bit further down, "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles." Furthermore, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, another policy, Wikipedia does not follow "due process" as you attempt to assert. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• And WP:CONSENSUS trumps all of that, which defeats your entire argument, and works against what Incnis Mrsi was trying to do. -- Atama頭 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please show me where is there consensus to not create this article and to redirect it to Republic of Crimea. There is none. Understand now? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Replies to some of the points above.

• The protection was indefinite not infinite. I fully expect for the protection to be lifted be either myself or another admin once there is agreement on the way forward.
• Anyone claiming there wasn't an edit war, or that the only edit was involved me and was at Political status of Crimea should take a look at the history of Republic of Crimea (country). It's pretty clear that Incnis Mrsi's actions at Political status of Crimea are a continuation of that. Indeed they admit that with the comment "(must go in the same edit history as Special:PermanentLink/600940464, but I currently unable to implement it because of talk:Republic of Crimea (country) #Full protection" where they admit they'd do the already reverted move again if they could. The fact that they then did it by the back door should not allow the action to escape scrutiny and this is what I acted to stop.
• As I said when bringing this issue here I was aware that my actions could possibly be seen as being against WP:PROTECT. When I did the first short protection I didn't ask for review because it didn't seem worth it for such a short protection. When I did the longer protection I asked for independent review to confirm my actions were reasonable as I accept they could appear to be against our policies - although I believed they were not.
• I am aware that you don't normally have to get permission to create a new article but here there was a "consensus" that there shouldn't be such an article and in those circumstances we do generally require a new consensus before creation. I could also point you at WP:BRD. You tried boldly creating a new article by moving and re-purposing the old one. This was reverted. At this point it would have been normal practice to discuss rather than attempt to do it again by the back door.
• Anyone that thinks I'm doing this to gain favour with Dennis Brown is very much mistaken. I saw an edit war, I acted to stop it. I saw an attempt to, what would be seen by many editors, continue that edit war by the back door so stopped that.
• As it happens it appears obvious to me that Dennis's "solution" is unlikely to be the long term solution. However at the moment it's the only thing we have so that's what we go with and the stability it brings about is a good thing. I'd urge all editors involved to continue the discussion and, possibly, come up with a new consensus. At that point articles may well be unprotected but it seems clear to me that any unprotection before that point is just going to result in edit warring.

—Dpmuk (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that prevents the subject of this article from being created. NONE. There is no consensus to make the subject of this article a redirect to Republic of Crimea either. I hereby formally request that you show us this supposed consensus that you refer to. Whatever the user did is irrelevant 'cuz this is an entirely new subject that can be developed to become something intrinsically and fundamentally different than all other articles. You have been shown precedents for this. Want a better solution? Unprotect it and move it to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol and let us develop it the same way that we have developed Political status of Puerto Rico and all others. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest developing it in your user space, in the draft namespace, or somewhere. This will enable editors to see if it significantly different to what was at Republic of Crimea (country) and / or to see if there is a consnesus for such an article to exist. Seeing the comments in the merge discussion I do wonder whether such an article may be the best way forward but personally I'd like to see consensus for it before unprotecting and it would probably be easiest to get a consensus if people can see a draft version. At the moment I strongly suspect that unprotecting will only result in more edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me explain myself so that you can understand my point of view: when that article was created it was about the independent country. But we already have that covered at International recognition of the Republic of Crimea. However, since the article was protected, I have not been able to evolve the article to its natural form: an article about the political status of the Republic of Crimea as a federal subject and the city of Sevastopol as a federal city. See where I'm going now? Unfortunately, due to your protection, I'm inhibited from creating such article because if I do so other admins will say I'm trying to violate consensus, or whatever. So, what I'm asking you is to unlock it and let me perform these new changes which would make the article unique. I believe that my solution is reasonable and will let us move on and create an encyclopedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Dpmuk: here it is: User:Ahnoneemoos/sandbox. I think this is a reasonable solution. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Ahnoneemoos I agree that at first glance appears a good start which is quite different to the problem article. Did you copy some of the article from other places? If so you'll need to be careful with WP:ATTRIBUTION. @Dennis Brown: to see if he's happy that this doesn't go against his close - I don't think he'll mind but trying to reduce the chances of an edit war in case this does happen. Otherwise if there's no objections I don't see a problem with this happening. Dpmuk (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I trust my peers to decide. I know people find it hard to believe, but I really have no POV on the subject matter. I came in, read consensus, made the call. My honest opinion is exactly what I wrote, it would have been cowardice for me to close any other way, to simply avoid controversy. I completely understand (and respect) opinions to the contrary, but there are clear policy based reasons for the close, even if I was extraordinarily (and uncharacteristically) non-verbose. What the community does with it afterwards is up to them, whether it is to support, revert, change, etc. I really don't concern myself with that. If the consensus changes, so be it. If they say I made a mistake in procedure, I will learn from it. If I'm insulted and defamed, honestly I just ignore it. I've seen a lot of claims to the contrary, but for me, closing is a very detached and unemotional thing, a necessary function foisted upon experienced editors. My opinion as to the new article is irrelevant. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think the wisest thing to do would be for an administrator to delete the redirect at Political status of Crimea, and allow for a new article on the subject to be developed independently, and subject to consensus-based discussion and review by other editors. I would advise against the title [[Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol", as that would imply that Sevastopol is not in Crimea. Sevastopol is in Crimea, it is merely not in the Republic (federal subject) or the Autonomous Republic (Ukraine). RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today, Incnis Mrsi made this edit making Crimea question a re-direct to an old/deleted version of his Political status of Crimea article and pipe linked it into Crimean Peninsula with this edit. I'm not going to waste time figuring out what's going on here, but that doesn't look good to me. (I've got rid of the weird re-direct to the ex-article) DeCausa (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the protection, but the current redirect located there is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Right now, if you want to view the article, it sends you to Republic of Crimea; that is, to a subject of Russia. It should be changed to point to Crimean Peninsula or 2014 Crimean crisis. CodeCat (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I changed the redirect on Crimea question to 2014 Crimean crisis. DeCausa (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the current NPOV-violating redirect is placed by the same person who indefinitely protected it. Placed two times, exactly the same redirect. The second time after this person was explicitly notified that this redirect does not conform to certain established rules (see above, p. 10). Edit warring by Incnis Mrsi is bad, but not because it is generally discouraged, only because Incnis Mrsi hasn’t the page protection feature. Edit warring by Dpmuk is good, because he has the page protection feature. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE - International recognition of the Republic of Crimea has been moved to Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Politician continues to remove negative information from personal site following warning for soapboxing

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

---

The politician reported in this entry has made an additional edit to his own page after receiving a warning for these acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfpublishing (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor has stated, "I am not Deputy Flanagan but I work in his office", so they have admitted their conflict of interest. I will have a talk with them on their user talk page. -- Atama頭 21:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, @Selfpublishing:, can you clarify your role here? I see you have no edits outside of this article, you've shown up a little over a week after User:Lukeming, and you've seems to know quite a lot about Wikipedia...--v/r - TP 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this edit could be linked to as the definition of "irony" if you think about it (consider this is this editor's first ever edit, at least under this account). :) -- Atama頭 23:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The two users are technically  Confirmed. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what shenanigans this person is up to (maybe an effort to establish a good hand/bad hand situation?) but both accounts have been dormant the last couple of days. I'm not sure if it's best to block one, or block both. Technically they both deserve a block, this kind of game-playing is explicitly not allowed. Lukeming would technically be the master here, as that account was created 11 days earlier than Selfpublishing. I'm just wondering if there is more going on here though. -- Atama頭 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked them both, becasue, as noted, these shenanigans are not what Wikipedia is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

how to explain an editor that removing other's comments from talk pages is not allowed?

I have observed one editor consistently doing it even after several notes about relevant WP policies. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you complaining about the removal of talk page comments written by sockpuppets ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I am complaining about removal of talk page comments. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a case against someone with evidence? Or just asking an ambiguous question for effect? Carrite (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

See contribs of Bobrayner - [8] He appears to be reverting a sock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The 'sock' he is reverting seems to come from two different countries! I checked whois for few IPs and found from both Serbia and Croatia.. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, the sockmaster has learned to use proxies to change their ip/location. What is your connection? You appear from nowhere and appear very concerned about this. Please disclose any previous accounts or IPs you have edited with. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockmaster? Congratulations to you, please assume good faith. Not all IPs are the same person. Topic is very hot these days... I am concerned because I've seen similar behaviors in the past, but this guy is on the extreme side... 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. for foreigners, it was 15 years yesterday from NATO bombing... we do remember here, and talk about it.. no wander there are a few IPs on the topic these days... 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please answer my question about previous accounts/IPs you have used. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WTF is your problem? Learn about Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol. I don't keep log of IPs. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that random ips appearing from nowhere to complain about a someone socking being reverted QUACKS. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Imagine, just imagine for a moment, brief moment, that you are wrong. Imagine that if you can. All I can say is you would be a terrible laywer. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User talkpage reminder about the policy/guideline, followed by a specifically targetted complaint on an appropriate admin board if it continues. Given you've already known about that first part, there's nothing to do here (or anywhere) without a specific report. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What is appropriate admin board for that? This one or some other? 77.46.172.143 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For a violation of WP:TPO this board would be appropriate for getting assistance from an administrator. Note that removing any and all contributions from a sockpuppet is not a violation. -- Atama頭 17:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have had recently such an experience with this user. He simply reverted my edit by writing "rv sock" in the edit summary and continued to assume bad faith later. I got curious, so I looked his contributions and noticed that he did it before with other IP edits, though I can't tell whether those IPs are someone's socks, but there seems to be no way for me to make him consider the possibility that IPs who disagree with him aren't socks. Perhaps he has experienced a lot of problems with real IP socks before and he just continues use that assumption. I don't know.

But, this appears very rude to somebody who comes to edit and immediately gets accused of being a sock. I occasionally edit (very rarely), but that kind of behavior could discourage potential newcomers from further editing.

Somebody mentioned that "random IPs appearing from nowhere to complain about a someone socking being reverted" seem to be a good indicator that those IPs are indeed socks. Well, it might look that way on the first glance, but if you consider the situation in which there are people who don't have permanent IP address (and don't keep log of previous ones, as IP before me mentioned) and who legitimately complain about that problem, you come to conclusion that end result appears indistinguishable, therefore such reasoning is insufficient to conclude whether they are socks.

I hope that people who read this are reasonable and don't jump to conclusions.

Also, I found this page while looking again at his contributions and there I've seen that he reverted an IP on his talkpage with "bored of socks" in the edit summary (he obviously keeps assuming that all the IPs are socks) and then looked contributions of this IP and then found this page. Just saying this to spare anybody of asking how I got here. --94.253.177.168 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(Also, my previous IP address was 94.253.158.12, I've just noticed that it has changed, but I know what was I editing, so I've digged it from there, just in case someone needs it.) --94.253.177.168 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read this for context. Bobrayner put it very well when he stated, "This is our Balkan problem writ large; it's hard to tell the difference between real accounts, sockpuppets, sockpuppets which report/revert other sockpuppets, sockpuppets of the same person which report/revert each other, seemingly legitimate accounts who appear in discussions after being canvassed offsite, and so on." This is not one editor's problem, this is a problem with the entire topic area. IP sockpuppets have been relentless, to the extent where any IP who edits in a manner similar to other IPs who have been blocked as sockpuppets are assumed to be more sockpuppets. To an innocent editor who enters that topic area and faces that environment it's a bit unfair, but you have a choice and can register an account. The people dealing with this deluge of IP-hopping troublemakers don't have a choice, except maybe to do a blanket semi-protection of numerous articles, which really wouldn't be any better, would it? Basically, it sucks for all around, but at least you have a way out of the dilemma.

Think of it this way... To all appearances, you came "out of nowhere" and posted here on this page with your IP. Your only other listed contribution was one edit in 2012 (which may not have even been you). You've posted another IP address and stated that this used to be you, and we can assume that was you as well. If you had registered an account none of that would be necessary. Yes, I know that Wikipedia does not require that people register accounts to edit, but if you choose not to do that, you are choosing to edit with restrictions that registered accounts don't have. This is one of the problems you are going to run into. -- Atama頭 17:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I for example choose to edit as IP, not with account. I don't mind restrictions by WP, for example, semi-protection of the article. I go to relevant talk pages and share my ideas for improvements. Problem arises when some users start using 'sock' excuse to remove any valid commentary by IPs they disagree with, as can be seen in specific user's contribution history. Restrictions for IPs are one thing, abuse by another editor is something completely different. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes there really is sock puppetry. Your concern or dissatisfaction should be addressed to the people who abuse IP editing and spoil it for everyone else. Meanwhile, you can solve the problem by creating an account. IP editing is allowed as a way to bring in new editors. It probably isn't a good long term strategy for the contributor who becomes knowledgeable about Wikipedia and wants to be more deeply involved. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, it's a big mess of a problem, so I might opt to create an account, although I edit very rarely. But how come that the same user got accused by IPs for false accusations of IP sockpuppeting? If only the numerous IP sock incidents are the cause, wouldn't there be many other editors with similar behaviour that IPs would complain about? Why only this user? --94.253.177.168 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Screw this, I (previously 94.253.158.12 and 94.253.177.168) decided to create an account to avoid this mess in the future. I would advice 77.46.172.143 to do the same. (But this question still bothers me.) --Feon (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that this user is the only person the IPs complain about. I'm pretty sure that this isn't, because administrators are blocking IPs as sockpuppets as well. I guarantee that the IPs aren't happy with them. This particular thread is against Bobrayner, and I linked to an old thread that was also about Bobrayner, but that means there aren't any about other editors.

I looked in the archives for this noticeboard, and most of the recent complaints from IPs in this area (I specifically just looked up "Kosovo" to narrow the search) are about Bobrayner. However, before then, most of the complaints were from Evlekis, who is now blocked for sockpuppetry, and often feuded with Bobrayner. There are also other threads, older ones, showing other editors (using named accounts) coordinating together off of Wikipedia (going back 8 years now?) conflicting with other editors. So I think that the problem with IPs has been pretty recent, and the person(s) coordinating the IPs have it out for him. I'm not saying that all IPs that Bobrayner has clashed with are socks (and I assume you yourself are not one) but many of them obviously were.

I'm sorry that you had to create an account to get around this mess. I think it's for the best though. Right now these articles are subject to WP:ARBMAC, maybe someone needs to ask the arbitration committee if some remedy is warranted specifically for the disruption for IPs. Or maybe they'll think that Bobrayner has been too harsh in this matter? I don't know. -- Atama頭 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that the offsite coordination problem has gone underground - it used to be quite open. The change in how the conspiracy is discussed offsite coincides with the sudden influx of anonymous editors into certain controversial articles here on en.wiki. Several have been blocked by various admins (to whom I am very grateful), but it's difficult for me to keep track of which IP is which. Since Atama mentioned Evlekis, I believe he has an active sock too, but that's an account (not an IP) and is active on different pages - I don't see a connection to this drama. bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, first two links are "you have mail" notifications, third one is more problematic because it explicitly mentions en wiki and seems to be a call for other sr wiki users to participate in a discussion related to discussion about Kosovo, which borders assembling an army of meatpuppets. Finally, fourth link seems to me the most problematic one because there they seem to be accusing you of trolling and sockpuppeting. They also seem to mention that they are waiting results of some checkuser investigation against you.

In the light of this, I have better understanding why are you acting like that against IPs originating from the Balkan countries, but I would still advise you to be careful not to jump to conclusions, because you could deter potentially valuable innocent anonymous users from further editing. --Feon (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

New editor with CIR, BLP, COPYVIO issues

Could someone please have a nice, quiet chat with brand new editor User:Daffyduck1234? He's been adding copyvio images to pages (IMDB images uploaded to Commons as "own work" and then added to article here), adding unsourced non-consensus material regarding the death of Margie Hines, creating sub-stub articles with a single sentence and no references, and so on, and seems reluctant to listen to what's on his talk page -- instead he just bulls ahead. BMK (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to bring this, which I think could possibly be a self-portrait, to the attention of whoever talks to the editor. BMK (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this person might be this guy at first, but the pattern isn't quite right. Sigh, I'm becoming a jaded admin seeing socks everywhere. :( -- Atama頭 01:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that one of the drawbacks of the job, becoming jaded.

The young man just dropped a warning on my user page (not my talk page), so he's certainly seeing the comments I'm leaving for him, even if he's not taking them into account. BMK (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's on the record, BMK. You have been warned. Anyway, I'll see if maybe another person chiming in helps, sometimes people think that if one person is addressing their misbehavior, it's just some jerk, but if someone else comes in maybe there's a legitimate complaint (although it can also mean the second person is the jerk's henchman or something). But it's worth a try. -- Atama頭 01:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have made any difference - he created two new crude unsourced sub-stub articles. I'm afraid that this is going to come down to a competency block, since I'm not sure that the editor is understanding what he's being told. BMK (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

One step forward, but then a step sideways: The editor is not uploading copyrighted pictures to Commons now, just very bad photos of streets taken from inside a car. These purport to be (and may well be, I don't know) streets named after the subjects of article - i.e. "Pennell lane" for William Pennell - and they are being added to to the subject's articles without citational support or explanation. He also continues to add unsupported birth and death dates to biographical articles - again, these might be accurate, and he might be getting then from a source, but no source is listed. There's also been no response on the talk page to the various comments, including now a final warning from another editor. BMK (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A comment on his talk page from the editor, but it's not encouraging. Under the section title "I'm tyring to he helpful": "Stop talking to me I created Wikipedia and I forbid blocking my edits."

Unfortunately, I think it's time for a competency block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY. BMK (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely fair, BMK. He actually said "I'm trying to be helpful". Not that I'm against Atama's block or anything. Good block. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

Bish (may I call you that?), I think it's quite fair when "I'm trying to be helpful" is paired with "Stop talking to me" (discussion is the essence of collegiality and impossible without it), "I forbid blocking my edits" and "I created Wikipedia", which are both either trolling or delusional. (P.S. If you're responding to the misspelling of "trying", that was a typo on my part.) BMK (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed it was a typo, after I checked. But I was actually responding to the misspelling of "trying" as "tyring" and the misspelling of "be" as "he", in a quote of five words. I'm sorry, but the impression I got before checking (which not everybody does) was that you were showing up the user as a careless typist, and I didn't think it should be left without comment, to make the same impression on others. But it's moot, the user has been blocked, and not for careless typing. I call you BMK, so feel free to call me anything you like, down to and including "B". Bishonen | talk 17:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

Marnette D, whose opinion I respect, appears to think that we're being trolled. This is quite possible, as at some point extreme incompetency and trolling are very difficult to tell apart. It actually doesn't matter all that much, though, since the end result is the same: time and effort are sucked up and the project is not improved. BMK (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about Hanlon's Razor... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I've just run out of AGF. The brand new editor User:Sandboxxxxx is quite obviously a sock of Daffyduck1234, making the same edits on Margie Hines, re-creating the speedily deleted sub-sub-stub Buddy red bow (which I've again marked for speedy deletion). Competence or trolling, eh, who cares, the editor isn't going to listen, and isn't going to play by the rules, so both accounts should be indef blocked. BMK (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur about the trolling. The "final warning" was received at 16:12, 26 March 2014 and after that warning, they performed edits that added incorrect information then immediately reverted, at Margie Hines and Elbridge Bryant. It looks to me like taunting, where they can say "I did it again but I reverted right away so you can't touch me". In light of this, I've blocked Daffyduck1234 indefinitely, and I'm also going to block the sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. An odd case, I wonder if we'll see the editor again? BMK (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What I wonder is whether we've seen the editor before. My sockpuppet radar went off immediately when I first read this report (as I said then), but I tried to exercise WP:AGF and then the person started using a sock, so maybe my instinct wasn't so much paranoia. -- Atama頭 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Their areas of interest seem rather tightly defined, so it might be worthwhile poking around. There's been a fair amount of back-and-forth about the Margie Hines date of death issue, but I can't recall if there was socking involved. BMK (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There was indeed socking, and I was in the middle of reporting it (memory starts failing as you get older, you know). It's not impossible that our friend was this editor, who stopped editing a month ago, and who earlier admitted to being this puppet master. My description of the writing style of the master fits:

[A] distinctive style of writing: one line paragraphs, infrequent use of caps, use of ampersand and other informalities, and they generally don't sign their posts. Their edits are generally helpful, but their writing is weak, and their attitude on talk pages a bit confrontational with overtones of ownership.

That's not quite enough to say it's a match, but it's pretty intriguing. My AGF tank's a bit empty at the moment, so I'll say that it's possible to interpret a one month gap in editing as an attempt to make their edits too stale for CU to use as comparison -- but, of course, there have been other gaps of that size and longer in the editing history. BMK (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now he's editing as User:Ginsterama. Undoubtedly the same person as Daffyduck1234 and Sandboxxxxx. BMK (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Two more unsourced sub-sub-stubs created (Kate Wright and Victoria d'orazi). SPI opened at [9]. Can someone please salt Buddy red bow until this blows over? BMK (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And another Phil philmar. BMK (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And now Marcus powell. BMK (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And indef blocked by NawlinWiki. BMK (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The sub-stub article Marcus powell just deleted by NawlinWiki was previously deleted on 22 August 2007 by Lectonar. Could an admin take a look at that deleted article and report who created it? It might help figure out if Daffyduck1234 is a known puppetmaster. BMK (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Similarly Kate Wright was previously deleted two times. Knowing who created those two would be good. BMK (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marcus powell was originally created by Matt0012 (talk · contribs) on 22 August 2007. Kate Wright was originally created by BoopBoopaDoop (talk · contribs) on 20 October 2009 and recreated by Bayoneta (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2010. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As I remarked above, Bayoneta is an admitted sock of BoopDoopaDoop (see the SPI report on that editor in the archive), who was allowed to keep editing after apologizing. Matt0012 is a new name to me. BMK (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoopBoopaDoop/Archive. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a big backup at SPI, so I don't expect to hear anything from that quarter for a while, but it does seem highly probable that Daffyduck1234 (aka Sandboxxxxx, aka Ginsterama) is Bayoneta, admitted sockpuppet of Betty Boop-obsessed puppetmaster BoopBoopaDoop. Why Bayoneta apparently stopped responsible editing to return to disruptive activities is a bit of a mystery, but maybe he or she missed the excitement, I dunno. I do think that we're currently at a standstill in the absence of further activities from this editor or results from a CU, so probably this thread should be closed for the moment, and the discussion can be revived if things pick up again. BMK (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser requested - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement yet again

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

---

Apparently undeterred by the recent inconclusive ANI thread on his behaviour, [10] User:Flowersforparis, a WP:SPA with a history of promotional editing at The Zeitgeist Movement and related articles (and a two-week block for sockpuppetry [11]), has chosen to make yet more gross personal attacks - "fuck you", "Go masturbate somewhere else" [12] Is it too much to ask that this is actually dealt with this time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The last time he called you a 'moron' but I guess the people here thought that was not actionable enough. Maybe saying 'fuck you' on that talk page will do the trick. Otherwise I guess he will just keep hanging around and annoying people without actually contributing anything. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Y -- Indefinitely blocked -- There's enough long term evidence that the editor has engaged in sock puppetry, abusive talk and uncooperative behavior. Admins should support productive editors who've been patient and handled things calmly and cooly, and have exhausted all other reasonable means. The editor is open to make a case for reinstatement, and if other admins consider those arguments satisfactory, they may unblock this individual. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

50.240.235.141

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

---

Disruptive IP continues to submit redlinking categories and introduce other unsourced content. Here are some examples of the user adding redlinked categories: [13][14][15][16][17][18]. The user was advised to stop doing this, then came back to add the same redlinked categories: [19][20][21]. I believe the user behind this IP was also behind 50.8.37.64, another Houston, Texas-based IP that generated disruptive content and went on a redlink campaign in late 2013. User doesn't respond to warnings or notes. Both users have an intersection at Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi (among other places I'm sure) and both have contributed redlinked Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi categories: [22] and [23]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 31 hours for refusing to discuss changes, a core requirement of Wikipedia.  —SMALLJIM  16:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Smalljim! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

George1935 on Talk:Homeopathy

George1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

George is a new SPA on Homeopathy. He's been posting for the last month with a number of problems. Demonstrating IDHT and tendentious editing is sometimes hard with diffs. I'll provide just a few examples, but reading Talk:Homeopathy is instructive.

Accusations of abuse instead of participating in discussion

George often responds to simple requests and pointers to policy with accusations of name calling, abuse and bullying, instead of participating in the discussion:

• "Are you part of the abuse team" after being pointed to WP:3RR
• Accuses an admin of lying and playing "bureaucratic tricks", also this
• accuses editor of being a hypocrite and calling him names when he is simply pointed to WP:AGF
• "is that kind of abusive?" in response to a simple question
• "this is the kind of bullying I mean here", response to being asked ""What wording might you suggest?"
• "Is this the cue to start the bullying?"
• George responds to being asked for a concrete proposal
• "bullying is acceptable...why should I stop?"

Repeating the same proposals

When he is participating, George often repeats the same proposals, even after consensus is reached, without responding to concerns. The talk page is rife with examples. Here is just one, where George proposed the addition of a POV check tag repeatedly over 2 weeks, transcluding it on the talk page 3 times. He edit warred on the article to include it, and responded to explanations and responses on the talk page in the same vein as above: no substantive replies, but plenty of accusations of abuse.

• March 15
• March 23 Same proposal, new section
• March 24 Same proposal, new section. He adds I did not see any explanation why it should not (be added)
• this section, regarding the tag, sums it up.

Edit warring

[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

Resolution

A number of editors have attempted to help George and resolve these issues. George posted this to his userpage, which spurred this discussion from Brangifer, Brunton, Roxy the dog and me. Note that my advice to him was met with accusations that I am bullying and abusive along with a string of other claims that bear no resemblance to reality, such as claiming I said things I did not. I indicated then and on the 24th that I would bring this to ANI if he wasn't able to collaborate, and unfortunately, I've seen no improvement. This issue also appeared at ANEW, and Bbb23 summarized the issue at the time.

I believe George is unable or unwilling to participate meaningfully on the topic of Homeopathy. His interest appears to be reporting that Homeopathy is effective (such as this edit), which is not consistent with our sources. The problem is that he can't participate in discussion about the topic (for instance, by making concrete proposals or listening to concerns). A number of editors have suggested that he take a break from Homeopathy and work on other areas of WP until he learns the ropes. I believe that is good advice, but he hasn't taken it. I'd like to suggest a topic ban from Homeopathy, and to encourage George to seek mentorship if he has problems in other areas.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not participate in this absurd thing for the following reasons.

1.My talk page and my edits are evidence to any good faith good intended person that I edited in line with wikipedia principles - for the curious, intelligent and intellectually honest editors.

2. I think this is ridiculous process where people have already decided to ban me - this is the usual practice with people who disagree with the article - take a look in the talk page and you will see what I m talking about.

and most important -

3. if no admin found no fault the way I was treated ( the evidence is here ) then something must be wrong with this forum and I cannot trust the intentions and the good faith of the "judges"

Quoting -Brian Josephson "The lunatics are in charge of the asylum".--George1935 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No they aren't, and that's pretty much your problem. I refer you to Jimbo's cogent comments:

Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t.

— Jimmy Wales

There you have it. Try Wiki4CAM, where dissenting voices are banned - their elite team of nearly four editors have created over two hundred articles and there were almost five edits in February alone. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban (George1935 at homeopathy)

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

---

• Support Jess' proposal that George1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The input of believers is important to balance in an article, even on quackery, but this rapidly becomes a net deficit when combined with edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and circular argument, which is what we see here. I see no evidence that George is ever likely to bring anything new to the perennial discussion of the validity of the subject, which is in any case a sideshow as our article accurately describes, as it should, the current status of the field, per the best scientific evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support In the three weeks since this account was created, George has made 205 edits at Talk:Homeopathy but rarely refers to an actionable proposal. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to explain the principles of WP:FRINGE everyday. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support I am largely uninvolved in this topic, I have the page watchlisted and have noticed George's counterproductive involvement at the Talk page. As the article is under discretionary sanctions I was actually going to look into applying some sanctions, but this can be done here too. George's comments at the article Talk page are mostly about the behavior of editors and general wailing and moaning about the terrible state of Wikipedia and its awful insistence on authoritative, well-accepted, reliable secondary sources. Zad68 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a larger topic ban on all alternative medicine topics. He lacks competency to such a severe degree that he should stay away from controversial topics. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely a larger area. He's just issued a challenge, e.g. a declaration of war. This guy is not interested in collaboration, but in proving he's right, regardless of how many tell him he's wrong. That's classic battlefield behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, oscillo falls under homeopathy. I don't think we need to worry about scope: ban him from homeopathy and I confidently predict he'll either violate the ban or evade it with puppets, and he'll be banninated. Note: "cynic" is merely an optimist's name for a realist. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. This user obviously understands how to edit, it's just that their ability to edit competently is taken away by their strong POV in this area. They are welcome to edit in other areas of this encyclopedia. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a larger topic ban per Brangifer, in all medical, fringe and pseudoscience areas - this still leaves plenty of scope for George to gain experience in how things get done here, should he wish to learn. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a larger topic ban. I suggested a TB on Homeopathy because George hasn't edited any other article. However, the problems he's experiencing will follow him to other alt med topics, and we'll be right back here in a month. A TB on alt med would be best to encourage him to edit a fundamentally different kind of article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on the subject of homeopathy, not just the article. I don't see evidence of problems outside that field, possibly because I haven't looked. I can see Mann jess's point, though. I'm neutral on that proposal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a WP:FRINGE topic ban More disruptive SPAs are the last thing the project needs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:FRINGE topic ban - No need to keep other fringe areas open for this editor to move to. BMK (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with regard to Homeopathy, broadly construed. I'm not yet ready to predict whether similar concerns would manifest at other unrelated articles but the topic ban can always be expanded if they do. For now, lets topic-ban from the topic where the problems are occurring. Stalwart111 21:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic banning on homeopathic articles. I don't like the idea of silencing someone whom I disagree with, but the amount of wasted time and effort (150,000 bytes of discussion since March 5th) that editors have spent disputing his misinterpretations of WEIGHT over the 20 or so days George has been frequenting the talk page has, quite frankly, become obscene. Cannolis (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Xe is quick to take the offensive rather than seek consensus. It's possible this editor may not have the disposition to work collaboratively on controversial topics. I recommend some time working on less contentious areas of the project. Jojalozzo 23:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support just Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I still cling to the faint hope that George could contribute productively to articles if he could just lose the chip on his shoulder. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

- we could do with a close and ban now, he's started WP:CANVASSing. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal Notice from InternetQ

Hello,

InternetQ has posted a legal notice to the InternetQ talk page.

Tim.thelion (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to Mark.int in this diff. Is that right?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Tim.thelion (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a legal statement on the InternetQ talk page with an update on what has truly happened with the company subsidiary's in Poland legal case.

Thanks

Mark.int (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, may I ask whether your intent was to provide information, or to threaten? Tim.thelion (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out that we don't accept documents uploaded by contributors as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as a legal threat. Not sure why you would. That said, Andy is right of course. That's a primary source. The article needs secondary sources to counter the negative claims. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that it is a primary source (though that is relevant too), the real problem is that we have no way to verify the authenticity of such uploaded documents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well actually, that's the main problem with primary sources :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Government reports are primary sources, yet they do not suffer from such problems. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A primary source is a primary source, and they all suffer from the same problems. Regardless though, in this particular case that PDF doesn't even look legit to me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) While of course, without verification of the uploading parties, we can be sure of its authenticity, I don't see any particular reason to doubt it. It looks like a perfectly ordinary legal notice a law firm or lawyer would draft for a client. No one ever suggested it involved the courts in any way and in many (most?) countries there's no requirement for the courts to endorse a simple legal notice. Of course as with many legal notices, it does carry the explicit threat they may involve the courts if they feel it's not responded to appropriately. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I said "court" when I was thinking "law firm", sorry. What set me off was this: ...is definitive and final may cause the civil and penal liabilities. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still don't think there's a good reason to think it may not be genuine (although as I've said we can't be sure either way in the absence of confirmation from the people involved). Bear in mind it's apparently a Polish law firm and writing this notice doesn't really sound like the sort of task you'd assign to the top partners in the law firm, more likely the intern or whatever, so minor mistakes in grammar or explaination don't seem sufficient reason to think it's fake. It's not like this sounds like something a 419 scammer wrote. In fact looking more closely I'm not sure if this is from a law firm per se, or a sole practioner. (In the later case, that doesn't really mean we should expect better since it's resonable the person may have been primarily hired for their expertise dealing with Polish law not in writing legal notices in English, and we should also still expect them to have made less effort then something more important.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with Tim.thelion that it's more complicated then that. For example the uploaded source mentions a court docket. If anyone wanted to bother, they could track down that docket and confirm that the case was completely overturned on appeal. That would be a primary source but if you're citing the document, it's not really a question of whether trust the authenticity but whether you trust the person doing the verification, as with any source that you can't verify yourself. (With the added problem that the court docket is likely in Polish.)

Also of course, whether we're sure we're simply describing rather than intepreting the primary source and whether it's significant enough to mention if no secondary source did.

Or to give another example, representatives for InternetQ could upload the legal notice to their website. Or they could ask OTRS help to confirm someone here is really who they say they are and representing InternetQ. Either way, this would ensure the legal notice is authentic, i.e. representatives for InternetQ are really making those claims. It won't of course ensure the claims in the legal notice are correct.

We do have a classic problem where there is a significant change to a case against a company or person on appeal, but where by that stage, no one really cares so it's difficult to find reliable secondary sources discussing the result of the appeal even if we have an abundance of sources discussing the initial case and result.

While I'm generally strongly opposed to using primary sources by themselves, if court documents can be found this is one sort of case where IMO it's fair to make an exception provided we are careful that we don't intepret the court case/document.

However it doesn't look like this is a problem here since a source has been found. (And actually I'm not sure we even have an abudance of reliable secondary sources on the initial case, I only see one in the article.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the "statement" is a legal threat. When posted to the talk page of an article, that threat appears to me to be aimed at the Wikipedia community.--ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remove immediately the false reference that "In November 2011 the company was successfully sued for a paid SMS scam", along with the misleading references at the bottom. Not seeing it. It's not exactly courteous, but not a legal threat. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The legal threat is "Spreading untrue information ... may cause the civil and penal liabilities." Tim.thelion (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup - the final paragraph of the uploaded document looks like a clear and unambiguous legal threat to me. Incidentally, looking at the uploaded file, it doesn't purport to be a court document - it is (or claims to be) a statement from an 'Adwokat' concerning a court ruling. As such, and given that the document refers to "my client", it would entirely useless as a source for any supposed court ruling even if we could ascertain that it was genuine. We couldn't rely on the legal interpretation of an involved party as trustworthy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh the PDF... didn't read the PDF, sorry. Still not sure how that could be construed as a legal threat to Wikipedia, but OK. In any case that doesn't look remotely like something that came out of a court. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit worried about the wording in the PDF as well, but we have to look at the intent here. Mark.int was uploading the document to verify the overturning of the judgment against the company, and stated as much on the talk page. If Mark.int had said that Wikipedia needs to comply with what the document is stating, then that would be a legal threat, but that hasn't happened. I'll point out that there is a secondary source verifying this information (actually, it's complaining about how unfair it was that the judgment was overturned). -- Atama頭 21:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The document in question has today's date on it. It is written in English, though referring to a Polish court case. I see no reason to assume that it was created for any other purpose than to upload to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Um who said it came out of a court? It's a legal notice sent to wikipedia contributors (and could be other places) allegedly by representatives on behalf of InternetQ. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Tim.thelion directly asked Mark.int if this was intended to be a legal threat, and Mark.int said that they just wanted someone unbiased to change it. I usually err on the side of caution about these things (heck, the only thread I've ever started on ANI was when I thought I had been given a legal threat, and I was wrong) but this is a somewhat unambiguous one. Unless we get a more direct threat I'm not concerned. I guess we'll find out, because I think that Mark.int wants us to remove sourced information that I doubt anyone is willing to do, so we'll see what happens. -- Atama頭 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a note regarding the comment above "That would be a primary source but if you're citing the document, it's not really a question of whether trust the authenticity but whether you trust the person doing the verification, as with any source that you can't verify yourself." - I'm not quite sure how they're considered with regards to a company, but if the subject is a person court documents are explicitly disallowed as sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My view on this is that it's not an unambiguous legal threat, and Mark.int is not making a legal threat himself, but it's good grounds for cautioning him not to go down that route, and see also Ticket:2014032410011965. More eyes will not hurt at all. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Actually, I was about to turn this in as a legal threat before noticing that the same had already been done. Pointing out that the thing we're basically accusing you of doing can have a civil cost would seem to fit quite nicely into the description of a legal threat in past cases I've seen here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picking up on AndyTheGrump's point that Wikipedia does not accept documents uploaded by contributors as sources, review of the document shows that the main paragraph deals with the substance of a court case, appeal and finding. The last sentence is an implied legal threat about anyone not abiding by accurately reporting the main paragraph's findings above. That's my take for what it's worth. Don't see a real threat to the Wiki community, just standard lawyer huff and puff to close out a letter -- sort of like "this letter is written without prejudice to my client's legal position to do blah blah" in other such standard sign offs. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zebrasil.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Detroit Joseph

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

---

Tendentious editing and warring at Farshad Fotouhi. Detroit Joseph continues to post content to the article and the article's talk page in violation of WP:BLP. Note previously redacted edit summaries starting in December 2013.

Topic Ban Proposal

I propose Detroit Joseph be banned from further editing of Farshad Fotouhi.

Recent diffs displaying TE and persistent BLP violations, despite being alerted to BLP issues in Dec 2013.:
1
2
3
4
5

I have reviewed the edit history of the article and the talk page, evidence of a vendetta against the subject of the article and continued posting of content in violation of WP:BLP, trolling of editor talk pages.

There are no signs that the editor will voluntarily refrain from further edits. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Detroit Joseph's BLP violations regarding this person are intense and chronic. A representative talk page comment by Detroit Joseph is: "You need to read Crain's Detroit Business, to know that your hero, Farshad Fotouhi, is a very bad, corrupt man. Just because he's Iranian doesn't mean he's a good guy. Look at Mamud Ahmenutjob.” The editor seems determined to portray this person in the worst possible light, and a topic ban is now in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Having taken a look at the edit history, particular the edit summary for a Feb. 14, 2014 edit, it is clear that this editor has a personal vendetta going against the subject here. This is not the place. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Simply put, if you've got such an obvious grudge against a BLP subject, you shouldn't be editing that page. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport Grind your axe outside of Wikipedia, please. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the normal "broadly construed" as it is the topic rather than that particular article which is a problem. This recent diff shows the style—Wikipedia should not be used to settle scores. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone dispute that Paul Strauss halted a $2 million donation to the Wayne State College of Engineering because of Fotouhi meddling with Auner's vital breast cancer detection research? Does anyone dispute that James Woodyard resigned because of Fotouhi's lack of integrity? Anyone? Anyone at all? Those are pretty big things. And they're just the things that have been reported in verifiable newspapers. Hey, here's a thought: maybe Wikipedia should have a policy that things need to be verifiable with reliable sources. Too bad there's no such policy. Then you can just invent some personal vendetta, attribute it to me, and use it to ignore what has been published in Crain's Detroit Business and Detroit News. Detroit Joseph (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:REHASH. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• SupportThis has been going on for months. Joesph has repeatedly made it clear that he cannot edit in accordance with our neutrality policy and continues to fail to get a clue. -- John Reaves 20:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support What Detroit Joseph needs to learn is that Wikipedia:Reliable sources are irrelevant when it comes to pointing out the corruption of corrupt university officials. Wikipedia's goal in those cases is to merely be a carbon copy of the corrupt official's page on the university website. A picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now follows. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

IP-range block request: 94.180.X.X

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

---

I reported his activities to admin Dougwller. Please see 94.180.X.X (names of some targeted articles and I discussed his behavior). That IP user 94.180.X.X targeted many articles and admins should watch him. --Zyma (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence (diffs) of the editor's problematic behavior and what the issues are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was going to do ask if there would be too much collateral damage to do this. The edits from this range are clear violations of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 - no question about that. The only alternative to a range block is semi-protection of a number of articles, eg Kara Koyunlu, Caspian race, Chovgan, Armenians, Armenoid race, Khurshidbanu Natavan, Tat people (Iran), Tat people (Caucasus), Qashqai people, Mazanderani people, [[Gilaki people] and more. So we have [30], [31], [32] and more. This could be Az-507 (talk · contribs). In any case the sanctions are being violated wholesale so something needs to be done. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There's not a massive amount from that range apart from the problematic editor. There does appear to be one prolific editor on music-related articles but they haven't edited since November. On that basis I've blocked 94.180.0.0/17 for a month to see how it goes. Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Assessing consensus closure

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

---

Hmm - question for any admin who fancies themself good at assessing consensus...would anyone have closed Talk:Crowned_crane#Requested_move as consensus to move? I was taken aback by this. I urge people to comment on the closeure process at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_March - otherwise most commenting (including me) will be endorsing or recommending overturning based on their original votes. Hence experienced neutral eyes urged....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Europa Universalis vandalism and copyvio from Charles Esdaile - need range block

We have had problems in the past with editors promoting concepts and terms from Europa Universalis - creating categories, renaming articles, changes of government types within articles, etc. Several socks were blocked last September over this and copyvio issues- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis/Archive. Yesterday I discovered some page moves relating to this and today I have found a number of IPs doing similar edits, all geo-locating to Rio de Janeiro. Two IPs in the same range were involved last year. Recently - that is from January until yesterday, other IPs have been making the same type of edits. Most recent ones are 187.15.70.13 (talk · contribs), 187.14.224.110 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.48.73 (talk · contribs). Others include 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.53.42 (talk · contribs) 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.38.249 (talk · contribs), 187.15.8.12 (talk · contribs), 187.14.230.20 (talk · contribs), 187.15.71.7 (talk · contribs), and 187.15.73.173 (talk · contribs). I'm still searching for recent additions of "Noble republic", Administrative republic, Republican Dictatorship, Revolutionary empire, Administrative monarchy, all of which can be found at the game's wiki[33] and were part of a now deleted template here which Admins can view.[34]. Part of the tactic is to add sourced text to force the phrase into an article, eg [35]. Note this is copyvio from [36]. Some edits have misrepresented sources, eg [37]. These are all throwaway IP addresses.

I spent some lovely hours (and ended up buying Charles Esdaile's Peninsular War, Kindle edition, when I found more copy from the same 187.15 and 187.14 ranges - the same problems we faced before with Turgeis (talk · contribs) and his socks. See my edits at Mutiny of Aranjuez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've ended up giving these long term semi-protection, but that won't work with the Europa Universalis vandals.

There is also an account involved to a minor extent, Hóseás (talk · contribs) who has made a couple of undiscussed page moves similar to Europa Universalis page moves - no Esdaile copyvio in this case but a few other problems - it's been suggested on my talk page this editor may simply need mentoring. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgot that these IP ranges were also mentioned in another SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the ranges are too big for a range block and have too much collateral. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So I gather. I'll need to see if I can do something with a filter as it will be almost impossible to catch all of this copyvio/trolling otherwise. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats and shenanigans at European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS)

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

---

European Centre for Information Policy and Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article's creator and only substantive adder of content, Pellisor (talk · contribs), blanked the page and requested speedy deletion per G7 [38]. A new editor Kevinbrenan (talk · contribs) has removed the notice twice and tried to remove my comments on the talk page re copyvio, primary sourcing, non-notability, and possible COI [39]. He then posted a rather lame legal threat there [40] and at one point on the article itself [41]. Interestingly for someone claiming to be from the subject's legal team, he announced that we will be "persecuted" if we delete the article. I left a "No Legal Threats" warning on his talk page which was immediately blanked [42]. So there we are... If the article can't be speedied, then it needs to to go to AfD in my view. Both editors notified of this discussion [43], [44] Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that Kevinbrenan has just attempted to remove this section. [45]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

THE ECIPS HAS COPIED THIS NOTICE AND RESERVE ALL RIGHT TO FILE LEGAL CLAIM AGAINST USERS FOR THE USE OF ECIPS NAME IN THIS POSTED WEB ABOVE.

KIND REGARDS LEGAL TEAM ECIPS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbrenan (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)‎

Aaaaaand... Blocked. That is a fantastic example of an unambiguous legal threat, this editor will remain blocked unless and until the threat is just as unambiguously retracted. -- Atama頭 16:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! So what about the article itself? Should the creator's G7 request be restored? Voceditenore (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I also deleted the page per G7 as originally requested. It was an obvious G7 situation, and the fact that one disruptive editor tried to circumvent the speedy deletion process does not in any way invalidate it. -- Atama頭 16:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again! I was rather dreading taking it to AfD and the inevitable shenanigans there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin Conduct and Competence Questions

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

---

Today there was an article recreated by an obvious sock User:Shiyasnazarptpm of User:Shiyasnazar. I opened the SPI, I also nominated it as A7 and G11 as we have in the past before when the article was created. The sock contested deletion and I left the link to the SPI [[46]]. The administrator now is accusing me of incompetence in tagging in an attempt to cover their own laziness and or incomptence. This is the first iteration of [[47]] of the article, the only sources being provided are owned by the owner of the pageant. I tagged it as a CSD [[48]]. Here comes User:Amatulic who states "rm G5 speedy nomination - you need to provide evidence, and you haven't" That's where the problem starts, It's clearly on the talkpage and it's the only csd criteria he is taking issues with. I reverted it because there is evidence [[49]], It's on the talkpage, their userpages and the SPI, now if the articles have previously been deleted I can't link to them for evidence and moreover I don't have to when it's deleted and in this case username alone and editing habits is enough. If he can't see that or too lazy to see that I'm wondering is this a habit in his administration? this can be a broader forum for his conduct, obviously this isn't blockable and we can't strip the mop from him but I'd like to know if this is habitual. The sad thing is he could have easily avoided this by a simple hey you know what I missed the SPI link, I'm not comfortable making a call on it let's wait until it's completed then we can delete. But accusing me of disruption to cover his laziness is not ok. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

For further background, read:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Queen of India
• User talk:Amatulic#CSD Alteration

And no, I'm unwilling to delete based on G5 for an open SPI case, if you want to call that "habitual" so be it. Other than that, and those two conversations links above, I have nothing else to add. I will unlikely be in front of my computer for the rest of the day either, so however this plays out, will have to be without my involvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't do much this morning anyways so maybe your absence can help fix the mess. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest striking " in an attempt to cover their own laziness and or incomptence." It's not constructive to resolving the dispute and is unbecoming. You seem frustrated, which happens, but try to remain pleasant. Good luck! Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I struck it and yes I'm extremely frustrated. It's always frustrating to see people that are in positions of trust in the community act with so little regard to process or not think things through. I do understand this may be on the more minor side of things but I've been here for 5 years, I work hard every time to make sure my tags are well thought out. I know that there will be disagreements but this one screams bad faith or something worse. I'm not sure how else to describe it other then I have before. I also understand making a mistake and saying hey I missed that, unfortunately I have to do that often but there again, this is a person in a position of trust within the community that seems unable to do so, that and the behaviors are pointed out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. This is frustrating. Trouts all round. Amatulić said [50] he couldn't find the duck test "clear". Duh. The sock was using the same freaking name. It doesn't really take much effort to see the identity between "User:Shiyasnazarptpm" and "User:Shiyasnazar", when they re-create the same article, does it? Trout to Amatulić, because this is really wasting the time and goodwill of editors who do the thankless task of page patrolling and sock tagging. Trout to H.i.a.B for the incivility. As for the article, I'd speedy it right now, if it wasn't for the fact that an independent good-faith editor has in the meantime taken the article over and indicated they consider it potentially notable, so it's better to just let the AfD play out normally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is my fault, I was in a bad mood anyways and this just set me off. I was talking to the other editor in the meantime and we were having a productive disagreement. I can just drop it but really all I wanted in this is an apology. I don't have to have one I just hate it when I get accused like that and I was already a ticking verbal bomb this morning anyways cause of off wiki crap. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: Just some general advice for you, something that I find comforting myself. When you run into a situation (like the one that you described above) where a person (administrator or not) has done something that seems blatantly incorrect for whatever reason, don't get frustrated. It's isn't an unreasonable reaction (it's natural to think "Why did they do that?!") but it also isn't a constructive reaction. Instead, take heart in the probability that it should be easy to find a second, contradictory opinion from another person (as you did here on ANI). The more obvious the issue, the easier it should be to find someone to support your perspective. And when you seek that second opinion, try to present your case in as calm and reasonable a manner as you can; if you do so, you're likely to get a positive response much quicker without side-tracking the issue with any vitriol you're presenting. Of course, this is Wikipedia and there are no guarantees that even an obvious issue is going to get the right kind of support, but you don't need to get frustrated until you've looked elsewhere for help without success.

Again, your frustration was justified. All I'm saying is that when I end up in a situation like yours (and it happens), I try to look at it positively, because the more blatant the problem the easier it is to find support. That's how I deal with it without getting too steamed up. Just a tip. -- Atama頭 19:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right lol, I try and remember that most times. Today was just one of those days for me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Bullying

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

---

Resolved

 – The Boomerang has spoken and the given rope was used in the usual way Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi my name is Matthew Berdyck. I am not a Wikipedia user. I have a friend, and staff member, who tried to submit an article, about me, from his workstation in my office. My staff member expressed that he feels that my article is being rejected for personal or political reasons. He also states that members of your staff are bullying him. At that point I made two personal comments on the Help Desk page. That is the extent of my participation, here.

Over the last two days, in response to James statements, your editors have repeatedly insulted me, accusing me of being a self promoter, that my work is "poorly sourced." I don't understand how I became a target. This IP address has also been flagged for "vandalism." I can genuinely state that I don't know what that means, at all. I was also informed that my article was not approved because editors claim that my short film Poison in the Grapes is poorly sourced. After providing sources to correct the statement the response was to insult my staff member and my work, again.

This is a publicly active film project. The statements from your Help Desk Editors can be used by opposition to my work. They can say, "Not even Wikipedia believes this guy." Things like this happen to me quite frequently. I believe that statement was placed on the talk page for the article for creation in an attempt to cause defamation and damage to my project. The statement has no merit whatsoever.

When I approached the help desk to clarify this they accused me of being James and then threatened to ban me for trying to resolve the "citation issue" for Poison in the Grapes. I don't understand why this is happening. You can clearly see evidence of insults and bullying, of me, all throughout the commentary even though I have had, really, no part of this. Can you ask your staff to please stop being aggressive with me?

I am left in a precarious situation now. Wikipedia has not publicly questioned the credibility of our research. That research is being placed in a national feature length film called Death Water narrated by Andrew Tiernan (300: Rise of an Empire, The Pianist). This means that Wikipedia has now established itself as direct opposition to my work exposing toxic waste dumps in residential neighborhoods. Since I am notable. These attacks are very damaging to my very reliable research, simply for personal reasons.

Can you please explain to me how to resolve or escalate these issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello Matthew. I think there may be a misunderstanding here, as I've explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Poison in the Grapes. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds more like you are interested in promoting your agenda and not build an encyclopedia based on your comments. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no personal or political machinations with regards to the deleted article about you. Wikipedia has its own definition of WP:BIO notability, and you (and your project) do not currently meet that criteria. You're just going to get the same responses here as you've gotten elsewhere. Informing a new user that their edits do not meet Wikipedia policies is certainly not bullying. You and User:Middleamericajames might want to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You might get more traction over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN In general they will tell you that as the subject of the article you are in a conflict of interest and your contributions will not likely come from a neutral point of view. They will also point out that as your employee the contributions of your staffer are also suspect as it is akin to paid editing. CoI and paid editing are taken seriously here and frowned upon. There are ways to work within these concerns but it will take some patience on your part to learn what the system demands. You are technically in violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia doesn't care about you as a person or your goals. They only care about policy and ensuring Wikipedia doesn't become a billboard for every self proclaimed savior of the planet. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

However, with users with COI, AFC is the right way to go. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Matthew. I don't see any warnings for vandalism on your talk page. I think what you may be referring to is the note at the very top, which says that reports of vandalism can go to the network administrator. That's just a standard note for the sort of ip address you're using; it doesn't indicate that anyone in your office has actually vandalized wikipedia. The best way to avoid those sorts of notices is to register an account; that way, you only get notices regarding edits that you, Matthew, have made. The rest sounds like a misunderstanding. We have a number of policies regarding content on wikipedia that are tough to grapple with right off the bat. Since I'm not very familiar with your specific work, I'll let other editors chime in to help you. I'm sure no one is trying to bully you, and this can all be sorted out!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to the note associated with this IP address. I am not writing this page and nor do I even want it. My only concern is that Wikipedia has made public statement about the sourcing for Poison in the Grapes. I am now going to have to include these statements in the film Death Water stating that Wikipedia staff have brought the information into question. There is no misunderstanding here. All of this is on the record and is being documented for Death Water in order to protect our research. Death Water is being pitched to HBO very shortly, solicited. I need a statement for the film, from Wikipedia that Wikipedia staff do or do not debate the credibility of the Death Water/Poison in the Grapes research. Essentially, you are choosing to place yourself in a national feature length documentary. My question, very specifically is, "Is Wikipedia staff attempting to discredit the research in Poison in the Grapes, or is James just being bullied and harassed?" Please clarify this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Wikipedia doesn't have a "staff", or at least not in the way you mean it. Wikipedia is written entirely by volunteers; everyone who has replied to you so far (including me) are volunteers, not an organized staff. Thus, there is no notion of a central organization of staff that debates anything. Second, even if one assumes that Wikipedia is a single monolithic entity that can make a public statement (and it isn't), I haven't seen any place where it makes a public statement about the sourcing for Poison in the Grapes. Can you point to a place where this statement was made? The only comments I've seen so far were questioning the sourcing of the article draft itself; they were not questioning the sourcing of the movie, or making any kind of statement about it whatsoever. So, to answer your final question, there is no Wikipedia staff, nobody is attempting to discredit Poison in the Grapes, and (as far as I've seen), nobody is bullying or harassing James. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest a block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, threats of outside action and otherwise WP:IDHT behavior. BTW Wikipedia in the sense you mean isn't a staff we are volunteers and the community sets the guidelines we are enforcing not a paid staff, so unless you characterize everyone on this website as against you it strikes a little of paranoia and or an attempt to sensationalize your agenda. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

More than that, Matthew's last comment, although not technically a legal threat, serves the same purpose, which is to inhibit the normal editing and operations of Wikipedia through a threat of outside action - in this case, "if you don't stop I'm going to put you in my film". Matthew should understand that such an attempt at intimidation is likely to lead to sanctions, and, worse, will have no effect on the outcome of his complaint (which, in fact, is unfounded and based on Matthew's misunderstanding of Wikipedia's processess). BMK (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No one is here to build an encyclopedia. If you feel this is true please present a factual source in which me or any of my staff has decided, or publicly admitted, that wee are attempting to use Wikipedia for promotions. If you cannot do this your opinion is is both groundless and without merit. If you look on the under talk page for Middleamericajames you can see the the accusation that Poison in the Grapes is "poorly sourced." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So I'm curious if you aren't here to build an encyclopedia then our work here is done no? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) "poorly sourced" in the sense that the Wikipedia article about the film had few reliable sources to establish the notability of the film, nothing to do with the content of the film itself. You're free to draw whatever conclusions you like, but if you continue to be disruptive and refuse to listen to what numerous veteran editors have been telling you, you're going to end up being blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Matthew, articles here, especially films, as about the subject and aren't based on the subject itself. When editors comment about sourcing problems, it's extremely unlikely that they are talking about sources the film used. Instead, they are referring to sources about the film, independent from the film, that review or discuss the film specifically. Wikipedia has various policies about when we should have an article about a particular subject. It's called notability (just click on that link). In large part, it's based on reliable third party sources that help demonstrate a subject is, well, notable. Please, take a few minutes to read that article over, it may help you understand where some of the comments are coming from. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment to Ravensfire and Ohnoitsjamie and perhaps others, I think there's some confusion here arising from what the IP said. From what I can tell, few people have commented on sources about the film (may be only one I saw besides the people related to the IP). It's never been a big concern because the issue of an article of the film never came up. What was at AFC was an article on the person primarily behind the film (who I think the IP claims they are). So the sourcing issues have really been about coverage of the person, not about coverage of the film. The IP later complained in the help desk under a topic relating to the film, but I haven't seen any evidence an article was ever existed or proposed about the film and the complaint seemed seriously confused. Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I think the IP's comments directed my focus there. I've been reading over the discussions on the AFC help desk and I think it's the same situation. There needs to be good independent third-source sources about this person and they just aren't there. Ravensfire (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, no one here besides you and MiddleAmericanJames has ever really commented on the sourcing in film. I would go so far to say that few of us even give a damn about the film either way. Not only that but from what I can tell, few people have even commented on sourcing of an article surrounding the film because none appears to have been ever seriously proposed let alone written. All people have commented on is sourcing of an article of a person (you?) which was apparently very poor. This doesn't mean any of the information on that person was wrong, simply that the sourcing wasn't up to out standards. Whatever the quality of the film or the sourcing of the film or the fame of the person who made the film are all besides the point. Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the concern of the IP address being "tagged for vandalism", this edit [51] created the IP's talk page with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.189.170.139&diff=601547683&oldid=601535215.

• The template does include some scary words: "In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation."
• Dougweller tried to explain that no warning was meant by the template with this edit [52].
• Perhaps these templates are due for a re-work. I don't post them to IP talk pages anymore unless there is an issue with that IP.
• No comment on the other issues. I think the template got things off on the wrong foot. Perhaps someone could WP:IAR and remove the template for him and try to start anew?

JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No the template should stay, if they can't or won't understand that it is an automated template and the explanations provided they aren't WP:COMPETENT to be here, they've already stated they aren't here to build an encyclopedia they should be blocked and we can all move on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, this is the second time this week it has come up that the warning/blocking templates might warrant a review. How would this be done? An RfC? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I stated above that my user was here to build an encyclopedia. This users repeated statements that James had another intention, r that I am "paranoid" is a direct example of the bullying I am speaking of. I am asking you to warn this user to stop bullying me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Who is bullying you? As a reminder you explicitly stated "No one is here to build an encyclopedia." Therein again you have been told no bullying was taking place and will not provide one diff of any abuse despite multiple requests here to do so. Hell in a Bucket

• I would suggest that there's little need to expend much energy on this complaint. I've looked at the potential reliable sources for an article on Berdyck and there are none that I can find. Berdyck's page on IMDB is full of non-Wiki-notable short films "released" through You Tube and like outlets. He, or one of his films, may one day be sufficiently notable for an article, but that day hasn't come, so I would say close this complaint as without merit, and if Berdyck or his representatives continue to squawk about it, block them for disruption. (We can explain our processes until we're all blue in the face, but the complainant has to meet us halfway and want to understand. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Ironically, what one finds when researching Berdyck -- also known as Michael Kane -- are complaints about Berdyck bullying other people - I saw at least three complaints of that sort on various forums. None were from reliable sources, so none are usable in a potential article, but the irony is palpable, given this complaint.) BMK (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that a diff is needed particularly considering the IP seems to lack WP:COMPETENCE so the chance they can work out how to produce one is slim. Considering the IP has given an example from this thread that's easy to find and you yourself made so I guess you know of, people can evaluate whether or not it's problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• What I think the issue here is that User:Middleamericajames made a derogatory comment about a third party (someone in the real world) in one of their interminable and endlessly tendentious comments at the Articles for Creation Help Desk, and User:Demiurge1000 reverted it quite rightly per BLP [53]. Middleamericajames then proceeded to argue that his comment about the person wasn't unreliably sourced because it is sourced to the yet to be produced film and that Demiurge's warning to him about BLP violations was impugning the yet to be produced film. Sigh. I'm afraid the walls of text in multiple sections at the Help Desk produced long after the original draft was deleted have become extremely disruptive and bordering on trolling. Take a look at.Voceditenore (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that. I saw the stuff on the talk page but didn't pay that much attention so didn't realise what happened there and didn't understand until now how the OP got from people suggesting the article to the person lacked sufficient sourcing to establish notability to people were challenging the sourcing of the film. Now at least it sort of makes sense even if it still seems silly (and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this fiasco and particularly the responses by the IP and James would have a far worse effect on the crediblity of the films than the original correct BLP redaction if anyone actually looksmin to it). BTW as a final point of clarification, there are two films. One Poison in the Grapes is an already produced and released (I think) short film. Another is an expanded feature film in production (or which they hope will do so?) which is supposed to be called Death Water. It sounds like the alleged discrediting is in Poison i.e. the already produced film although it may also end up in Death Water sothe concern relates to both films. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering that you have repeatedly accused people of questioning the sourcing used in the film when I don't think anyone has done so anywhere on wikipedia and people have repeatedly tried to assure you was never done, the label may be fair. BTW, I didn't mention this before but regarding your claim we need an admission from you or from your staff that you are trying to use wikipedia for promotional purposes, of course we don't need an admission to have resonable suspicion or to suggest that it may be going on, just resonable evidence. I'm fairly sure your film doesn't require admission from the EPA or the others you accuse for all the wrong doing you accuse them of, so I don't understand why this is even in contention. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the community is far more interested in gazing at it's own navel I'm putting the question. I request administrator intervention to block the IP address: 216.189.170.139 for a period of no less than 2 weeks for persistent disruption, Failure to Assume good faith, Failure to understand the purpose of wikipedia, attempts to use Wikipedia to advertise their personal projects, Conflict of Interest involved editing, WP:COMPETENCE based issues, and veiled Legal Threats. I further request that the RBI sanctions be enacted for the subjects of Poison in the Grapes and Matthew Berdyck on the grounds that any further fielding of complaints with respect to these subjects are no better than flushing volunteer hours down the toilet. Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you quote the Google result that I am a CIA agent? That one is much more interesting. Ban us. We live on the road, and have a different IP every day. As I said, I have contacts with upper management at Wikipedia. I can escalate this matter if necessary. I was hoping I wasn't going to have to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.170.139 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok please do so and stop wasting our time. In the meantime can an admim salt the fields and userpapge desecration to follow 8). Lol, I've asked for admin action too, I just read that and I had the image of the salting of Palestrina(?) in Rome by a medieval Pope and had to share my private chuckle. Well thank you for the threat of continued threat of disrutpion. it should help on the path of showing you aren't here in good faith. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, all articles will be salted to prevent implied threat of block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Really, Middleamericajames should be blocked as well, for tendentious editing at AfC. Otherwise we're just going to hear Berdyk's whining through him. BMK (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you. :) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I just saw that, well done. BMK (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Persistent personal attacks, incivility, belligerence and hostility from user:Tabrisius

I'd like to bring the community's attention to the attitude of user:Tabrisius in a content dispute at Talk:Royal Moroccan Army.

The discussion is rendered almost impossible by persistent personal attacks, pattern of hostility, general incivility and confrontational/WP:BATTLEGROUND-like behaviour. Requests to keep the exchange civil and focus on content have been answered with comments such: "stop playing the victim", "who do you think you are", "you are a troll...stop trolling me", "you're a great liar" etc. Diffs can be provided at request.

Unfortunately the attacks are escalating, rendering any resolution through normal content disputes channels difficult. In the absence of community action/involvement/attention, the discussion can be little more than a one-way flood of insults.

I'm requesting that third parties, get involved in commenting about the users behaviour and reminding them of policies such as: WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPA and WP:Own. Tachfin (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs should be provided without a request. That said, I looked at this section of the talk page. Some of Tachfin's edits are not optimal ("sloppy gibberish"), but they pale in comparison to Tabrisius's comments, particularly harping on how Tachfin is a liar and apparently having reported Tachfin to WP:AIV, generally the last refuge of the desperate. Hchc2009 is trying to mediate the content dispute, but it's not easy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I left an NPA warning on Tabrisius's talk page regarding their conduct. That doesn't preclude other action. I note that Tabrisius was blocked for edit warring on the article itself earlier this month.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring and personal attacks should be considered symptoms of the same problem (unable to respect other editors, compromise, and properly collaborate) and my recommendation for any eventual administrative action is to consider these to be repeat offenses, even though they'd merit different warning/block templates. -- Atama頭 00:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

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

---

Water fluoridation is a controversial, page. Senior Editors are not following Wiki Verifiability Policy - attempting to judge quality of research selectively. Censoring HSPH study issued with a press release by the institution.

Water Fluoridation Page problems including not following Wiki Verifiability Policy

Water Fluoridation is trending now, on I have seen at least half a dozen posts on facebook, this past few weeks by various people (in a local where there IS NO FLUORDATION for decades). It matters to people, one way or another. Some believe it is the state of science, others feel abused by government and industry. Serious topic. So lets get this right.

Upon inspection I found that the Harvard Public Health School study on the topic by Choi in conjunction with the China Medical University in Shenyang, was not once but previously removed as a new study being cited.

The editors attempt themselves to determine which studies they find acceptable and qualifying instead of simply following the verifiability policy as is the wiki standard.

Dr James / JMH649 is an advisor at Wiki on medical articles and seems to be overseeing this page. However, the policy of wiki is not that one person can discount other credible sources and determine them not worthy studies. No such analysis appears to have being done to old studies listed. In fact the opposite seems true. Old studies are being cited repeatedly, so many old references that the page has asked for no more new links. See for yourself, it is highly dramatic and attempting to what?.. convince us that everyone in the 50s to 2002 is right? We need to not skew all data toward the past and must include new studies. It seems this has been mishandled significantly.

The verifiability policy

The new study must be admitted base on Wikis Verifiability policy which is as follows:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true".

The Choi Harvard Study has been quoted by Harvard it its own press release supporting the research, Huffington Post, and Fox News to name a few. It is verifiable! It must be admitted as a reference on this topic of varying opinion... even if it is considered the minority, it can be shown as such. But realize it is decades newer so minimizing fewer new studies in favor of many old studies is not exactly cutting edge research, as people want to see. Its simply old science we are showing. Obviously studies based on longer time periods available have more data to utilize so it is highly imprudent to have delayed this so long.

Other roadblocks on new information reverted (ad nauseam).

1) Formerly 98 immediately removed the new Harvard study and leaves only old studies only referenced under the heading "Evidence". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601392345&oldid=601390742

2) The article reads like a dated 1960s pitch. It makes claims to help children and " the poor ". I changed the wording to economically disadvantaged and was reverted with no explanation by a new editor. It's highly insulting to call people poor. Again the dated wording, and pitch to save "the poor", is just outdated and wrong for a featured article.

3) Piguy101 reverted my correction from "Although Fluoride can cause dental fluorosis".. to "Fluoride can cause dental fluorosis"... We are not negotiating or selling it .. that word is a minimizer and implies a POV.. agreed? .. please assist. Agressive Reversionn of a minor edit/ Although It is like using "only" a little brown on teeth.. etc.. why not just say it causes Fluorosis?

4) Oversimplifying Fluoride Compounds as one word in the first three paragraphs. I simply tried to reference the few and elaborate more clearly below the index table in a new paragraph.

By oversimplifying different elements, people may think it is the naturally occurring substance that is added to water. Not the case. Was trying to clarify earlier and show clearly the type that as referenced on a verifiable site (and did properly cite), that there area few fluoride compounds created and used. It is not the naturally occurring calcium fluoride. It is an acid compound man made from industry, used in the majority of water fluoridation. This is dumbing down wiki by not moving at least a reference in a clear way up into the summary. The other reference is not visually distinct and attractive to the eye. People need to see the types of fluoridation in bullet points that are utilized clearly. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=601445143&oldid=601444397

5) Stop pitching it, and show the index box on the screen The layout shows a long winded pitch and obscures the index off the whole first page of a screen.

The introductory paragraphs ramble, are too many and go on about the benefits too long.. instead of referencing them and expanding later. So much so it repeats itself in later paragraphs.

Why does that matter? it pushes down the index box, and keeps touting benefits, while oversimplifying "fluoride" and minimizing "although" on fluorosis. I have news for you, in NY we don't want brown teeth. So skip the "although" your teeth may turn color comment, its not how people may feel. Simply state the fluorosis without minimizing wording. It is also bscuring the index box, where a reader can click on the topics of interest. Its like the Ikea store principle. you cant get out of the store until you have seen what they want you to see.. it is like a maze in there round and round until you can spot what you came for or the door.

The top paragraph should be simple, expound in lower paragraphs. Please don't run the index off the page to complete what seems like a sales pitch. Let viewers see the varied topics before being reassured of safety and other comments. Only the summary needs show before the index. Indexes shouldn't be at second pages no matter how fervent the writer. I attempted to correct and was told this was a featured article. Ok.. well please properly lay out and put back the index to the top as is proper layout for featured article.

6) Not once but three times, I added Israel as a nation that no longer allows fluoride beginning August 2014. Multiple editors reverted that too instead of correcting a line, they discarded valid information. This is 2014 information tossed and showing only old info. Again hopelessly dating the article and key topic. Why?

7) I would like again to try to add the lawsuit by Yaacov Gurman petitioning the court of Israel that was dismissed. Dramatic, but he represents a large consumer group, and within a year the Nation changed Public Health Ministers and the policy. All quite exciting information that might let a reader see the activity on this topic is very fluid and very real. Hardly the picture of the decades past portrayed by and large. This is listed on a banned wiki site.. but it seems to be a legitimate pdf document of the lawsuit - this is a very interesting challenge by a consumer group in which the so I will not do a link. It is worth reading an on pdf translated and brief.. the court dismisses after fluoridation is ceased. Quite a controversy and battle between the consumers and old practices in government. Why not show a bit of the consumer changes being sought and won? Its what is actually transpiring.

8) Fox news Dr. has come out against fluoridation for various types of at risk persons. That too was reverted. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/08/22/does-fluoride-in-drinking-water-hurt-your-brain/ It can be easily listed under controversy.

In summary this is Wikipedia, a transparent organization that is interested in new credible information on topics such as this. Majority and minority alike.

Please clean up this page. I have tried and it seems the page is revered and heavily guarded ..and hopelessly stuck decades back.

WikiShares (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, your efforts to insert anti-fluoridation conspiracy theories into Wikipedia have been unsuccessful. Nice to know that some parts of our policies still serve to help prevent the kind of damage you have attempted to wreak on the articles.—Kww(talk) 05:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

TL,DNR - but it looks very much like a content dispute to me. Content disputes are not dealt with here, only behavioral problems. Are there behavoral problems? If so, please cite them using diffs and a succinct description, so that our hard-working volunteer admins can delve into what you believe the problem is. Be aware, though, that by bringing a behavioral problem here, your own behavior will also be looked into. Are your hands clean? BMK (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that you, General Turgedson?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you mean General Jack D. Ripper. BMK (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?"

Hi and thanks for reading. First, Kww you are scary... Harvard Studies are not meant to "wreak havoc". Thanks for the drama Beyond My Ken, thanks for the good beginning information.. I gave links to the content but am not familiar yet with diffs. And yes my hands are meticulous.. its the water that may not be so clean that was the subject of this matter.

who is General Turgdson, I should have known not to open discussion at this hour. WikiShares (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are we entertaining this sock any longer? Has anyone actually looked at the contributions for WikiShares (talk · contribs)? Yep: pretty sketchy. What's up with returning from a hiatus since 2010 with bit of grammatically flawed and totally unreferenced original research ? Nothing good. This is not an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia. Doc talk 06:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikishares attempted to make major edits to a featured article, not only without discussing them on the Talk Page first, but after very similar changes had been discussed and explicitly rejected. The article he cites explicitly stated that the study's results could not be applied to low level fluoridation of drinking water. Not sure why we are even discussing this. Formerly 98 (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Our "precious bodily fluids". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear WikiShares....see WP:FRINGE. Do you also believe that vaccinations cause Autism? Wikipedia articles should be supported by real science ref's, and the use of those ref's should actually MATCH what was said DP 10:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admin Reviewers (are you all a joke to this process? ) Friends, you mean well, but your elitist attitude about contributions and incendiary speculations (Dandgerous Panda) and insults are hardly an elevated discussion but just blatant hostility. Focus.. follow WIKIPEDIA's rules. You cannot simply discuss (as a possibly created majority) the addition of warranted content away! It meets the Verifiability Standard. The article is being suppressed willfully and wrongly.

Lastly last night BMK Be My Ken followed and reverted my contribution on a NY modeling agency, to which I have personal knowledge of the comment written. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoli_Agency&action=history This was more hostility as a result of my efforts to call into attention the censorship occurring on a page that is clearly more controversial than I have ever witnessed.. well perhaps the middle east etc.. but this is up there.

Water fluoridation like it or not has opinions, recent ones coming in that are being mishandled and hidden from use wrongly and perhaps with bias, despite being credible and verifiable. Any one of you who assists in suppressing any must become familiar with the verifiability rule. WikiShares (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiShares the verifiability standard says that all information added to an article must be verifiable. It does not say that all verifiable information must be included. What is included is an editorial decision based on discussion and then consensus. GB fan 12:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiShares says in his edit summary for the comment above: "Message from editors - HANDS OFF ON WATER FLUORIDATION?" No, WikiShares, the message(s) from the editors here are:

• All material on Wikipedia must be verifiable using citations from reliable sources. Material which is not supported may be removed at any time.
• Not all verifiable material must go into an article: see WP:WEIGHT.
• Sources cited must actually back up the claims made; if there is no support within a citation for the material added, the material is unsourced and can be removed at any time.
• Editorial decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, and edits made against an established consensus can be removed while they are discussed (if needed) to see if a new consensus is forthcoming
• Anything you just "know" is original research, and cannot be added to articles
• "Vandalism" is a specific term of art on Wikipedia, defined at WP:VANDALISM. Do not call other editor's contributions "vandalism" if they do not meet this criteria. Deliberately continuing to do so can be considered to be a personal attack
• Claims of "Wiki-stalking" or "harrassment" are serious charges, and if they are not supported by evidence can be considered to be a personal attack.
• Using an editor's contribution list to check for bad edits after another bad edit has been revealed is not "harrassment" or "Wiki--stalking", it's one of the reasons that the contribution list is public, and helps to improve the encyclopedia
• Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, and does not exist for the purpose of promoting any cause.
• Anti-fluouridation advocacy generally does not rely on real science, and is considered to be a WP:FRINGE topic.

BMK (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It certainly says that it is not up to the editor to determine if he agrees.... Why try to suppress the newest study what is the goal here to assure the public of old studies? Why suppress high profile research? What could be the point? I am not naïve, nor do I think you are PR employees of the industry.. but the conduct is hostile to revert all contributions and suppress the real picture which is.. MANY new credible entities are engaging in and making changes to opinion on this topic. You only serve to frustrate the reporting of those facts when removing content. Again why the heck did Ken read my contribution on a modeling agency and deliberately revert it?

That's abominable! WikiShares (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lastly GB, yes I see the creation of a talk page, and consensus? of what.. a few highly motivated people to say the world is flat? It's not up to you to block new credible studies and repeatedly list antiquated ones because you want to.

It's violating the spirit of Wikipedia and new and well cited studies.. if you all are so driven to do this... perhaps you all should take a break.. Or work for the industry and get paid for this information skewing to readers. That's what this is .. and why I find it necessary to speak out. 12:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Another page for you to read, the one on "I didn't hear that" behavior. BMK (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, note that almost everything you've reported here is by way of a content dispute, however, admins do not settle content disputes, they deal with behavioral problems, and, so far, the only behavioral problem I can see here is yours. Given that, it's worthwhile to read WP:BOOMARANG. BMK (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• WikiShares, bottom line is this: you agreed to the policies of this private website the moment you first edited, and every time since. The biggest and most important right now is WP:CONSENSUS - which means no matter how fantastic you think your source is, if consensus says that it's NOT that great, then consensus does and always will rule. Period. The administrators on this board are not here to review the content of the reports, or even the veracity of your edits - that apparently has already been done on the article. If you continue to fail to adhere to the policies you agreed to for long enough, then any single one of the admins reading or participating in this thread have the ability, authority, and ethical requirement to protect the project from further disruption. DP 13:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are you saying my contributions on an unrelated topic of a modeling agency were not shown to be reverted by you Ken? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoli_Agency&action=history This link shows a user with your name has reverted a contribution by me on an unrelated matter.. Are you to say it was not you Ken?

The heart of this.. is I contributed a recent study from Harvard on a topic that the editors have decided as a "consensus" should not be reference... Call it what you will.. the heart of this.. is....... The real watchdog on this topic is "Dr Jim" who has stayed silent as this all has become an attempt by a group, to redirect the topic and frustrate me as a sincere contributor. Nice try!

This is relevant and keeping it out does not make it appropriate. This is the process of developing a consensus on censorship and not letting the reader read differing studies because they are different points of view, and not found acceptable by a small group of watchful editors who are blocking it. That is it plain and simple. Revert all you like... This topic is real and being colored wildly by the "consensus"

Dangerous Panda, There is not a chance in h, I will edit that page right now... so claiming anything of the sort is quite outlandish. Are you trying to ignore that an editor on this page just followed me and reverted a modeling article edit?

This is NOT a content dispute.. it is the actions of wholesale revisions instead of small changes, and also the violation of Verifiability .. even if you do not as a consensus choose to reference it.. as factual, it must be included in the opposition, minority or other opinions! Wouldn't you agree? That is the crux of it.. why have a politics and ethics paragraph citing differing opinions.. and ban it from there also? because it says Harvard and might be believed? That's the core of this matter.

Lastly, and I am off to the real world.. I have this to say.. The world is round my friends the world is round. The study you decide against citing in a huge run on page is already getting old.. and Nations.. like Israel have just banned the practice. So is Israel a Fringe? are they anti vaccine etc? Lol The world is Round friends. Have a nice day. I will not be engaging in the forum. Ken good job of reverting other contributions and trying to accuse me of attacks for saying so. Nice job Panda... but I won't be giving you anything you can say is working against the consensus.

That may be a content reference but it is the conduct of ken following me and reverting, and of the wholesale reversions that are in question and would frustrate and deter any changes to a page that appears in my humble opinion to be guarding VERY dated studies for what purpose and defense I am not sure.

I am very disappointed in the extremes I have witnessed. WikiShares (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding my reversion of your addition to the Zoli Agency article, as I explained already on my talk page, I do not (and did not) deny reverting your edit, which was unsourced, I simply refused your request to restore it. Your claim that the edit was "vandalism" is not correct, as you should know by now, and that my action constitutes "Harrassment" and "Wiki-stalking" is also inaccurate. It remains the case that the only behavioral problem represented in this thread is your own WP:IDHT behavior in refusing to take on board basic Wikipedia policies and procedures. Unless you're are willing to do that, your prospective tenure as an editor here will be limited. BMK (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• You write in your edit summary "After my opening an Admin.. and Editor followed and undid work on another simple topic, - I showed the link, but was told it was possibly a personal attack!!!! is this real?" Yes, this is real, as I have already explained to you at least three times. There is nothing wrong with checking an editor's contributions for problems when his editing has been shown to be problematic. That is what I did, and as a result I reverted unsourced material. You called it harassment and stalking, which it is not. If you were to continue to call it harassment and stalking without providing evidence of actual misbehavior, then, yes, that would be a personal attack, and you could be blocked it. Will you be blocked for that? No, since I don't plan to press the issue and (at this point) it's a one-time thing. However, if you don't drop the subject, that could change. BMK (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"The world is round my friends the world is round" Actually, it's an oblate spheroid. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This users changes and comments make it appear like they have not actually read the article. They are trying to use a study that is not about water fluoridation to discuss water fluoridation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you claim that Israel has banned fluoride as that isn't true. "The court simply deferred to the authority of Israel’s health minister, who happens to oppose fluoridation. She declined to sign an order that would have continued fluoridation regulations. These regulations will end in August, and what happens after that is unclear." [54] No one knows if local authorities will be able to add fluroide or not. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. The sum total of the above commentary by WikiShares is an epic case of bad faith, not listening, soapboxing, personal attacks, and a apparent inability to grok basic Wikipedia policies even after they've been explained multiple times. And, looking over WikiShares' contribution history, before their rather lengthy Wikibreak (as mentioned, back in 2010) they were exhibiting the exact same behavior. What we have here is an editor who is either not here to improve the encyclopedia or who is indistinguishable from the same, and therefore I've indefinitely blocked them so as to avoid a further drain on the community's time. While indefinite is not infinite, I'd highly reccomend unblock requests only be considered if, and only if, they show a good-faith effort to abide by Wikipedia policies (most notably WP:CONSENSUS). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. The signal-to-noise ratio with this editor was unsatisfactory. -- Atama頭 15:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Post RfC actions of Dr.K, Collect, Moxy and myself

I'm requesting input from the community on whether the (post-RfC) actions taken by Collect, Moxy, Dr.K. and myself were appropriate in light of the results of a recent RfC on the Justin Bieber article. Long story short, I feel that they are deleting information which during the RfC was actually supported for inclusion by a majority of the participants (if you count). I find Dr.K's behaviour in particular to be offensive because he did not participate in any of the RfC's two surveys, and only after the RfC is closed, he starts removing information which only 25% of editors supported deleting. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the long story

We have been involved in a content dispute in the Bieber article that started from late January. Essentially, I wish to add content to the article on Bieber's run-ins with the law, and Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. were all in opposition. As a result of our actions (and those of other editors as well), the article was locked from a month from February 10, and an RfC was created by Moxy, and concluded slightly over a month later. At first within the RfC, a General survey was created. All were informed, and Moxy, Collect and I voted. Dr.K. did not vote. Instead Dr.K. took to the threaded discussion section to say that we should clarify this RfC as to the exact incidents which should remain in the BLP ... We should itemise the questions according to each incident. So I took Dr.K's advice, created a point-by-point survey for the RfC, and informed all who had earlier participated in the RfC, including Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. Another response section was created for the second survey. For the second survey, I myself responded with reference to individual points. However, Collect and Moxy made no attempt to address individual points. Collect in particular seemed unwilling to contribute further, saying Sorry -- this is not how discussions normally occur for BLPs and I decline to play a game here ... Cheers -- but do not expect me to contribute to the "wall of text" discussion now or ever. Meanwhile, Dr.K. did not participate in the point-by-point survey he originally helped to propose. Because this was my first RfC, I was unaware of the proper procedure of how RfCs were to be closed. So after one month of the open RfC with discussion having died down for a while, I attempted to round up the discussion. Still, I believe that my conclusion was valid. From the general survey, those who outright opposed addition of the content (5 including Collect and Moxy) were outnumbered by the rest (12- made of 7 who said include most and 5 who focused on including legal issues). But for those who participated in the second point-by-point survey (eight editors), out of the 15 points, only 4 points received more than 25% opposition (2/8), these being points 7, 11, 13 and 14. So after being informed that I shouldn't be closing the RfC, I learnt the proper procedure and requested for an uninvolved editor to close it, and it was closed by Gaijin42 who said that there is consensus for inclusion of the information in some form ... In regards to specific points (1-15) for most of them there is not enough feedback to determine a consensus, but I will say that there is NOT a consensus to NOT include ... #7 and #13 appear to have the closest thing to consensus for non inclusion ... there is a consensus that these incidents are forming a larger portion of Bieber's reputation and notability. With the closure of the RfC, I updated the content in the article, removing #13 and trimming #7. Pretty quickly Moxy jumped back in to remove #15 saying Was there consensus for this BS stuff here? ... this page is Turing into a kids tabloid, and I reverted. Note that in the point-by-point survey #15 was only 2/8 not in favour of inclusion -> 1/8 once reliable source found, which was found. After that Collect went on to delete #14 (4/8 not in favour of inclusion -> 3/8 once reliable source found) and #15 also saying it was trivia of ephemeral significance. So Collect and Moxy didn't bother to vote properly in the point-by-point survey, and now they're removing points as they see fit over a majority opinion? But those weren't the worst actions in my opinion. Dr.K. went on to perform some Assorted removals from the legal issues, removing or trimming points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. You can count for points 2, 3, 4 and 5, no more than 2/8 of the 8 editors who bothered to vote properly in the point-by-point survey (not Collect, Moxy nor Dr.K.) opposed points 2, 3, 4 and 5. So Dr.K. seemingly ignores the RfC and does what he sees fit, after not even voting in the RfC. Here's what Dr.K. had to say for himself. I did not participate in the RFC or the subsequent discussion trusting that a resolution could be arrived at, since so many people were discussing these points. But it appears that very little progress has happened. / I just can't believe the editorial judgement which allowed this fluff to creep into this article. Well if so maybe you should have participated in the RfC and voiced your concerns while it was still open! Gaijin42 later elaborated that Its an open issue that may be discussed further ... I do not see a policy based reason for exclusion - it received wide coverage in very reliable sources. this is the type of thing that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus and discretion.' - if so, how come Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. are all employing the "remove first" and "discuss later" policy? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note Content inclusion in a BLP which is clearly deemed contentious requires a positive consensus - at this point only one editor seems to be asserting that such incidents must be placed in the BLP. As for his insistence that editors must "vote" on his point-by-point wall of text, that is just absurd. As for me calling his posts "wall of text" I invite anyone here to look at the length and number of his contributions and argumentation on the BLP talk page. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP are clear on this, and this forumshopping excursion does not belong at AN/I at all. [55] shows the edit at issue now -- noting that it gives much space to a "White House petition" which was deemed of no value except by basically a single editor, [56] is the talk page discussion thereon. Gaijin, the closer of the RfC, specified that the material requires editorial consensus. One and only one editor says no consensus is needed for the trivia - and I suggest he may be in for a rude awakening regarding his one-man-consensus here, and the tendentious editing thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The point-by-point survey came about due to a call for clarification so that there could be progress. I think it's just lazy that you didn't bother to offer a point-by-point reply. The petition was discussed in the RfC as well, and there were other supporters, although it was certainly contested. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem here is confusion among some editors about policy. One would think that BLP policy would all be located at WP:BLP, but there seems to be an important BLP policy that is spelled out at WP:Consensus and not at WP:BLP: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Perhaps this quote might answer the current dispute?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mm, since that bit has been part of WP:CON for a long time (june '12) [57] it seems there is a decent consensus for that interpretation of consensus. I'd support adding it into BLP and seeing what happens. Regarding my close - clearly there was support for inclusion of the general topic of Bieber's scandals and how they are affecting his image, but the individual points were not widely !voted on (with the exception of 2 that had consensus to be removed). The lack of response on those other points brings up WP:SILENCE but as all of them involved contentious BLP (and some of themBLP that wasn't even about Bieber) it raises the bar for inclusion on those specific points. As far as ANI, this was a borderline close, with a lot of it coming out as no-consensus. Continued efforts to build that consensus are not a matter for ANI, but if there is edit warring or disruption, that is something for ANI. In light of the WP:CON snippet, it does appear that positive consensus for inclusion would be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Although not perfectly aligned with the WP:CON snip above, BLP does already have something along these lines (although it appears to be targeted at the entire article, not individual bits of content). Perhaps the two bits should be conformed more

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that BLP quote. It seems pretty clear that material about "run-ins with the law" is contentious material that falls under these provisions of policy, so it should all be removed unless there is consensus to include or retain (assuming it's all presented in NPOV fashion, reliably sourced, etc).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint did very well here...the majority of his text has been implemented because of the RfC. But there is however points that did not have consensus at all that were not re-implemented. Leaving out a poll and info on his friends antics was the out come of the RfC from what I can see. -- Moxy (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

These are my edits of the 19th of March, which offended Starship.paint so much that he had to drag me to ANI, albeit with a nine-day delay. I try to avoid ANI as much as I can if for nothing else than to avoid the drama. So I wasn't planning to reply to these allegations, except that I felt that I had to address his comments (personal attacks) about my "offensive behaviour". He does not seem to understand that Bieber's biography is no place for showcasing the results of what police found in his bus while he was absent. Neither is Bieber responsible for what was found on the body of his friend Lil Za. That is why I removed this stuff. I also removed ...and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities. on the basis that "upsetting authorities" is a vague and comical allegation, unworthy of inclusion in his biography. I also removed the bit that Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood. as trivial and unworthy of inclusion in a serious biography. Residents are frequently upset with their neighbours, especially if they happen to also be leading the lifestyle of rock stars. And finally I removed: R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber. What does that have to do with Bieber? I did my best to improve Bieber's bio by removing this tripe from his biography. After a nine-day delay and without replying to my comment on the 20th of March on the talkpage of Bieber's article Starship.paint brings me to ANI. He could have tried to reply to my points there instead of transplanting the dispute to this forum. Finally, as I remarked on the talkpage of Bieber's article, I find that Starship.paint frequently badgers opponents with walls of text. That was one of the primary reasons that I did not take part in the RfC. I simply could not discuss this tripe while anticipating to be showered by walls of text defending the trivia. Perhaps Starship.paint can be advised to try to improve the encyclopedia in more substantive ways than trying to relentlessly defend the addition of inconsequential crap in Bieber's biography and subdue the opposition with showers of text. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• So now you're blaming me for not replying to your arguments, when your last post on the Bieber talk page called for me not to reply to your arguments because you know my stand well already. Do you want my arguments or not? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't exactly tell you not to reply. I told you to wait until someone other than yourself came to defend your points, since this is a wiki. I had hoped that you would get the message that since after nine days noone came to defend your arguments, that your points were not popular. Now I see that the message you got was to bring me and two other editors to ANI. I am not going to comment on the wisdom of that action. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty simple to me; you, Collect and Moxy are "regulars" of the article. It would seem that the majority in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC aren't such "regulars" editing the article. They apparently don't monitor the talk page, therefore they don't comment. If they disagree with me they can post so. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Once I disregard #7, all of this information you removed was supported to be included by a majority of participants in the RfC. General survey had 12/17 supporting the inclusion of the legal issues, point-by-point survey had 6/8. How is it that it's possible for you to ignore participating in the RfC, then coming around to remove points after the RfC ended with a majority of participants supporting these points to be included. I just don't think it's right. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC results on those points were debatable. Even the closer of the RFC commented they should be removed. These points were demonstrably irrelevant to the BLP as I have stated before. We cannot allow BLP-violating, irrelevant, nit-picky, low quality etc. etc. points into the article just because the RfC results were murky. That would be an utter failure of the collective editorial discretion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Debatable". Nice oversimplification. Imagine that you did bother to participate in the RfC's two surveys, and voted against every single point. Then 6/18 would be against the legal issues (33%) and 3/9 in the point-by-point survey (again 33%). It's a very non-murky "minority". Gaijin42 singled out points 7 and 13, not 2-5 (which you targeted). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: WP:CONSENSUSis not a vote and your use of numbers and "votes" for your "list of points" has no value whatsoever, and the fact is that WP:BLP is a very strong policy which means that policy-based arguments trump "I hate Justin Bieber" arguments every single time. At this point, moreover, you appear to have a bad case of WP:IDHT which may well be addressed at this point, as it quite appears that tendentious point-pushing may attract undesired attention to yourself. Verb. sap, applies. Collect (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• We've been through this before. Given that it is undisputed that each content point I have tried to insert has multiple reliable sources, I bring up a sub-policy of WP:BLP, which is WP:WELLKNOWN. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.
• This is exactly what happened the last time. You bring up policy, I bring up policy, we revert each other, RfC was started to gauge the wider community's stand on this issue so that we could have progress. RfC concludes with more people tilting towards include. I know RfCs don't rely on voting, but this is exactly what the community feels, and I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that.
• I've already argued before how each individual point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, so I can do it again if you want, but you'll probably call them "walls of text" again and ignore them, just like how you've done so in the past. Tell me you want me to prove how each point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, go on. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 14:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that. Please leave this nonsense. Repeating it will not make it true or put people in a zombie-like hypnotic trance to do your bidding. But I think I know why you have invested so much time and effort to defend adding this trivia which is unrelated to Bieber directly. The common thread between Bieber's bus inspection by the police while he was absent, Lil Za's cocaine bust and Khalil's arrest is that you want to associate Bieber with these events and imply that he is guilty by association. You want to editorialise: "Bieber's bus is bad, Khalil is bad, Lil Za is bad, everything around Bieber is bad, ergo Bieber is bad". The same goes with the rest of the events with the neighbours and "making authorities upset": "Bieber makes authorities upset, neighbours upset, ergo Bieber is bad" This is a WP:BLP-violating WP:SYNTHESIS project on a grand scale designed to attack Bieber by painting a synthetic angle using a patchwork of tabloid news fodder some of which is not attributable to Bieber directly. You want to create a feeling of malfeasance about Bieber using a collage of trivia. I suggest you abandon that BLP-violating approach or action may have to be taken so that you can stop targeting Bieber this way. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This may all be caused because Starship.paint is use to writing about wrestling were the whole topic is fake. as seen here the topic its self is fuelled by speculation put out by the community to draw interest. Writing about characters over real people may be where there is a problem. Wrestling survives on guess work and made up associations, but the rest of the world does not work that way. I think Starship.paint does a great job for the kids that are interested in wrestling articles, but needs to understand that associations and things like public polls is not what we consider valid for real bios. The RfC was pretty clear to me that the majority did want to mention the topic of legal problems overall, but they also had reservations on some points as did the closer of the RfC. Need to read what people are saying not just look at there vote. -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not WP:NPOV but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains WP:RS I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by Heicth who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to go to WP:DRN? Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Heicth has been particularly obstructive and objects to me trying to edit the article in any way even with WP:RS. I have tried to collaborate but he refuses. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and such freedom is important. Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The manipulation of Wikipedia by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (Kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, agreeing and editing the article in a careful manner, Truthsayer62 deleted most of the academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads to obscure previous discussion while completely lying about the nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite recent consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case. Heicth is uncooperative. He clearly doesn't want to improve the article. The other editors he mentions are sympathetic to his view of the controversy so of course they are going to agree. How is it possible to improve the article with alternative reliably sourced view points when one editor guards the article and refuses to allow the inclusion of material that he doesn't agree with?Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing decisions operate by consensus. If the discussion is between you (1 person) and those of a different opinion (more than 1), at best, it will be a stalemate. The best thing you can do is go to the article talk page and persuasively argue why your edits are an improvement. Win other editors over with your logical argument and reliable sources. Consensus rules and if, should you gain consensus, an editor still is obstinate, the next step is dispute resolution WP:DRN, not AN/I. This isn't a forum to come to get editors you disagree to change their minds or get blocked. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages and, should that fail, dispute resolution forums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz, does it seem right that one person on one side of a controversy should aggressively protect an article from the inclusion of WP:RS that would improve the article and make it more balanced, fair and accurate? I'm not being protectionist, my edit is fair and includes both sides of the controversy, stating views that I myself do not accept. If it takes days and days of effort to make one change to a Wikipedia article because of one editor's intransigence, people will stop taking an interest in Wikipedia and the quality of the articles will suffer as a result. For one person to block change cannot be fair and to be lone voice of one side of the controversy makes getting consensus extremely difficult. The article remains biased and inaccurate while one person protects that inaccuracy. Heicth is insulting and refuses to collaborate or change the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, for better or worse, Wikipedia admins do not make conduct decisions on what you or I (or anyone) thinks is "right" but what WP policy and guidelines support or forbid. I agree that editors shouldn't own articles and prevent other editors from contributing but unless there is disruptive editing going on (like edit warring or personal attacks), gaining consensus for your proposed changes on the article talk page is best way to go because you'll have that support backing your change. That advice goes for any editor. If you want to push the issue further, you can launch an WP:RfC but those only tend to resolve disputes if there is a fair amount of editors participating (say, a dozen) and I'm not sure how many people are working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I understand. At the moment there are only really three other editors on the article, all go whom share a particular view of this controversy. What is the procedure if an individual or even a group of people are attached to their views and actively oppose changes to an article? What if consensus cannot be gained or edits are blocked? Does that mean that the article has to remain one sided? Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Liz. By the way, Truthsayer62 is again lying. It is not just me opposing him. User:CFynn just addressed him on the article's talk page.Heicth (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

After Liz's comment, Truthsayer62 is now pretending to be a new user, March22nd, (same specific argument about introduction, making a big deal of how to sign, providing an edit summary for talk page comments) or brought in this fellow NKT editor. Come on Wikipedia, ban these guys like the Scientologists were banned. Even Truthsayer62 admitted there is consensus. Heicth (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth - If you have good reason to believe March22nd is a sock puppet of Truthsayer62 and that these two accounts are being are being abusively operated by the same person - then you can report it to Sockpuppet investigations - but so far the new user March22nd has only made one edit - and that on an article talk page. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. I am not March22nd. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with cultists like Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). I documented my struggles on this ANI page. If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of tiring out his opponents, despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, consensus etc., we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. I propose that Truthsayer62 be banned from any topic related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, which sadly seems to be his life's work according to both his user page and edit history. Heicth (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

if you are really in favour of reliably sourced material and neutral edits, why did you block my reliably sourced and neutral edit? There's nothing in the introduction of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article that explains what the controversy is because it's full of one sided information on why Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It doesn't explain the other point of view that is the other side of the controversy. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous problems, and have been for years, with the articles on Dorje Shugden, the Dorje Shugden controversy, and the New Kadampa Tradition. There are now quite a number of very reputable academic sources on these subjects available, and I think good balanced articles could be written relying only on such sources. However it seems these articles will inevitably be edited by zealous devotees of Dorje Shugden amd/or the NKT to bring these articles as close as they can to their own POV.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed the article edit history, Heicth, but it seems like Truthsayer62 is saying that he can't make edits that "stick", without being reverted, so I question how much influence he has had on the articles in question. I think a topic ban at this stage is not warranted if you are reverting most of his edits. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with Chris Fynn obviously. And the comments of Kt66 elsewhere. Heicth (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching these articles for years and edit warring, sockpuppetry and so on have been going on all that time on the Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, New Kadampa Tradition and several other related articles — carried on by apparent NKT and WSS members on one side, and their detractors (some probably ex-members of those organisations) on the other ~ with the occasional uninvolved but interested editor thrown in. Each side in these edit wars has their own partisan agenda and seemingly nearly infinite zeal and time to spend. Frankly to me it looks unlikely that NPOV will ever be achieved. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty pessimistic. So are you for this topic ban or not?Heicth (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

These are all false accusations making clear that Heicth is aggressive and non-cooperative. He won't accept any edit I propose as he is simply trying to ban a neutral point of view, now by trying to ban me. He has reverted every edit, including the ones I proposed on the talk page and asked for comments on. This is unreasonable. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Fynn already addressed your claims of "neutral point of view" on the talk page. And you are a WP:SPA, by your own admission on your user page. Neither of the "two" users, Truthsayer62 or March22nd (who are obviously linked) seem to understand Chris Fynn's post on the talk page. March22nd for example keeps pushing a primary source written by Kelsang Gyatso. And Truthsayer62 on this ANI page falsely keeps harping about "neutral". Truthsayer62's view of "neutral" is deleting academic information from Kapstein, Dreyfus and Thurman. What other behavior is necessary before someone is topic banned? Heicth (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Whether or not Truthsayer62's use of the word "libel" is actually a legal threat, it is sufficiently disruptive to be grounds for a topic ban in and of itself. If the user is not indeffed for legal threats, he should at least be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal mumbo jumbo and deleting academic quotes (again)

Truthsayer62, a WP:SPA by his own admission on his user page, is now making definitive statements of libel, when we are simply using secondary academic sources from Bultrini and Dr. Thurman. This article is not a WP:BLP. And the Bultrini book with Thurman's foreward clearly documents Chinese involvement. Despite Chris Fynn's recent explanation on the talk page, and previous deleted warninings on his user page, Truthsayer62 once again deleted direct quotes from Dr. Thurman from 2 different pages, Dorje Shugden Controversy and Western Shugden Society. Administrator Thatcher confirmed that Truthsayer62 and 3 other accounts were "editing on the same topics from the same location" and was blocked for sockpuppeting. The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult (WP:COI) is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of fallacious arguments about libel, neutrality etc., despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. Heicth (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I warned Truthsayer62 to try to avoid words like "libel" or "slander" because accusations like that could be perceived as legal threats and we usually block people who make or strongly imply a legal threat until they clarify that no litigation is planned, or threat is intended. I don't think the word "libel" was meant to be a threat, so I haven't taken any action, but I'd rather head off that kind of escalation now before it happens. -- Atama頭 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't mean anything by the use of that word and I didn't realise that it was serious. The truth is that Heicth doesn't like me contributing a view from the other side of the Dorje Shugden controversy and so he is doing everything he can to get me banned when it is he who is being obstructive. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Three week edit war over WP:BLP violations

I'm not a regular editor of this article about Ted Nugent, however it is on my watchlist and I happened to notice an edit-war over what appears to be a pretty obvious WP:BLP violation. A non-reliable source was being used as a source for contentious material about a living person.[58] I have no idea whether the accusation is true, nor do I care. But we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice an opinion held by a non-reliable source (AKA an advocacy organization without a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking). Therefore, I have partially reverted the edit.[59] I invite other experienced editors knowledgeable about WP:RS and WP:BLP to examine the issue. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I support this removal. Good work. --John (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, better work would have been looking at the extensive RFC discussion on the talk page and at least acknowledging it. No idea why you posted about it on here, especially since that content was only one piece of the "edit war" that died down 10 days ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

RS for the quote itself: Los Angeles Times, CNN, New Yorker. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal against consensus

Hi. Today User:Lightbreather has repeatedly removed some material against consensus.[60][61] The latter removal was after three editors (including me) objected to removal.[62][63][64] So, it seems like a pretty simple situation. User:Lightbreather claims that the removal was kosher because a different sentence at a different article was removed, which kind of seems irrelevant to me (the other article is currently the subject of an ArbCom case). I tried to make reasoned arguments, but they mattered not. A block for LB would be very helpful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All of my reasons are given in the very long (sorry, but not all on my account) discussion of yesterday (27 March 2014) "Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed" on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page, and in the 20-27 March 2014 "International debate?" discussion on the Gun control talk page. However, I will be happy to answer any other questions that arise. In a nutshell, IMO: Anythingyouwant misrepresents the conditions under which the material in question was added to the article, and the "consensus." I suggested that he start an RfC on the subject, but instead, he started this. Again, I will be happy to stop what I'm working on to answer any questions that arise. Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a question that arises. Is it not correct that you reverted against the express objections of three editors at the article in question?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A block for the 'contributors' who see Wikipedia as an outlet for pro-gun propaganda entirely unsupported by legitimate academic sources would be even more helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not objecting to my request, Andy. Of course, when describing a political issue at Wikipedia, reliable sources that describe the opposing positions are necessary, and can be used without Wikipedia endorsing any of it, which I think is the case here. Unless our goal is to use Wikipedia for stamping out descriptions of one side of the issue, while promoting the other. Anyway, this is simply a case of ignoring policy in order to revert against consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of ignoring policy, I note that the assertion regarding Brazil in the disputed text is entirely unsourced - I suspect because the actual source for this appears to suggest that the "pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil" was unlikely to be understood in a Brazilian context, having been created by outsiders with little understanding of local issues - and of course misrepresenting sources would be against policy. And for the record, your 'thanks' are premature - I do object to your attempt to get someone blocked for supporting policies - which of course overrule any supposed 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, the removed phrase simply says that the fear-of-tyranny motivation for supporting gun ownership "is mostly but not entirely confined to the United States." If you believe that that violates any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, then I am dismayed by the incredible degree to which you are wrong. Anyway, you've only objected to one of four supporting sources, which says: "NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home". In what universe does that not support the statement in the text? Perhaps it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to slant the POV impact of its political articles, but in that case I suggest we get an additional policy written up, such as WP:Ignore all liberal bias. I emphatically deny any suggestion of promoting any POV at Wikipedia, but plead guilty to tilting against bias where I see it at this website. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, the 'removed phrase' includes a reference which quotes Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Culture (I'd missed that it actually named the source - sorry). What it fails to do is indicate that the quote is cherry-picked, and intentionally misleading, as noted by FiachraByrne on Talk:Gun control some time back [65] - the source states that "...the vast majority of Brazilians would have been able to make sense of the discursive appropriation of ... Hitler" - making the claim that the Hitler poster indicated a 'fear-of-tyranny motivation for supporting gun ownership' in Brazil less than credible. Such cherry-picking of misleading quotes is however par for the course for the pro-gun lobby. Still, I'm sure you can live with that since the POV being pushed isn't 'liberal'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Grump, I never I thought I'd hear "sorry" from you. The removed sentence obviously did not claim anything about Brazil or anything about Hitler. You're making me sorry that I ever logged on to this website, and I'm sure ArbCom will soon complete what you have started. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually look at diffs before posting them on ANI in future. The first diff you linked [66] clearly and unambiguously includes the quotation "[T]he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism" as part of a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That quote is in a footnote. The removed sentence says nothing about Brazil or about Hitler, and if anyone would like to shorten the quote in the footnote then it's fine by me. I'm not going to be the one to shorten it, because it's a perfectly sensible and honest quote, and it doesn't imply anything that isn't true according to that reliable source. I honestly don't see any way that that footnoted source does not support the removed sentence of text, which is so obviously correct that I would be flabbergasted at this discussion were it not Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. We don't 'shorten' footnotes that intentionally misrepresent sources - we remove them entirely, along with the supposed 'reference' they are supporting, as contrary to both Wikipedia policy and elementary standards of encyclopaedic integrity - as Lightbreather had done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we allowed to say "bullshit" here, or is that only allowed for the regulars? Anyway, I have nothing further to say to you this evening Grump. Have a wonnnnnnderful evening, y'hear?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Our article text did not mention Brazil. The source does. Its one of four (?) sources used, all which clearly document that argument being used outside the US. If you disagree, and think the argument is restricted exclusively to the US, find a source saying so. Otherwise take your WP:OR elsewhere.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out that sources are being intentionally misrepresented is not 'original research' AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Two of the three editors (Anythingyouwant and Gaijin42) who objected to "the sentence" being removed are parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Andy is also a party to the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you popped up User:Bbb23, perhaps you could clear something up for me. Does the ArbCom case cover Gun Politics in the United States or not? Had any of us thought that it did, we would have insisted that Lightbreather be a party. Maybe the case only covers those editors at that article who get in LB's way?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An Australian, pro-control source, also used as a reference, dedicated to the topic of control says "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany". And then proceeds to give several examples of the argument being made in Australia. The statement is 100% indisputable, reliably sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A simple question: was the quote you mention selected (a) to accurately reflect the opinions of the author regarding the significance of the 'security against tyranny' argument in the Australian firearms regulation debate, or was it (b) selected to bolster claims that the NRAs argumentum ad Hitlerum has international support? Before answering, I suggest you read the source concerned... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a simple question for you Grump. Do you think that the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has been entirely confined to the United States? Hmm?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That has precisely nothing to do with the issue I have raised - that sources were being intentionally misrepresented in the material Lightbreather removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

I propose that Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned to stop misrepresenting sources and stop forum shopping, with a clear message that any more of this will result in escalating blocks.

Everyone else seems to be keeping it mainly cool in a heated debate, and at least trying to stick to discussing actual content and actual sources. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - He has just inserted the "international" material back into the Gun politics in the U.S. article again. [67] Lightbreather (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, with the support of 4 out of five editors at talk page, and with additional language intended to address the objection from AndyTheGrump, though I doubt it will.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously, I emphatically deny misrepresenting anything. Wikipedia will either decide to handle controversial political subjects neutrally, or it will inevitably be a propaganda machine, and my choice would be for the former instead of the latter. Also, please note AndyTheGrump's statement below: "I've not stated that it was Anythingyouwant who was responsible for the initial misrepresentation...." I oppose any and all misrepresentations in this Wikipedia article, or any other.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you oppose. But since you are (a) the subject of the proposal and (b) not an administrator, your opposition is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am often irrelevant. Mine is not the only irrelevant response to your proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

To be fair, I should point out that I've not stated that it was Anythingyouwant who was responsible for the initial misrepresentation. As for 'propaganda machines' though, the evidence is entirely clear that the whole absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum regarding firearms law is been driven by a partisan lobby allied with the NRA. It is also clear that their arguments are entirely unsupported by academic historiography, and are cobbled together - in a a "cherry-picked", "decontextualised" and "tendentious" manner, as one academic critic noted [68] - not in the interests of promoting understanding that particular period in German history, but in order to influence a debate in another place and time entirely. That is propaganda. 15:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence that was blatantly removed against consensus said absolutely nothing about Hitler, and that sentence was manifestly supported by its four footnotes, as much as any sentence at Wikipedia could possibly be. Andy, why is it not possible to stick to the issue at hand?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence removed was referenced with footnotes which used the words 'Hitler' twice and 'Nazi' three times. Hiding pro-NRA propaganda in footnotes doesn't make it immune to scrutiny. And 'consensus' cannot overrule policy which states that references must not misrepresent sources. That is the issue at hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you have objected to one of four footnotes. But much more than one of four footnotes was removed against consensus. As to that one footnote, you have not disputed that it is a reliable source. Whether it is being misrepresented depends upon what the footnoted sentence says, and in the present case the footnoted sentence merely states what should be extremely obvious to any neutral observer: that the tyranny argument is not entirely confined to the United States. This is not rocket science here, and at some point we have to (gasp!!!!!!!) look at the facts. More generally, are you saying that policy forbids Wikipedia from saying that the NRA (and others) have used a Hitler argument? Can you not see that describing "propaganda" is not the same as propagandizing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This will be my last comment, so feel free to have the last word, block me, ban me, or anything you want. I felt obligated to bring attention to the recent defiance of the consensus policy, even though I had no illusions that ANI would lift a finger. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, per Godwin's law, it is more or less inevitable that Hitler will eventually come up in debates about firearms regulation. That does not however indicate that NRA propaganda on the issue has any serious credibility elsewhere - and cherry-picking sources to try to prove otherwise, in the absence of sources which actually state as such, is synthesis, and a violation of Wikipedia policy. The simple facts are that it is only in the U.S. that 'Nazi' analogies with firearms regulation have had any serious traction - elsewhere, as the Australian and 'Brazil' sources make clear, such arguments are either seen as irrelevant, treated with derision, or (as in Australia [69] "the Jewish community finds [it] repugnant and offensive, and totally rejects the comparison") called out as the grossly offensive abuse of the memory of the Holocaust for propaganda purposes that they clearly are. The sources are being cited to support a claim that the facile 'Nazi' analogy has traction elsewhere, without noting that the sources cited make it entirely clear that the analogy has been treated with utter contempt. Misrepresentation of sources is contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk)

A bizarre post by Anythingyouwant on my talk page

Evidently, Anythingyouwant seems to think that it would be preferable for disputes on Wikipedia to be resolved by resort to firearms: "I assure you that if duelling were still legal, I would be seriously considering it" [70] Since such methods of resolution are not only against policy, but illegal (and given the fact that we are separated by the Atlantic ocean, impossible), I have to assume that the purpose of this post was to intimidate me, rather than for any other purpose - and accordingly, I call for Anythingyouwant to be indefinitely blocked for behaviour entirely incompatible with both Wikipedia policy and elementary standards of human behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to Grump: "there was no threat whatsoever. I seriously doubt that you would accept a duel, even if it were still legal, and even if I challenged you to one." Funny how he left that part out. Funny how he also left out his previous statement that I am a "patronising little troll".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have often found Anythingyouwant's editing and commentary problematic. But I can't get worked up about that one. As you say, Andy, there's an ocean between you. How could you possibly be intimidated? Bishonen | talk 17:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

Actually, that is an assumption on my part - I have no means of ascertaining where Anythingyouwant actually is. In any case, it is clearly written in a manner intended to intimidate, since it can serve no other purpose. And yes, it is intimidating to have fellow contributors suggest that they would like to kill me. If this isn't 'problematic', I have to ask what is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be illegal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, since it appears that Anythingyouwant is intent on continuing his intimidatory behaviour, I shall withdraw from this discussion, and contact the WMF directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't want to kill them either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as crocodile angst? At worst, this is an accusation of cowardice, which isn't very nice.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Crocodile angst. Yes, apparently there is. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• comment: The dueling statement goes over the line. What if the statement had been "I assure you that if assault were legal, I would be seriously considering it"? I think it would have been seen as intimidating. At the very least, Anythingyouwant should be warned express to their views in less threatening and more civil ways. I am One of Many (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to duel never resulted in any physical harm to anyone, unless both adults consented to it. Since this point seems not to be well-understood, I now realize that making the comment was a mistake, and I sincerely apologize for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: I think much of this disagreement arises out of the ARBCOM delays in releasing a proposed decision for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control which was scheduled to be posted on February 12th. Granted that there are almost always delays, but waiting an additional seven weeks for a decision that might involve some topic bans means that editing in this topic area is still contentious. I'd like to recommend admins wait until a proposed decision is posted by ARBCOM to act but it's still unclear when that will occur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And in the meantime making violent threats against editors is okay? — goethean 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone seriously believes this is headed toward a pistols-at-dawn situation. (Besides, knowing Anythingyouwant, I think if anyone agreed to a duel with him, he'd immediately launch into an interminable, legalistic argument about the technicalities of the code duello until all of the seconds got fed up and went home). It's more like: if we've gotten to the point that one editor is yearning for the opportunity to duel another, then we're waaaay past battleground behavior—the editing environment on these articles is broken and adult supervision is required. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be illegal" (above) is pretty bad. It doesn't devolve to "I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be wrong in so many ways" but more toward "I would kill you if it was legal (and thus I could get away with it)" which carries the strong implication of "I wish you were dead". That's a pretty hurtful thing to say to someone as well as inflammatory. Is the dispute really that important? Let's not talk like this, people. Perhaps a nice hot steaming cup of Please Be Quiet is in order for the offending editor?

On the bright side, invitation to duel at least indicates that the person considers one a social equal and fellow gentleperson. If he considered you a mere yeoman or townsman he would presumably just threaten to thrash you with his cane or trample you with his horse. Herostratus (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The illegality is not the only reason why I do not want to kill Andy. But I have already apologized for mentioning duels at his talk page (see above at 18:47, 29 March 2014), so maybe we can move on now? I will even forgive Andy for calling me a "patronising little troll", if he would forgive me for mentioning that a duel might be satisfying in the present case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• May I suggest you duel with pillows, or something equally undangerous. Perhaps a virtual duel in an online game such as Wii Sports Resort might be suitable. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Banjos. Writegeist (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Handbags at dawn? Guy (Help!) 22:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedia! We don't invite others to "duel" in the manner done here, nor to continue to insult and taunt them: ("there was no threat whatsoever. I seriously doubt that you would accept a duel, even if it were still legal, and even if I challenged you to one"...according to Anythingyouwant.)--MONGO 22:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at page Whoniverse

The IP 41.132.48.255 is being extremely disruptive in a content dispute over at this page. Their actions include:

• Taking a near constant hostile tone. [1]
• Refusal to negotiate to reach consensus despite several offers to collaborate (1, 2, and 3).
• Personal attacks ([71], [72], [73]).
• A series of grudge reverts against User:Mezigue (1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).
• Block evasion (User talk:41.132.48.255#March 2014 and User talk:93.186.16.245#March 2014).
• Outright lies [74].
• Refusal to understand Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, and most importantly WP:NPOV (Talk:Whoniverse).
• Repeatedly removing the version User:Mezigue and I, as well as User:GraemeLeggett to an extent, have been attempting to improve, in favor of their own poorly written, poorly sourced, POV version (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).
• Copying of large sections from other articles into the talk page [75].
• As well as the fact that they have engaged in such interactions before
• And adding unsourced/not notable "Criticism" sections to discredit the definition of the term that they disagree with. [76], [77].
• Along with modifying other articles to fit their thesis (1, 2, 3, and 4).
• And most recently WP:OVERTAGGING to "prove" their point [78]

Notes: if anyone decides to do something about this, then a extended semi-protection of the page would be most effective since this user's IP changes regularly. G S Palmer (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a little puzzled by this posting, given that the IP is already under a 48 hour block for edit warring (his second in a week; G S Palmer was also blocked for edit warring on the article earlier this week - they were at AN3 over the same article in mid-March, but were both warned). There is already administrator intervention, and there's no need to semi-protect the article if the single individual disruptively using an IP can be handled individually. I do not know if the IP will work within consensus processes after his block expires or if he will continue behaving disruptively, but it had been my intent to continue to monitor and hand out escalating blocks as appropriate to anyone who persisted in edit warring.
  
  However, I don't have strong feelings about this, and it's already been quite a time suck, so if another admin wants to weigh in or take it on, feel free. :)
  
  Because the IP is blocked, he cannot speak in his own defense here. Needless to say, he disagrees substantially with User:G S Palmer's account above. I considered unblocking him to allow him to participate and might still, but since this section is relatively quiet thought perhaps just reproducing his response to G S Palmer's notice might suffice. I'm collapsing it because it's long. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

the IP's response

Yeah, real clever to do that while I can't edit for 48 hours, and then act as though you gave me a chance to reply there. The only disruptive editor is you yourself, for constantly adding unsourced material, your relentless reverting, deleting properly sourced material, and arrogantly refusing to even look at Wikipedia Policy, assuming you know best. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Did you actually read what you wrote? You reported me for being disruptive, for asking you yo use Wikipedia Policies such as WP:RS, WP:OR etc? And you reported me for an "outright lie", then linked to the page which shows I was right? And I a the one who has made hostile edits? Have you actually read some of the stuff you wrote in edit summaries, and on the discussion page there? Hopefully, since I can't reply there for 48 hours, someone sensible can actually read all the unpleasantness you have brought to that article and its discussion page, and my attempts in vain to try and explain why your OR article can not be used for Wikipedia. And the only reason I copy-pasted Wikipedia Policy on that discussion page was because you refused to edit articles using Wikipedia Policy. After I had repeatedly asked you not to keep adding unsourced material, referring to Policy, your response was that you refused to read the Policies, and yet you somehow 'knew' that I was "interpreting them overly harshly". I constantly added links, which you stated outright on your own talk page that you were not going to read. So I copied them word-for-word on the discussion page to show they're not "my harsh interpretations", they're Wikipedia Policy. And then you continued to edit the way you wanted regardless. So it was a mistake on my part to copy-paste the Policies there, because I naively assumed that it may change your believing that adding reams of unsourced material, and making artciles out of whole cloth may change. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC) [79]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC) By the way you complain about me removing your unsourced sections, yet you constantly remove this link [80], [81], [82], [83], and many more... You also remove this: [84]. And you delete this tag here for something that is irrelevant to the subject of the article [85], where in this source coes it state what you are using it as a reference for? [86], guess you still haven't read OR [87]. The thing is ALL of these(and more) have been brought up on this discussion page again and again and again, and yet you dismiss it out of hand and keep removing RS, adding unsourced material, using sources to "reference" things that the sources never actually say, and adding irrelevant material, such as your quote from Survival, which thankfully even Mezigue said was utterly pointless being in the article. If you had actually tried to read Wikipedia Policies, or engage civilly in the discussion then this would have been avoided. However, you had your own vision of "what the article should be", and nothing, least of all actual Wikipedia Policy will convince you that your version is not up to Wikipedia standards. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If you will keep an eye on the page to make certain that the situation doesn't escalate, that would be fine. The reason that I brought this here was because I worried that once the IP's latest block expired the whole thing would start over again. G S Palmer (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Threat from User:Salix alba in RfC

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

---

I have filed a RfC about Debian, as several people advised, even in an arbitration case request.[88]. I am already coping with users disrupting the RfC, but the administrator Salix alba, being involved in the discussion, has actually threatened to block me.

With all due respect, I do not think Salix alba deserves to be an administrator. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved non-admin, I have to suggest that, having looked at Talk:Debian and the background to this, Salix Alba's 'threat' is entirely justified - in fact I am struggling to understand why this IP has been allowed to cause so much disruption for so long. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and clearly only interested in pursuing some personal crusade over an obscure and entirely uninteresting incident of no relevance whatsoever to any encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As another uninvolved non-admin, I would suggest that AndyTheGrump is correct in his/her evaluation. This IP has had a protracted involvement on Talk:Ukraine relating to the RfC on the depiction of Crimea on the map without ever having been involved in editing the article, or any other reason to involve themselves (other than appearing on the current RfC list?). The IP has left this comment on Guy Macon's talk page [89]; this continued pursuit of me as a bizarre attempt to manipulate me[90] after dubious advice to a user prompting the user to close a controversial RfC which actually required a neutral administrator to close it. The latest 'advice' being given is to the same user[91] to close an RfC[92], currently under discussion elsewhere, as if it were a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue, whereas admin advice had clearly been to ask a neutral editor to close the RfC via the appropriate noticeboard.

What I'm not certain about is how many convolutions of WP:NOTHERE apply. Salix alba is not a one off target. This IP clearly some other agenda... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• With a past block and a long history of people patiently explaining the problem, it's fair to say this user has no excuse for not understanding. I have blocked the IP for a week to give everyone time to settle the idiocies created to date. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Could we also have an admin snow close of Talk:Debian#RfC: WP:NOR/WP:VERIFY - Expulsion event so that it doesn't waste anyone's time any further? Ideally, the close would include a brief comment specifying what behavior is expected from 84.127.80.114 in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

harassment, impolite, or inappropriate communication from editor

A wikipedia editor, Mr. Guye has left a COI notice on my user talk page, causing it to be listed in category: user pages with conflict of interest. He also neglected to sign his post. I have no idea why he thinks I have a conflict of interest, or even with regard to what article. I'm currently actively editing about 5 mostly unrelated articles. I have no special involvement with any of them, and am not a member of any organizations at all (I'm retired). I've previously (a few days ago) manually undid a disruptive edit by this editor from an article I'm reorganizing, Genetic resistance to malaria. The disruptive edit was a WP:TAGBOMB consisting of 9 interrelated maintanance tags added to an article which already had two such (reasonable) tags. My undo had nothing to do with bias or POV. I believe this editor now has some kind of vendetta with regard to me. I notice that this editor has received an administrtive warning in the past for vandalism, and quite a spectacled edit history. What do I do in this situation? Can I request an administrator to remove the COI notice from my talk page, or can I remove it myself? I usually don't remove anything from a talk page, in order to have an accurate history for myself, but this is not appropriate to have been put there. Please advise.Sbalfour (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You can do anything you want on your own talk page, including removing warnings or tags you have read. You don't need any administrator to do that. --Jayron32 04:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. → Call me Hahc21 04:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just remove the tag. I have doubts that Mr. Guye is here for the purpose of editing Wikipedia; he may just be here to cause problems. Some of his edits are appropriate, some would be appropriate except for obscure Wikipedia conventions, and IMHO, most are inappropriate under any reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

To remove any feeling of impropriety, I removed the section after checking that it does appear to be nonsense, as described by Arthur Rubin above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An edit war starting

• At the end of Protei-5 Russian diver propulsion vehicle are some links to Youtube videos showing and describing the Protei-5. Those links have stood since year 2008. User:110.169.128.14, who seems to be a novice (see Special:Contributions/110.169.128.14), deleted those links yesterday; I restored them. He is continuing an edit war about this and ignored a request to discuss the matter. I feel that I should have another opinion about this. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Although edit-warring is typically reported at WP:AN/3RR, without reviewing, I'd usually agree with the IP when it comes to linking to external copyrighted sites such as youtube DP 09:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; in this case the IP is wholly in the right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

IP gunspotting

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

---

An IP user who has been warned numerous times in the past about adding links to trivial weapon appearances and was eventually blocked for persistently adding unsourced gun-related information in spite of numerous warnings is actively back at it again. In the last few days, there have been numerous such examples: [93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107] 2601:D:9400:5FF:88CA:4B8C:7A46:656 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please review my block of Macktheknifeau

Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is unhappy that the consensus went against him here. The outcome has been that editors have decided to use "soccer" to describe the sport in an Australian context. Rather than challenge the consensus in a collegial way or try to establish a new consensus or a compromise of some kind (any of which I would be open to), he made a series of edits which changed "soccer" to "football", the opposite of what was agreed. This is a sample. I have blocked him for 48 hours for violating WP:POINT. Please review this block. --John (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen these edits on my watchlist and read the other discussions around naming conventions in australian sport. I agree that the series of edits Mack made recently are quite pointy, but I note he is not actually changing from "Soccer" to "Football", but from "Soccer" to "Association Football". As "Association Football" is the correct formal title for the game. My understanding from the previous discussions was that consensus was reached to use "Soccer" over "football" to avoid confusion with Aussie Rules. As the edits here do not do that, though they are pointy, they do seem to put the articles in a position where there can be no confusion and there is no issue over whether a "correct" term is being used. Fenix down (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It varies. This edit changes soccer to football. This is the opposite of what the discussion agreed. --John (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ENGVAR applies. It's also called "soccer" in Canada, even though we have the "Toronto Football Club" that plays Association Football. DP 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The entire discussion, in which Macktheknife participated, was to stave off discussion for a while to let cooler tempers prevail and work on other things than the name. The block for pointiness is thus warranted. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Macktheknifeau's attitude was clear even before a consensus was reached. Their vote said: "Small group of Victorians can't be allowed to dictate changes to globally recognised name. Victoria doesn't have priority over planet." When Mack then defied the consensus, a block was justified. The post-block discussion between John and Mack is progressing somewhat. Mack claims that the anti-consensus changes they made were "inadvertent", although at the same time calling the consensus "illegal" (whatever that means). The last comment in the discussion is from John attempting to get Mack to have some insight into their behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've had my own run-ins with this editor over football/soccer-related articles (believe it came to ANI then as well), they are disruptive and do not abide by consensus or policies/guidelines. Good block. GiantSnowman 13:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not commenting on this specific case, but in general, I think it's a good idea not to do a block and then ask for a review. Instead, please discuss before blocking. If the threat is so imminent that there's no time to discuss, then obviously the block is necessary and there's no need to discuss. Jehochman ^Talk 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's up to the admin which way to do it. There's a spectrum between "imminent" and the length of time a discussion may take such that if one waits for a conclusion, the block may not be timely. It's not easy to forecast how long a discussion will take.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't it our goal to avoid blocks? If a problem becomes stale without a block, but isn't repeated, that's a good thing. If the admin isn't certain a block is needed then and there, don't do it. Discuss the problem with the user or at AN/I and see if a resolution is possible. If the user goes and does the problematic thing again while the discussion is ongoing, then block. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am absolutely certain a block was needed there and then. This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy. That block was reviewed at this board here. The general issues surrounding my enforcement of this area were discussed there and also here, here and here. I committed at the start of this process to having any admin actions taken in this area reviewed here at AN/I as a form of transparency and accountability. So far the community has been kind enough to endorse my actions in this area. If you have any serious qualms after reading these links I would like to hear them; if not I will continue to work to try to solve the problem. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. This editor has engaged in exactly this sort of behavior before; hopefully the block will result in an improved editing process for them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Compromised account Athaenara

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

---

This is an emergency. My e-mail has been hacked by someone and now I cannot log into my Wikipedia admin account User:Athaenara either. I suspect that they are methodically changing the passwords on every site connected to my e-mail account. They haven't edited yet on en.wiki but I request an admin to temporarily (hopefully) block my account while I resolve this. – AthaenaraEmergencyAccount (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Investigating. LFaraone 14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that an additional account was created for this purpose. An anon post with a request to revdel would've made more sense. I'm interested to know the conclusion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Harassment from admin/editors

Hello, I'm writing to get something done about this harassment from Admins on this factual and encyclopedic site. The admins in question are Kansas Bear and Favonian on Francis II, Duke of Lorraine, Christina de Salm, and Charles de Valois. As well as an editor named DeCausa on Mahdi ...They have been vandalizing my work and even going as far to harass me. Why don't the Admins, especially the Admins, read the talk page, before making an edit?Wnicholas70 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please notify the other editors and provide links/diffs to the abusive behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnicholas70 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Wnicholas has edit warred[108][109][110][111], and logging out to continue edit warring[112][113][114], simply to include his/her opinions into Mahdi, Francis II, Duke of Lorraine, Christina of Salm, and Charles de Valois.

"When asked to provide reliable sources, Wnicholas links to some website[115] that makes no mention concerning the 3 individuals. Wnicholas, who uses edit summaries to tell other editors that "wiki-trees", ancestry.com and geni.com are reliable sources,[116] also has thrown a few personal attacks around:

"Hi, obviously you do care who I am related to if your supporting this vandalism from a bunch of commies and following the rules is what got me here"[117]

"Hello, Yes I am being harassed by Favonian, WHY DON'T THE ADMINS READ THE TALK PAGE? Here's what he said;"Postulated relationships do not constitute reliable sources"...Leonard de Lorraine is on wikitrees...how is that postulated? He's also vandalized Charles de Valois, something about "dodgy edits"... I believe he's tripping as I got these edits from ancestry.com and the French Wikipedia...we need to take Danish Admins out of this equation"[118]

"P.S. the Mahdi page is being vandalized as well...he had this to say:DeCausa"[119]

When told on Francis II, Duke of Lorraine's talk page, the "source" makes not mention of the individuals in question, Wnicholas answer is some snide remark, "Your asking me for lyrics to Nirvana's "On a plain"...? I could say Silent Lucidity, Queensryche"[120], repeating snide remark again on Christina of Salm's talk page.[121]

It is quite clear this editor is not here to build a community encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My experience of him is on Mahdi. Edit warring yes, but the posts on the article talk page, the edit summaries and the bizarre citations are just plain weird. I don't know what he's here for but from what I've seen it's some sort of WP:COMPETENCE issue. If it was just on the Mahdi article I wouldn't have been that bothered but if he's doing weird stuff in a number of places it probably does need admin attention. DeCausa (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should have added some diffs. Anyone interested need only look at the bottom of the article talk page to get the flavour, plus this example edit (I.e. the link that he's citing - apparently page 29 - and the text it supposedly supports) DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read the above....snide would be my stone. My reputation proceeds meWnicholas70 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that your edits claiming that Muqtada al-Sadr claims he is the Islamic Mahdi (most recently here, but also repeatly in the Mahdi article) is unsourced and is a violation of WP:BLP. The "Mahdi" in the title of his organisation, Mahdi army, is not a reference to him, as explained in the Mahdi army article. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

His name is Muqtada not Mahdi.... one must read page entitled Promised day Brigade, they come first. No, I did not log off to make changes as mentioned by Kansas Bear, in hurry sometimes and forget to log-in. I have read the above....Wnicholas70 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My experience with this editor, Wnicholas70 (Nicholas), began on Talk:Charles, Count of Valois where he self identified that Charles, Count of Valois was an ancestor. I suggested that Wnicholas70 read WP:COI and use {{request edit}} to request edits. Shortly thereafter Nicholas made edits to my user page as both Wnicholas70 and 208.87.232.180 (this IP appears to have been used by Nicholas over at least a period of days – nothing wrong with that, I am merely identifying them as probably his edits). I assumed that putting the text on my user page instead of user talk was merely due to inexperience or mistake and moved the comments to my talk page. In those comments, Wnicholas70 identified that his current desire on Wikipedia is "updating my 2 royal lineages". The text in these edits identifies multiple people as his ancestors. Thus, the pages about those people are ones on which Nicholas has a WP:COI.

The only page of those he is actively editing which I am currently watching is Charles, Count of Valois. As a result, my primary experience of him is on that page (other than my User and User talk pages). Nicholas has not used the Wikipedia:Edit requests process on Charles, Count of Valois even though it has been suggested that he read and follow that procedure. His edits on the article and article talk pages are:

Charles, Count of Valois:

• He placed his edits (15:48, 21 March 2014) on the Charles, Count of Valois page. In the process he removed a considerable amount of content. Those edits were reverted (17:12, 21 March 2014) by Wikipelli, which was stated as reverted because of the removal of content.
• He then made similar edits (20:34, 21 March 2014) without the significant removal of content which were reverted by ClueBot NG.
• Then he made similar edits(21:12, 25 March 2014) (including some content removal), which were reverted (21:06, 27 March 2014) by Favonian.
• He then re-reverted (16:46, 29 March 2014), and was reverted (16:48, 29 March 2014) by Kansas Bear
• He then re-reverted (16:53, 29 March 2014), and was reverted (19:39, 29 March 2014) by Makyen (myself).
• The last three edits/re-reverts have included the removal of some content. It is not clear to me if this is intentional, or by mistake. The edit he made which was reverted by ClueBot NG did not include the removal of that content.

Talk:Charles, Count of Valois:

• Effectively blanked the talk page (15:22, 27 March 2014), reverted (16:54, 27 March 2014) by Favonian
• Effectively blanked the talk page (20:28, 29 March 2014), reverted (21:54, 29 March 2014) by Makyen (myself)

Based on Nicholas' own statements he has a WP:COI on various articles which he is editing due to his ancestry. I would suggest that he follow the procedures at the various links already provided to him for edit requests. — Makyen (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a point, and not addressing any of the other issues pro or con: since when do we declare someone to have a COI based on their ancestry? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please, can an admin take a look at Wnicholas70's contribs and esp. talk page posts asap. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a block for User:Thesunshinesate

This user has been busy constituting nuisance and fighting everyone on wikipedia. he/She seems to be here for his/her own personal agenda and he/she has been making articles to be biased. As I see it, he/she is always removing anything 'Anti-Ghana' and it doesn't matter to him/her whether they are sourced or not. Here are the following reasons I think this user should be blocked.

• Personal attacks - he/She is always against people who reverts her propaganda posts and she results to personal attacks, name calling. etc on the user talkpages. You can see an example of that at the bottom of my talk page in this revision. That was just because I placed a warning on her talk page concerning his/her disruptive edits.

• Gross Incivility - he/She reverts edits with flimsy excuses and never discusses with other users, an example can be found with his/her various reverts on Ghana article history. he/She reverts anything antiGhana in the article even if they are appropriately sourced. he/she seems to be the only one against the contents. Various warnings has been placed on his/her talkpage, but he/she is never ready to discuss the concerned article/content. Instead he/she removes such warnings instantly and instigates a fight on the users' talkpages. You can see the various warnings placed on her talkpage (including mine) by clicking on the history of the talkpage.

• Edit Warring: he/she has been reverting a particular content like since forever on the Ghana article. Other users keep readding the content but he/she keeps removing it. This is the Content. Please note that the other IP addresses reverting the same content belongs to him/her as the edit summaries are similar to the one he/she gives. He/she considers it "An anti government rant". I don't think this content should be removed as well as it is well sourced and I believed both the 'good' and 'bad' should be included on Wikipedia to achieve NPOV. Another example is the one she just started on the article Cinema of Nigeria. Note that this user has also broken the WP:3RR.

Thanks--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This user and his friend (Versace1608|talk) are fishing around to block me (He wrote to someone to have me blocked) They have tagged teamed on me for no reason. Jamie Tubers has made himself the authority on many articles and no one can dare to make an edit with him reverting. He has filled the Cinema of Nigeria with bias claims and invalid sourced from gossip and entertainment mags as his source of reference. He also game on the Ghana page

and reverted a claim has been disputed since 2013 me and several others have worked very hard on the article to make it neutral If you look at my edits I have not removed anything anti- Ghana like he claim ..claiming international accounts of corruption with no proof and adding references from entertainment sites in an anti government rant is not something that is suppose to be in an wiki article.

Those sources are not even approved based on wikis standards, this editor and his friend can not bully people for making edits just because they don't like it. He is calling my edits propaganda yet he has done nothing but glorify the pages he edit. I am not from west Africa and many of the other editors that I have worked on the Ghana page with are not either. I have nothing to gain. Yet the articles he has worked on for Nigeria is filled nothing but claims from unverifiable sources their edits need to be looked into. he edit that I reverted in the Cinema of Nigeria has sources from an online African gossip entertainment magazine. He and his friend Versace1608|talk are coming after me because I told them to get true sources Thesunshinesate (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

People should not gang up to stop others from contributing..wikipedia is an open forum I am not going to be bullied and threaten by these two editors and I don't think their propaganda based edits should be allowedThesunshinesate (talk)

• LOL, you need to calm down. No one is out to get you. You are infact still displaying a reason why you should be blocked. I just checked the content you have been removing from Ghana to see if I was mistaking. lol, I never knew Business Guide Newspaper, Ghana web, Vibe Ghana et al are gossip and entertainment websites (excuse the pun). And the topic you were removing from Cinema of Nigeria is an entertainment related topic, it's appropriate to get sources from reliable entertainment websites. Besides, don't transfer aggression on me, people have been readding the contents before I noticed it myself and I warned you. Checking your talkpage history, I saw various other wikipedians have warned you about the same edit warring and some other disruptive edits. That is the major reason I had to report you.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No wikipedians have "warned" me about the edit. there have been disputes over it since it was added to the article. This is not some game. if you were not out to "get me" you and your friend (Versace1608|talk) wouldn't be fishing around to try to get me blocked all because I told you to get true sources. Wikipedia is not a blog its an encyclopedia so NO those sources mentioned there not valid sources for an encyclopedic article especially since it evolved claims of impeaching the current president. Ghanaweb is a user based online site any member can write an article and post it there. Also maybe you do not understand but Wiki articles are suppose to be neutral. That is why I removed those unwarranted bias claims. Also it is an article about the Country not a political party. What was you reason for reverting the edit in the first place.

If anyone needs to be blocked I think it's you. I have looked through all the articles you work on and it's the same sources from online blogs and gossip magazine. You comment up there just proves my point you have an ethnocentric agenda for Nigerian articles and you think I am Ghanaian so just because I told you to get true sources to back your claims you are trying to get me blocked.

Based on how you used this [[122]] source for your article on the Cinema of Nigeria as well as all the articles you have created on I do not think you understand what is valid source is.Thesunshinesate (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not have anything to say to you or your friend (Versace1608|talk) the admin he went to to try to get me blocked told him that. that is not how wikipedia work. You can try to paint me as the bad guy all you want but the truth about your edits and how you two are trying to get me blocked is right there. I have said all I have to say the admins will look into it. Thesunshinesate (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Thesunshinesate: Lol. Davidwr is not an administrator. I was only asking him to contact an administrator he knows to speed up your block. Just so you know, this page is the administrator noticeboard, so everything you say here will be read by administrators. You can't be reason with, and your attitude towards others needs an overhaul. Maybe when you get block, you will change your attitude and approach. versace1608 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

When did you ever try to "reason" with me or even try to discuss something with me. All you ever did was threaten me. What part do you play in all of this anyway. It's all because I told your friend there to provide valid sources and yes I am very well admins can see everything I say here. Thank you for coming here to confess that you did go around to look for someone to block me. If this was really about my edits why go about it in such a shady way? you two are going around making propaganda based edits and articles concerning Nigeria and the only reason you have tag teamed on me is because when I called out the bias claims in the Cinema on Nigeria article you saw that I had contributed on the Ghana page and you decided to launch this attack on me. Again thank you for coming here to confess. I am glad you proved my point. like I said I've stated my claims and I have stated the explanation for my edits, I will leave it to the adminsThesunshinesate (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Thesunshinesate: Just like you said, Wikipedia isn't anybody's father's parlour. If you are looking for a place where your opinion rules, feel free to start ThesunshineSate Encyclopedia. You need to learn how to relate with other editors. Everybody readding your alerged 'antigovernment ranting' can't be wronged at the same time. And the sources are valid enough for the article. BTW, I don't care if you are Ghanaian or Somalian. I am part of WikiProject Africa; I am to ensure Neutral point of view on African articles and watch out for people like you editing to suit their tastes. I have also contributed extensively to articles and people add negative Content everytime, I don't remove them. Once they are well sourced, I'm fine.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• When people warn you, you are suppose to explain the reason you did what you are being warned for, not start personal attacks. You really can't be reasoned with. I've known you just for the past 24 hours and really......I don't know! I give up on you, for administrators to investigate your account and see your edits. Do you know I've had intense issues with the User you are calling 'my friend'? You need to stop these sentiments and focus on what is.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

What is my opinion? The fact that those sources you use do not meet Wikipedia standards or the fact that section added to the Ghana page was not from a credible sources? you mention it was well sourced? Yet the sources you mention Ghanaweb and the others do not meet the criteria. Have you seen Wikipedia's policy on references and sources? If you have then tell me what I have done wrong. Also you say want neutrality on articles but you are reverting edits to a claims that is specifically an attack against that country's ruling political party and talks of impeaching the presidents without any proof yet and you are trying to get me blocked because I said it shouldn't be there because the claims are unwarranted. And you turn around to mention you want neutrality in articles. If any of you truly wanted to talk to me or discus with me you could have. The frist thing you did was sent me a warning and a treat. You never asked to engage in a dialogue with me. Stop making this about the Ghana page when its not. You and your friend there are trying to get be blocked because I called you out on those propaganda based edits on the Nigerian articles that you make Thesunshinesate (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you, you brought me here to try to get me blocked for no apparent reason other than the fact that I said get true sorces for your claimsThesunshinesate (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ghanweb is a reliable news source. You are the one who needs to check wikipedia's policy. And let's even assume to agree Ghana Web is not reliable. Is Ghana web the only reference cited? For crying out loud there is a newspaper source that published the claim. And I wasn't the one who added any of the content you are exhibiting propaganda on.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jamie Tubers: Thesunshinesate can't be reason with. I don't have time to go back and forth with him/her. Thesunshinesate won't stop at nothing to justify his/her wrong doings. To make things worse, he/she has the nerve to insult you on your talk page, and then say that we are "ganging" up on him/her. smh. I personally feel that Thesunshinesate shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. For your information Thesunshinesate, Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. If you love censored information, I suggest you go elsewhere. versace1608 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you all stop arguing long enough to let some other folks comment on your dispute? This is just a continuation of the bickering I see on your user talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Also while I only very quickly skimmed through the discussion, this is not a good place to debate whether something is a RS. Try WP:RSN if discussion on the article talk page fails or use some other form of WP:Dispute resolution as appropriate like an WP:RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned about his/her edits or want to prove anything concerning their reliability, he/She can discuss that with the other contributors on the articles (If he/she will). I only noticed he/she is busy edit warring and always attacking anybody who warns him/her about it. That's the reason I reported the user. --Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple edit warring complaints belong at WP:AN/EW not here and don't need anywhere near the level of discussion you're involved in here. BTW while there may be enough edit warring for a block I didn't see any clear cut 3rr violation. They are at the limit now but their previous revert before now to ths Ghana article was well outside the 24 hour window. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• It was Thesunshinesate that raised useless and irrelevant issues claiming someone is out to get him/her or something. Good, you also noticed the edit warring was evidently very much. And what about the personal attacks he/she is always giving anyone who notifies or even tries to advise her on the edits?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR was evidently broken too. this edit, this and this were all made within 24 hours--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, that's three reverts. Where is the fourth revert that constitutes a 3RR violation? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. And the personal attacks and abuses?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Bangladesh

Hello. As can be seen, the List of Presidents of Bangladesh article is for some time now a target for persistent IP vandalism, additions of incorrect data, etc (including additions by a newly-registered user). I'm asking admins for help to finally put an end to this kind of behavior on this article. I also asked for semi-protection at WP:RPP. --Sundostund (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:44thPresidentOfUSA

User:44thPresidentOfUSA has created an article (Ford Shelby CV525) about a vehicle that does not exist and the only references is a fake forum discussion (the user pretends he's Motor Trend) set up a couple of days ago and a Facebook page with a bad Photoshop job. This user is likely one of the many socks of User:Altimgamr. I did a WP:PROD but the user deleted it. Not sure how to get this article removed and the user blocked. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)