Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive842

Continued personal attacks made by editor, after being asked to stop

User:Cebr1979 continues to make personal attacks against myself, despite asking them to refrain from me. They claim I am targetting and attacking them, when in fact, I am not. I am merely working based on the act of the Wikipedia Soap Project, and other policies held by Wikipedia currently in place.

1. Attack 1
2. Attack 2
3. Attack 3
4. Attack 4 (blatantly calling me "silly" which I see as a personal attack speaking on part of my editing, and not my edits)
5. Attack 5
6. Attack 6 (After I apologised for making them feel bullied, which I explained was not my intentions, was told I am trying to show superiority -- which I am not -- and claims I like to do things because I like to do them my way, which I do not. My edits are always made in the best wishes of Wikipedia, and following the procedures/policies/decisions decided by projects and other users)
7. Attack 7 (Saying I hide behind "Civil" whenever "I'm wrong")
8. Attack 8

While my edits can be seen as harsh and blunt, I am merely editing in the consistency of the quality soap articles have been held to over the past few years. My creditability and long-standing edit history of soap articles, and other non-soap related articles proves what a valued and valuable member of the editing community I am. My edits are in good faith and while I'm sure 1979's are too, their continued belief that I am against them, while I am not, are completely unfounded. While I do admit, I can be brash and (at select times) seen as potentially owning pages, but that is not the case. Soap articles are just continually vandalised with fancruft editing to believe what they should be, and as one of the sole editors of soap articles, am trying to keep the integrity of the articles. And being attacked, and talked poorly of, is demeaning my character and creditability on this website. I took discussions to talk pages, and still received attacks, claiming I owned the page(s), yet I have never once taken "ownership" of something or claimed it was "mine". And then being called a "bully", which I am far from being, is hurtful as someone who has been bullied both online and offline. My brashness can sometimes be seen as something it is not, but I would never, ever bully (intentionally, unintentionally) another person, online or not. I apologised to them for making them feel bullied, but their continued inability to remain civil and refrain from personally attacking, is something that must go on notice. As much as I tried to keep discussions to edit-related only, said user kept trying to make it a personal attack on my editing skills and intentions. I am willing to answer any questions the admins may have for me, as I do feel I was acting in the best intentions of Wikipedia and the projects that protect soap opera articles, in the best intentions for Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"While my edits can be seen as harsh and blunt..." So he or she knows they come off that way, and continue to do it... Hmm???? He or she is also bullying the newbies, creating policies that can't be verified and claiming to know more about a show than the show itself! When I make edits, he or she literaly follows me around from page to page reverting everything I do with no explanation as to why he or she has reverted it and, when I ask, he or she deletes my questions from his or she talk page to make it look I never asked!!! Does this sound like "good faith" on his or her part??? Everything can be verified by simply checking his or her edit history.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, whenever I reverted anything (concerning you or anything else) I included an edit-summary, explaining why I did so. Once again, being personally attacked. I do not simply follow you. You just happen to edit pages on my Watchlist, etc. And no, my removal from the talk page (as I explained and was ignored) was because of OCD tendencies to keep my talk page consistent. And how a user edits their talk page is their own wish to do so. If I remove a discussion, I am allowed per Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Another thing livelikemusic seems to believe is a wiki policy is that a television show's credits cannot be used as a reliable source... Would a show not know more about its own show than other third party links? I also stumbled upon this:

"I checked out that page and found nothing about not using credits of a TV show. In fact I found this page, which states you can use TV episode info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings So, until you point me to the correct page that says you can't use TV credits as a source, please do not revert my edits. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)"

Could you please elaborate? Why are show credits not considered a reliable source when discussing a show credits??? Thank you in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is also very interesting: "My point is, from those two links, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources , a consensus has already been reached by Wiki in regards to the use of TV credits. My confusion is that you are saying a consensus is "needed to be reached", while I am saying that a consensus (based on those two links) has already been reached. So, having read those two links, what are your thoughts on the matter? Also, Livelikemusic, you were the one who asked for a discussion on this matter, but have yet to say anything since asking for this discussion, so I'd like to hear your thoughts about things after having read those two links. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)" Cebr1979 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My discussions with another editor are not what's being discussed right now. You're continuing to make this a personal attack on me, which is what you're being reported for. Per the Wiki SoapProject, and its editors, the credits were deemed unreliable, due to it not being third-party and inconsistencies and false things found. Why bring up past discussions from last year, as well? Once again, your continuing to use my discussions with another editor as an attempt to attack me personally. Especially since shows themselves state they do NOT comment on contract status or negotiations. That's why third-parties are required, they CAN talk about them, and you're pulling quotes from discussions about other subjects where I did respond. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How is asking for clarification on whether or not a show's credits are a reliable source a personal attack on you? You know what else I want clarification on? What you wouldn't consider a personal attack! Are those your two favourite words? Cebr1979 (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And regardless, a show's rep does not usually comment on contract status when called for an interview. A show's credits are not a rep giving an interview. They are the definitive source and not a rep doing the talking. You are continuing to get silly now, you're grasping to keep your precious personal interpretations of wiki policies in tact so you can remain supreme editor of your favourite pages. That's not a personal attack, that's just what you're doing.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it's not what I'm doing. And it is a personal attack, as you're talking about ME, not the edits themselves. I've given multiple sources of your personally attacking me, especially after I asked you to stop, and you are not attempting to show your own form of owning a page. You consistently discussing ME and not the content alone is a personal attack, per Wikipedia policy as dictated. That is why you've been reported, and instead of attempting to defend yourself, you'd drudged up past discussions which have either settled or just fizzled, and continued to make said-attacks. Continually calling me silly, especially in a hidden note on a cast member page, is a personal attack, which defames my editing on Wikipedia and can be seen as libelous. And claiming I'm doing it to reign "supreme", which I have never set out to be or done, is once again personal. My next response will be to an Admin, only. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Good. Now, to the admin who sees this: I am asking for you to elaborate as to livelikemusic's personal interpretation of show credits not being a credible source. Clearly, there are others who disagree with him or her, not just me, and I would like confirmation. If he or she feels that is a personal attack against him or her, so be it. Cebr1979 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cebr1979 and Jason47a, please contain yourselves and wait for an administrator to pick up on this thread. At the moment, you are misusing this board by treating it as an unruly article talk page, and making a public spectacle of your uncivil behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing actual attacks. Sarcasm and frustration, yes, as well as accusations of WP:OWN and WP:BITE, but this was the only post that is obviously unacceptable. However, by the standards livelikemusic is holding Cebr1979 to, livelikemusic made a personal attack on @Jason47a: as well.

As a matter of fact, I can't locate any discussion at WP:SOAPS's talk forbidding the use of show credits -- @Livelikemusic:, could you please link to it for us? Otherwise, there does need to be a proper discussion as to whether or not credits would fall under WP:SELFPUB as sources which cannot be used as the base of an article, but can still be used in an article for reasonably non-controversial statements (with third-party sources being handy for additional verification). (That appears to be the rational behind Wikipedia:MOSTV#Cast_information, which actually calls for the use of the original broadcast credits, which would explain why WP:TV has absolutely no problem whatsoever with show credits). Without a link to a discussion or guideline clearly establishing the consensus that credits are not to be used for soap operas when they are used for all other TV shows, this falls under WP:SPADE instead of WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian. I agree with your assessment of "Without a link to a discussion or guideline clearly establishing the consensus that credits are not to be used for soap operas when they are used for all other TV shows, this falls under WP:SPADE instead of WP:NPA." Hopefully livelikemusic can provide a link to such a discussion and/or guideline otherwise edits quoting show credits will have to be accepted by him or her.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Jason47's comments were old that I was quoting (hence me signing my name after them and what Jason said was in quotes with the original dates attached). He's not a part of this conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This board is not for the discussion of the reliability of show credits. Please use the proper dispute resolution process if you are unable to come to a suitable agreement on the talk page regarding the usage of such sources. Now regarding behavior, this is ridiculously childish. However although the majority of the diffs show incivility and a failure to assume good faith, they are not actionable. I would advise both parties to stop accusing the other of nefarious intent and talk the changes through. This is not a school playground, stop calling each other names and communicate. Calling someone silly is not going to get you anywhere. —Dark 10:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I never called anyone a name, and yes it does violate personal attack policies, since the user spoke on me as an edtior and not on the edits themselves. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

livelikemusic... It's done now.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel it is.... The policy clearly states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." So unless Wiki admins do not wish to follow what they've written, action needs to be taken. So unless an ADMIN and ADMIN ONLY can explain how the edits did NOT violate what it set in written word, it is not over for me. I'm tired of injustice on this website. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the accusations of article ownership and biting to be serious personal attacks that merit a block, in this case. Unless you can provide evidence of recent severe ad hominem attacks, I don't think any admin action will be effective at the current time. Yes his comments are unfounded and doesn't assume good faith, but I do not think it is actionable. As long as Cebr understands that these accusations are very unhelpful and detrimental to proper discussion and promises to refrain from making them in the future, I do not foresee a problem. However if he continues his incivil conduct then by all means, feel free to repost here. —Dark 12:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I do apologise for my silly comment and thank you for your time in this.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Which comment do you apologize for? This one where you actually insulted an editor inside an article that's now a matter of permanent record? Let's be a little more specific here - had I seen that edit yesterday, you'd still be blocked today - I chose one link at random, and if any of the rest of the links are even close to being as bad, there's a serious problem here. the panda ₯’ 09:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocking him over that particular edit is excessive to say the least. I do not see any attacks beyond that diff - unhelpful allegations of article ownership and accusations that are borderline incivil, sure, but nothing serious enough to justify a block. —Dark 12:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• • So I am guessing this has been resolved now? Darkfalls has done some mediation and it appears to have worked Badanagram (attempt) 18:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is, however, I am asking that the WP:PERSONAL policy be re-written then to describe the kind of attacks that ARE personal, as in the opening paragraph, it states to comment on content, but a contributor. And while I provided eight things above of contributor discussion, it doesn't seem to "count" from what I gather. That's all I am asking. And yes, thank you to DarkFalls for setting up his mediation. I do appreciate it. I mean, am I completely happy with the outcome? No. But am I willing to settle on it? I guess. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Offensive comments at Manosphere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User: FokkerTISM just added some offensive invisocomments to the Manosphere article, which make veiled personal attacks against other editors. In addition, the comments are strongly anti-Semitic. The same editor has previously made similarly offensive comments on articles in the past, so this isn't a new pattern. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

They also made the following vandalistic edit on Genocidal rape: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&diff=prev&oldid=590788425 --31.205.21.96 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the hidden comments rather deplorable and a stark juxtaposition to a central tenet of the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"? Yes. Are they worthy of a block? Not in my opinion, at this time. However, I would remind the editor in question to assume good faith in future interactions, and to avoid making such hidden comments in the future. Go Phightins! 02:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Looking through the contributions of the editor, and the rant in both hidden comments and edit summaries about Feminists, Zionists, ADL, etc, there is very much more here than a simple 'reminder'. Come on now. Dave Dial (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Add this:What a fucking racist Chris Rock is

Someone probably needs to go through this editors edits. With edits that are vandalism sandwiched in between valid edits, there are sure to be more. Dave Dial (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the hidden comments read: "Feminists and Zionists, please do NOT edit this page." And the edit summary reads: "adding links to some manosphere and related sites + invisocomments for jews and feminists." That is outrageous. I would indef. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I too found the one in article space. I have blocked -- Diannaa (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, my comments were based off a cursory review of the editor's last few edits, a few of which were constructive in article space. Upon digging deeper, yes, there is more blockable stuff in there than I originally saw. Go Phightins! 02:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tprg

Above user appears to be repeatedly adding speculative information about Telenova's that have not yet been created as per user talkpage User_talk:Tprg.

Editors have requested that user does not post such material here and here,

Can someone please advise/assist on the matter please as it appears to be an ongoing issue Amortias (T)(C) 22:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the user ignores the messages that are left and insists on creating soap operas article unconfirmed sources is a blog and other highly dubious references, the user takes time and in the same way and is currently unchanged.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 06:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The user is still posting information to multiple articles about unscreened and at present unnoteable Telenovas as seen here. Amortias (T)(C) 23:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I see the concerns about this editor. And yet not all of the created articles have been deleted, or at least they haven't stayed deleted. This is a slight derailing, but I guess it's worth bringing up three articles:

• Mi Corazón Es Tuyo was brought to a deletion discussion where consensus was to delete it (two people agreed to delete, no objections). It was recreated (not by Tprg) and as you can see it is still around. The difference that I can see (with my admin superpowers) is that there is now information about when the show is scheduled to premiere, that information was not present prior to the AfD. The deletion was mostly for WP:CRYSTAL, and with a projected air date soon the article could be considered different enough from before that G4 speedy deletion doesn't apply.
• La Gata (2014 telenovela) was also brought to a deletion discussion but it was given a reprieve because it was due to air soon. It looks like the show is now on the air, with at least 20 episodes broadcast.
• La Malquerida (telenovela) was also brought to a deletion discussion, the consensus there was to delete with only one objection (that because it was in production it did not qualify for WP:CRYSTAL). Interestingly enough, it was recreated by GeorgeMilan (the same person in this thread) with the odd comment "Article deleted without any reason" (which is ridiculous, it went to AfD, that is why it was deleted). It is scheduled to premiere today, I wonder if that has or will happen.

So this shows me that not everything that Tprg has created is without merit. I suppose the question is whether or not Tprg's problematic contributions outweigh the good ones that are still around. -- Atama頭 19:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIR issue

I have been dealing with ScottKazama (talk · contribs) for apparently two years already. He is not a native English speaker yet he insists on contributing large swaths of poorly written prose to articles. I have told him multiple times that if he cannot write with better grammar he should not be editing on this project. He is also not a native Japanese speaker and he insists on contributing content that he has translated from Japanese-language reliable sources that are highly erroneous. I am not the only person who has had issues with ScottKazama's edits (see User talk:ScottKazama#Please use proper English.). I am not here as a spell checker for someone who is not a native speaker. He barely responds to any messages on his user talk page, and most certainly has not responded to the ones I have been leaving him regarding his lack of fluency. He means well. He doesn't do well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Criminy. Sounds like someone in need of a Rider Kick... or a topic ban perhaps. At least from pages about Japanese culture, or from posting content supported by non-English sources? At least if he sticks to English sources, you don't need a bilingual editor to go in and verify that something he did was wrong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

His grasp of English in general is poor, even when he is using (unofficially) translated material. The southeast Asian community does not teach the English language very well to its students.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't personally have a problem with picking up the slack for editors who make mistakes like that (not that I'm personally volunteering to follow this specific guy around with a broom). The big problem I see is that where it's been shown the editor can't use foreign language materials properly: picking out those errors can take a very long time, even for a language with so many bilingual English speakers as Japanese. But... yeah three of his last four edits contain mistakes that are clearly not acceptable English. I see two options: topic ban from using non-English sources as I suggested above (probably indefinite), or a mainspace ban (of, say, 6 months). I don't think blocking is a fair way to resolve this given this looks like someone editing in good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

While I certainly don't dispute that there are issues with this particular editor, could we please stay away from broad-brush generalizations about "the southeast Asian community"? Such statements are neither absolutely correct nor are they relevant in any way to this discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have experience that English speakers of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore have difficulty writing English grammar on Wikipedia and in my professional life. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And I have experience with English speakers from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore who write fluently and correctly. (I further have experience with native English speakers from the U.S. and the UK who make an absolute hash of the language.) My point is that there's no need to draw the nationality or ethnicity of ScottKazma into this discussion; it is unhelpful and counterproductive to do so.

It encourages fallacious and spurious thinking along the lines of "Scott is from southeast Asia; people from southeast Asia are bad at speaking or writing English; therefore Scott's editing is problematic", instead of the useful and specific reasoning of "There are problems with Scott's (English) writing; therefore Scott's editing is problematic". See the difference? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Squirrel! While it doesn't matter if the editor in question is American, Malaysian, or Martian, that matter also doesn't matter the way the matter at hand matters. I'm for a mainspace ban, with the strong recommendation that he stick to English sources unless he knows that another editor can understand and verify any non-English sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, back to the issue at hand. Here's the ban language I'd suggest:

ScottKazma is banned from editing in articlespace for six months (or one year). This ban may be extended to indefinite if, upon its expiration, there is no evidence of improved care in English grammar (with evidence preferentially drawn from requested edits ScottKazma made, rather than solely from discussions), or if there is evidence of ongoing misuse of non-English sources in requested edits.

I'm personally not in favor of indefinite bans as a beginning measure, though I would support just going to indef if that's what other discussants preferred. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Only thing I can force myself to think of to add to that would be something about letting him revert clear-cut vandalism in article space. I'd think that WP:IAR would apply to someone reverting a vandal replacing an article with an ASCII drawing of Goatse.cx, but it doesn't hurt to have that spelled out just in case. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this might be better:

Notwithstanding the provisions of WP:BANEX, ScottKazma is banned from editing in articlespace for six months (or one year). This ban may be extended to indefinite if, upon its expiration, there is no evidence of improved care in English grammar (with evidence preferentially drawn from requested edits ScottKazma made, rather than solely from discussions), or if there is evidence of ongoing misuse of non-English sources in requested edits. For the purposes of this ban alone, editors implementing changes openly requested by ScottKazma will not be deemed to be engaged in proxy editing. This ban does not alleviate editors that submit changes on ScottKazma's behalf of any other responsibility for making those edits.

The important points: WP:BANEX by default allows ScottKazma to edit in articlespace for the purpose of reverting obvious vandalism and BLP violations; the language of the new provision ensures it's clear that this ban does not interfere with that. Editors will be able to incorporate changes on ScottKazma's behalf, but will not be alleviated of any responsibility they would otherwise have (in other words, they're just as liable for disruption as they would be if they made the edit themselves). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think wikt:notwithstanding is the right word to use here. The way that is worded, it's saying that WP:BANEX doesn't apply to ScottKazama's ban. A better wording would be: "ScottKazama is banned from editing in article space for six months (one year), subject to provisions of except as provided in WP:BANEX". ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 12:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're actually not correct (this is a tremendously common phrasing in treaties, and the citations on Wiktionary of the prepositional usage bear out that it means what I intend it to mean), but I'm not going to argue for a specific wording in something like this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the citations to which you are referring are indeed using the word in accordance with the definition, "in spite of". isaacl (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. The ban discussion seems to have stagnated a bit. It seems obvious to me that ScottKazama, however well meaning they may be (it's hard to tell), is a net drain on resources. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here. After selectively reviewing the user's contributions, as well as their talkpage, I've reached the conclusion that they need to be indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Competence is required. I don't see how anybody could follow this user around and simply "correct" the English, even assuming that somebody was willing to spend the time, since the English (for instance in User:Mendaliv's three diffs above) is so poor as to be incomprehensible; I can't tell what they meant to say. That's apart from the other concerns raised by Ryulong. I also sympathize with Ryulong's advice to the user about sources,[1][2] about using edit summaries,[3][4] about insertion of personal opinion in articles[5][6], etcetera. That's only a small selection of attempts to communicate that I found on the user's page, and a lot of the time the user doesn't seem to understand, and so Ryulong is impelled to post the same criticism again and again. I actually think Ryulong has been very patient, and has tried hard to advise the user, to not very much effect. Nor do I think it's meaningful to give a ban predicated on the user's need to "take more care". It's surely not a question of care, but of competence. Banning from the only topic that interests them, and/or from using the only kinds of sources that they, well, will use, seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Also, considering the language issues, explaining such a block to the user and preparing them for complying with it would be difficult. (You realize Ryulong has been trying to explain much simpler stuff to them for two years.) But if anybody would like to try that path, feel free to unblock and institute a ban instead. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Endorse block, though I would prefer a ban that would retain the user in some capacity. I think, perhaps, the problem with that is, as Bishonen points out, the level of work needed to actually ensure the ban was properly explained, in addition to the fact that two years of disruption have already occurred. This may be viewed as a call for more aggressive use of limited bans at an earlier stage, in addition to having more standard ban provisions pre-drafted and translated as needed (we shouldn't appear to be disproportionately hard on non-native speakers, after all). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking care of these matters Bishonen. It is regrettable that he had to be blocked but the effort needed to correct him when he does not want to be corrected far outweighs any good there is in his speedy writing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's also worth noting that he didn't respond in any way here, but instead continued with the same type of edits after you had alerted him to this discussion. That was the last straw for me. Thank you for reporting the problem, Ryūlóng. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

User:Torana, image in signature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Torana (talk · contribs) has an image in their signature. I have tried to persuade them to change it, referring to the relevant policy, but have had little success. There's no obvious other noticeboard for this so here it is.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User has changed it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption-only account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm wondering if Wholegood (talk · contribs) shouldn't be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, for instance. They started off with a serious of pretty stupid POV edits such as this one (adding the "Anti-Catholicism" category to an article on a British law) and a couple of these ones, adding the Misogyny category to a couple of legal articles. Here is another disruptive category edit, and here they are adding a ridiculous source to an obesity-related article which...well, you'll have to read it for yourself. It's pretty vile. They've been warned for a couple of things already. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing Strip search phone call scam as humor is pretty messed up. Even if sometimes things intended as humor wind up "bombing" on the stage, it's pretty clear that scam wasn't intended as humor in the normal sense (I'd honestly question whether you could even call it lulzy). I get there's some subcategorization that technically places that article within the scope of a couple comedy cats, but I suggest that's more an error of categorization than an indication that those incidents should be categorized as comedy, humor, or practical jokes. Whether that particular instance should be considered NOTHERE-type behavior, I'm not sure. In light of the other edits Drmies questions here (particularly the obesity article), I'm thinking this might just be trolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd noticed the same behaviour. I agree with Mendaliv that this looks awfully ducklike. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just indefblocked - he's stirring and making some pretty poor-taste edits that could be really offensive and upsetting to some readers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Succession to the Crown Act 2013, that particular Act of law actually did repeal previous law which was anti-Catholic, see Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013#Marriage_to_Roman_Catholics. It's not unreasonable to categorise it as something relating to anti-Catholicism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, a couple of edits might have been ok but what else I saw wasn't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Virus spreading IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

110.45.173.160 (talk · contribs) is spamming virus infected external links. The Korean IP is static thus blocking should solve that problem for good.TMCk (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Jayron32.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

89.205.38.27

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

89.205.38.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly makes personal attacks against RockNRollStaaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and uses vulgar language. (Here are two examples; the latter one features an image of male genitalia [7], [8]) He has been warned twice previously for personal attacks (one of which was removed impolitely). He has also been warned previously for genre vandalism and disruptive editing. Administrative help to cope with this problem would be appreciated. –Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock possible?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 117.18.231.44 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.54 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.40 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.36 (talk · contribs)

See Dougweller's last note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haque. The campaign is continuing this morning to insert the subject into various articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to a rangeblock, which can be fairly narrow, yielding little collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd do it but they make me nervous, prefer someone more tech savvy. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a very small range (117.18.231.32/27), so I've blocked it for two weeks. If the range expands or if the protection needs to be extended, just drop me a note on my talk.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Done.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Death threat by User:Altimgamr sock (see edit summary). Semi-protecting my talk page would be appreciated. Bahooka (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the edit, blocked the account, semi-protected the talk page, and emailed emergency@. I'll be checking for socks momentarily. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Bahooka (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Engineer1989 (or is it User:Intelligentguy89?)

Intelligentguy89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry. Three editors: myself, User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Iryna Harpy have raised similar concerns (of undue weight amongst other things) at the inclusion of certain content in Indian general election, 2014. Not content with the way discussions have been going against the inclusion, User:Intelligentguy89 has been behaving in a very aggressive and belligerent fashion. He seems unrepentant.

Note that as he has moved his userpages over another name without creating the account, I don't know how to notify. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You did the right thing by notifying at both places. I've moved the userpage and talk page back to their correct spots. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note - User:Intelligentguy89 have similar editing/edit summery trends with User:Jyoti.mickey so a CU would be worth checking. Edmondhills (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are free to perform any valid checks. I have only one account on all Wikimedia projects, and have no connection with, or knowledge of, User:Jyoti.mickey (or any other account). --EngineeringGuy (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That is why I am endorsing a CU which may reveal something bigger IMO. Edmondhills (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

From here: @Edmondhills: if you want to open an SPI investigation on Jyoti.mickey (t c), you may do so at the main page of WP:SPI, but you must specify what other account you think he's abusing. Just throwing around words like "I want an admin to CU him" is meaningless. —Darkwind (talk) 9:00 am, 14 May 2014, Wednesday (19 days ago) (UTC+5.5). Jyoti (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit where I have mentioned other users' names uses the word "suggest". It does not say that they are "definitely" using the techniques of sockpuppetry. Besides, my suggestion was not unfounded. The three users in question were using similar styles (e.g. bullet points, starting points with phrase "I concur with...", etc.). (The usual practice observed in talk pages is to use the tab or space at the start of the post.) It is definitely possible that they are not sock puppets, but actual, different users. In that case, they can provide their reasons, examples, explanations, etc. to prove or disprove any point. Or they can choose to ignore the matter if they want. On the whole, this was a minor issue that was a mere observation, and not any insult or disrespect to anyone or anything. It seems strange that (till now) two of those three users want to give so much attention to it. (One of them even seemed sure of the other two's reactions... strange...) If they indeed are not sock-puppets, and are so sensitive to minor things like this that it is all considered as insult, harassment or trauma by them, then I apologize. Finally, I was certainly not behaving in a "very aggressive and belligerent fashion". It was an ordinary debate-type discussion. It seems User:Ohconfucius either has misinterpreted, or wants to exaggerate, matters here. By the way, User:Ohconfucius deleted the entire section: Indian general elections, 2014#Criminal and financial details of the election winners (worth 5715 bytes) that was the subject of the talk-page discussion, without any consensus. This may count as vandalism. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Posting accusations (even by inference) of sockpuppetry against three other contributors on an article talk page is WP:TE, per my comments on your user page here and here. Your response was that the burden of proof in on us to demonstrate that we are not sockpuppets hence, by your own convenient reasoning, giving you the right to disregard our policy-based objections.

As regards my response on behalf of the other two editors, I am well aware of Ohconfucius as he has been a Wikipedian for many, many years. Again, as I suggested to you, all you have to do is check suspected sockpuppet's special contributions to establish whether there are any similar editing patterns, differences in dates, etc. One look at Ohconfucius's and my editing times, areas of Wikipedia and length of time we've been editing makes your allegation laughable. My observation regarding Ms Sarah Welch is pure common sense: as she is a relative newcomer, you've demonstrated bad faith and intimidation practices that may well turn her away from wishing to continue to contribute to Wikipedia (i.e., Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet").

As regards your denial of "very aggressive and belligerent fashion", "I concur" with Ohconfucius that his description of your attitude has been precisely as he calls it. One look at the section I created on your talk page in order to steer it away from the article talk page attests to your mindset.

Finally, your failure to follow protocols in changing your username (even though you'd started using Sarthak Sharma as your actual signature, making it highly likely that you'd confuse other editors you've encountered in future talk page comments with a completely different username) suggests either a poor understanding of Wikipedia's practices, or a blatant disregard for good editing practices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

More precisely: Frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry uncivil at best and are usually considered to be personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that he is ignoring this AN/I and is carrying on involving himself in discussions in the same manner. The fact that this hasn't been pursued further here has merely reinforced the idea that he's welcome to behave in such manner without fear of reproach. I'm not asking that he be blocked, or that any form of extreme punitive measures be brought to bear. What I am suggesting is that he should retract his accusations on the article talk page. I don't have the energy to check on his behaviour elsewhere, but it may be that he needs some form of guidance/mentoring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Image edit war at Nichiren Shōshū

Over the past few days, there has been a bit of an edit war regarding the inclusion of the Gohonzon image on this page. I would definitely appreciate an administrator to review the recent history, decide on the appropriateness or lack of appropriateness of the inclusion of the image, and, if necessary, place the page under some protection if they see fit to do so, with perhaps an explanation on the article talk page. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Torgownik at Russell Targ

Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) self-identifies as the subject of the article Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Despite several warnings and patient explanations, he continues to make contentious and inappropriate edits to the article (e.g. [9], [10], [11]), rather than requesting changes on the Talk page or from one of the supportive editors who are active both there and on his user talk page.

I don't want to see him banned, not least because that would feed https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152195637913218&id=295503008217&comment_id=10152195729103218&offset=0&total_comments=1 his conspiracy theories about Wikipedia], but it's hard to know what do do when he refuses to accept that continuing to make these changes is inappropriate, not least for his own reputation. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I have not added anything controversial to my bio page for several days. I have been peacefully and very extensively answering questions for a wiki editor (Wnt), on the Warning page. I changed my start date at Lockheed from 1986, to the correct date 1985. But that doesn't sick. The editors strongly prefer the incorrect date. I will let it go. I added Helena Blavatsky to my father's publishing. People seem to think that's OK. I do not know what this current fuss is about. I have surrendered to overwhelming force, since you are obviously free to write anything you wish. Torgownik (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell Torgownik (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell

• Targ is not the aggressor here. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russell_Targ#Targ.27s_personal_commentary_being_cited_in_the_lead in which Goblin Face announces that "I am not too sure about Targ's comment on his website about Wikipedia being put in the lead [24]. The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Wikipedia but it also contains a deliberate lie." The "comment" is simply that he disagrees with being called a pseudoscientist. Apparently Wikipedia rules not merely insist that he be branded a pseudoscience, not only rule out citation of any source disputing that point of view, but rule out even mention that he himself could possibly object to this self-evident enlightened point of view. And we still don't have that in, right now, because it's been repeatedly reverted. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's my response to this. These are all Targ's comments, you can judge if what he has been saying is ok or not:

• "Bobby Fisher and "laser pioneer" had been in my bio for at least a year before the Wiki trolls got interested me and my bio. It is indisputable that you are all snipping away at my life because you can't stand that there is world-wide interest in remote viewing. Within a decade modern physics will figure out how it works, and then you will all go away, back into your mother's basement." [12]

• "It looks to me as though you are very good at reading the skeptical literature, but not so interested in the scientific papers you are trashing. I had to wait until my ninth book to say we had "A physicist's proof for psychic abilities" because now the data are overwhelming. If you can't see that, it's because you haven't looked at the data. It's more fun to throw rocks and break windows." [13]

• "If you Wikipedia editors have any tiny spark of integrity, you should include the following... I will be looking for some part of this to appear on the bio page. If not, I will just addume that you have no interest at all in presenting the truth." [14]

• The Wikipedia trolls who are trashing my bio site have only 100% negative things to say about the very existence of remote viewing. I think that is pretty crazy. What alternate universe are they living in? [15]

It is my opinion that Targ is abusive and just on Wikipedia to cause trouble, he's been temporarily blocked twice already for edit-warring, deleting references from his article, (sock puppeting on an IP), meat puppetry etc. Off Wikipedia he is writing falsehoods about it [16], [17]. I don't see why Targ is still on Wikipedia. I'm not editing his article for a while, I have taken a break from it. So whatever. This really doesn't interest me. Got other stuff to do. Goblin Face (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

#1: The critics had somehow convinced themselves that his wife being the sister of Bobby Fischer was unacceptable trivia that should be taken out. I managed to get them to accept it by citing a news story in which he helped Fischer, but they still are of the opinion that it is necessary to include that his father published "Chariots of the Gods", but not that he published "The Godfather", even though the latter was Putnam's big blockbuster.

#3: The article cited a single report by American Institutes of Research, which encompassed a blue ribbon panel, one pro and one anti remote viewing, overseen by three other reviewers. The line on the article was that the anti in the report was a reliable source to cite, but the pro- in the same report was a fringe source that couldn't be quoted. I tried to deal with this by citing major conclusions from the combined group that pretty much said what they both have said. However, even so... it's a 1995 report about an organization Targ left in 1982 that is felt to be a judgment on Targ's work and can't be delegated to Remote viewing.

Now to be sure, Targ has been moderately irate at points with how Wikipedia has dealt with him, but by no means excessively so given the situation. Wikipedia has a very strong BLP policy for celebrities who want their histories in porn movies to go away and so forth. I don't agree when people do that, but I believe in just being plain fair and letting people hear what Targ thinks, hear what the people doing paranormal research think, setting down all the opinions side by side and letting the best man win. But when the skeptics get organized and aggressive, biography articles turn into a gauntlet of insults with no room for neutral description. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He has also consistently assumed bad faith, in relentless violation of Hanlon's Razor if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The way to let people hear what Targ thinks, as for the subject of any bio, is not by letting him edit his own article. Perhaps a case can be made for the insertion of the WSJ quote, but he is not the one to insert it. Personally, I think it belongs in the article, but as a claim, not as the statement of fact inserted at this edit [18]. I see this as an example of when a subject of an article has a reasonable complaint that material should be added, but still should not be adding it themselves because of the POV of the addition. BTW, I am rather doubtful of using the fact that his father published books on the occult, unless his father was particularly known for doing so, or that his father's bookstore had these works, again, unless it was exclusively or predominantly devoted to it. Every general bookstore has such works. and most general publishers have published them from time to time. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely right. So how do we stop him doing this, ideally without blocking him. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask article subjects not to edit an article to preserve a neutral article, though they can still intervene to deal with vandalism. However, if an article reads like a hatchet job and neutrality isn't being preserved, then we can't blame the subject for diving in. So the shortest route to that destination is to deal with the problems he and others have pointed out. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COIADVICE is intended to be advice for an editor with a COI to follow to avoid running into conflicts. However, when the editor is the article subject sometimes what they think would "unambiguously violate" our BLP policy may just be something that the article subject doesn't agree with. I'd suggest that 1, 3, and 4 would be acceptable behavior in this situation. -- Atama頭 19:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt:, if the article were a peerless example of polished Wikipedia perfection, Torgownik would still consider it grossly insulting. The problem is that he passionately believes in a body of work that is not just rejected by the scientific community, but ridiculed and considered a case-study in exactly how not to do science properly. I feel very sorry for him, but this genuinely is not our problem to fix, and the changes he makes are well outside of what could be supported by even the most charitable interpretation of the rules. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• In Guy's 3 diffs I see #1) a slightly heated rant about the article inserted into the article itself, which is wrong there but would have been fine on the talkpage. Per AGF and BITE, I think this was just an editing mistake and Russell Targ should just be informed that discussion about the article should go onto the talkpage instead of the article page. #2 is the insertion of the WSJ citation about silver prediction. Yes that's a COI edit and could be phrased more neutrally, actually on second look, it really wasn't too bad as written and if you insist on reverting Targ's adding it on COI grounds, then ok--but I'd support another editor rewriting and reinserting it since it's relevant and sourcing is fine (the WSJ article itself is online and it takes a factual and suitably skeptical though diplomatic tone towards the psychic experiment). #3 fixes the Lockheed date (uncontentious so I'd tend to take Targ's word for it) and makes a few other minor additions that strictly speaking have COI/promotion issues, but those issues are fairly minor on the scale of such things. I do think the mention of Bobby Fischer should be left in the article as a gloss on the existing hyperlink to Mrs. Targ's biography page. The talk page is kind of noisy but if people can dial back their bureaucratic impulses a bit and Mr. Targ is willing to limit his participation to the talk page rather than the article, I don't think intervention is needed at the moment. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

AGF would work if he had been here a day or a week. He's been here longer than that, and his advocacy has been extremely forceful. Those are not the only problematic edits to the article made by him. As I say, he keeps doing this even after being told multiple times that he should not. The problem is not the specific edits themselves, it's the fact that he refuses to accept that he should not be making these POV edits to his own article for numerous good reasons. Part of the problem is that a few people sympathetic to his POV are egging him on and contributing to an impression that adding POV content to your own biography is fine by some people and that objections are about the subject matter rather than about policy and the consensus that biography subjects should not add contentious content. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that according to the article Targ is legally blind. I've seen a couple of other misplaced edits, and I'm sure they are not merely accidental but excusable in the sense that they don't mean he's ignorant of where to put the edit. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I know this. It might explain one r two of the edits, but most are clearly content edits. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is giving a lot of contradictory signals in this situation. The actual WP:COI lists "escaping" the conflict by not editing the article as one of three options. It calls for blocking editors only in the case of single-purpose self-promotional accounts, not BLP subjects dealing with genuine bias. Yet Targ just recently got another "last warning" message on his talk. I think it should be clear that our enforcement should be more lenient than the written policy standard, not the other way around. It looks like WP:COI has been used as a veritable trashcan for random shoulds and oughts that don't actually tell a user what he is and isn't allowed to do. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I no longer pretend to understand whatever agenda the skeptics are pushing. For example, I tried to add more information about just what the remote viewers were doing in Stargate Project, and they insist on taking it all out because it's a "fringe source" - even though it is simply someone who was there saying what they did, and I wasn't trying to use it to make contentious claims. Yet when I threw them a bone to see what would happen, an original reference pointing out the huge role of Scientology in the 1972 program [19] they showed no interest at all. They seem more interested in simply suppressing all information about the topic than in documenting even the reasons to disbelieve the data. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The agenda is very simple. Our policies forbid us form representing remote viewing as if it were a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, because it isn't. Targ hates the consensus view that it's pseudoscientific nonsense, we cannot fix that because it is simply not our problem to fix. The claims he makes are inherently contentious because he asserts that calling remote viewing pseudoscience, as the sources do, is unacceptable. In support of this he cites old papers which have been rebutted and/or refuted, as if the old papers themselves refute their refutations. A circular style of argument that is ubiquitous among promoters of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to pursue the WP:TRUTH, be it pseudoscience or extreme scepticism. BLP trumps everything. Is it time to hand out a few blocks and/or topic bans to the worst offenders here? And I don't mean Targ. --John (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I really only skimmed through this discussion and did not get into details, neither did I see all of his editing history. But there are so many more serious offenders on Wikipedia than this 80 year old man who is trying to edit his biography article. I agree with some of the previous users that he should be one of the later ones on the list to block. Caseeart (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe they should be blocked too, but we don't not block somebody because other people need blocks, or because of how old they are (or aren't). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said - I don't know exactly what he did wrong. It seems that he is trying to promote himself.

You don't want a disabled 80 year old in the emergency room over an editing dispute. Compare it to civil court that even after conviction - consideration is taken during sentencing.Caseeart (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe you could put a notification in bold words on the top of the article: "Many parts of this article have been edited by Targ himself and may therefore not meet WP:NEUTRAL standards." Caseeart (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we should circumvent policy to avoid hurting the feelings of a POV/promotion pusher. You said I don't know exactly what he did wrong. It seems that he is trying to promote himself. That is exactly what he did wrong. G S Palmer (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• At least he is honest about it. He is not sockpupeting and not hurting others. That is a minimal policy violation. Caseeart (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• If he is purposely introducing promotional material, then he is hurting Wikipedia's image and violating point four of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. G S Palmer (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• In certain circumstances Wikipedia does allow WP:ABOUTSELF. Him editing his own article is very similar. I will advise him on his talk page. Caseeart (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

He has been notified on his talk page, numerous times. He carries on anyway. That's the problem. That and the fact that he rejects the mainstream analysis of his body of work. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not disputing that he is not following Wikipedia rules, and I also confirmed that he was in fact warned on his talk page.

However I agree with Wnt to avoid a block for additional reasons.

• I consider his violations to be minimal (as I pointed out earlier).
• Once established that User:Torgownik is in fact Mr. Targ (-I believe it is-), then what he writes on his talk page or his edits should be treated like WP:ABOUTSELF, which is allowed to be used as a source if it meets certain guidelines. We need to accommodate his disabilities and cannot expect him to create a self published blog/website. Instead we should treat his talk page (and his edits in the article) as his published blog.
• My main argument is not about policy - it is about ethics. We need to consider his pervious life long work, along with his current age (80) and disabilities. Just like any business is required to take measures to accommodate disabled (such as wheelchair accessibility etc. - even at high cost), we too need to understand that a person at this age would have difficulties adapting to all Wikipedia policies. Being legally blind makes it difficult for him to read and write and go through all the policies. We need to consider the possible effects of blocking him, just like a civil court would consider sentencing a disabled person. Caseeart (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• So you recommend that we circumvent policy to cater to a disruptive editor and allow them to turn their page into a blog. Is that right? G S Palmer (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ has only edited his article in minor and positive ways since this was brought up. There's no need to take any action against him. Meanwhile his opponents called him a "crank" writing "crank papers" etc. no less than seven times (never mind that the NSA, DIA, CIA, SRI, and SAIC were all behind this) ... and the really funny part is their contorted Wikilawyer song and dance about how it would be undue weight to list his "non-crank" papers in his publications list because the others are 'more cited', even while they have opposed pro-parapsychology sources of any other kind that might support Targ as 'undue weight'! Now it is a rare thing anywhere on Wikipedia for "UNDUE" to mean anything other than "what I disagree with", but it is also rare to see the same people hitting the ping-pong ball from both sides of the net. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Many editors have been exceedingly patient in explaining to Targ the various policies over and over and over again. At this point if he is unable or unwilling to understand and adhere to WP policies, then he is either not competent to edit here or has failed to get the point of the policies.
• I empathize with him because it can't be easy to read that the majority of his life's work is considered pseudoscience. My empathy does not excuse his behaviour, however, and does not extend to ensuring that he is not harmed by being blocked. It is not WP's place to bend the policies to make sure he doesn't end up in the ER. He is responsible for his own actions and for taking care of himself, and his age and vision are therefore not relevant to the discussion of whether to block him.
• Since he has shown that he is unable to non-disruptively edit the Russell Targ page, I think an escalating block on that article page while still allowing him access to Talk pages and his own User page (if this setup is even possible) might help. Ca2james (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is everyone's ethical requirement to accommodate a disabled elderly person. Especially in a case that he is trying to edit his own article which IS allowed under certain circumstances per WP:ABOUTSELF.
• If you want to make Wikipedia a better place - it is not through bullying elderly disabled people and whitewashing their work in front of them. It is not through blocking an elderly disabled from editing his page just because he has difficulties adapting to wiki policies.
• If you are concerned about the reliability of some of the material he want's to add - just put his name as the source and citation - that he himself put the info in the article (similar to WP:ABOUTSELF). Let the reader decide.
• This article is from the best I've come across. There are too many poorly written Non Neutral BLP articles that whitewash the subject. There are so many promotion articles. There are so many users who go from one BLP article to another posting defamatory information often transforming the article to an attack style. Too little is being done and there are not enough policies protecting. Correcting those articles and blocking those users is what we need to focus on.
• I think we are going back and forth repeating the same arguments. I hope the administrator who will make the decision will understand my concern. Caseeart (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "If you are concerned about the reliability of some of the material he want's to add - just put his name as the source and citation - that he himself put the info in the article (similar to WP:ABOUTSELF). Let the reader decide.": Absolutely not, no. If a proponent of a controversial subject like Remote Viewing wants to argue his case for it, he needs to do so out there in the scientific literature - *not* on Wikipedia. Wikipedia will then reflect the actual balance of reliable sources from the relevant literature - and that's a fundamental cornerstone of the whole project. I appreciate the idea of being respectful to an old man, but if his work is discredited by the scientific community, then that's what we have to say and there really is no respectable alternative. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have left Torgownik a (long) talk message by way of an olive branch, which I hope might help. I think we can resolve this, in a sympathetic and easy way, via a voluntary agreement for him not to edit his own biography, if he's amenable to it. I've tried to explain a few things that others, I believe, haven't really done. Take a look at what I wrote and see if you think it might help. --Tristessa (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Nice to see an administrator user (and a user) spending time discussing and negotiating with Mr. Targ. Previously, it did not even appear to me that it would work.

Based on the talk conversation you had - it seems that you are working *with* Targ and explaining the correct method of placing the sourced material in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Caseeart (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just came across This article[20] about Russel Targ editing his wikipedia page. I added it to his bio page. The article points out that Targ is not versed in the ways of Wikipedia and that some of his complaints about his bio page are valid (definitely a reason he should do some editing - but it seems that the issue was already resolved anyways by Tristessa). Caseeart (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The behavior continues. diff, diff, diff and diff. I doubt this editor will be able to make constructive edits to the article directly. Limitation to talk page is probably in order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone got a spare minute?

Can someone address this please. I probably provoked him a little by posting a tinfoil hat picture when he started talking about microwave mind-controlling energy weapons but now he's calling people Nazis. I have no doubt he's the same person who created the article, now blocked for sock-puppetry. I couldn't really care less about the silly insult but he's clearly WP:NOTHERE and quack-socking with an IP to avoid his block. A brave admin could just close the AFD as WP:SNOW and remove the problem all together. Stalwart111 07:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd just leave the AfD to run its course - I've removed all the nonsense added to the article by the IP. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

. Thanks. Stalwart111 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Though the "good little Nazi" comment is still a bit much in a civil AFD discussion. Stalwart111 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone is contemplating admin action, the IP seems to be pretty dynamic even though it's v6 - back with more conspiracy-theory ranting at the AfD today from a different address in a fairly wide range (I don't think any action actually is needed right now, but just a heads-up). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: User:Beyond My Ken - request for prompt intervention

User:Beyond My Ken needs an intervention (and time out). Pronto! Would an appropriate third party please attend to this promptly?

BMK is engaging in disruptive behavior (having progressed from inappropriately reverting my edits pointing out unreferenced content in the Bryant Park article to instigating edit war-like behavior), and is behaving uncivilly, including the use of direct rudness (including multiple descriptions under 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, e.g., extreme profanity and personal attacks.) I cannot assume good faith, given the escalating and persistent nature of BMK's behavior, and in light of the fact that BMK's user talk page reflects a history of similar interactions with other Wikipedians in response to their complaints about the propriety of BMK's edits or reversions of their edits.

To demonstrate what I'm referring to and for your convenience, I've included below:

• a copy of BMK's and my interactions from the relevant section of my user talk page (content pasted below)
• a link to Bryant Park: Revision history (May 31 - June 2, 2014), which documents the BMK's and my history of edits
• a link to User talk:Beyond My Ken, which reflects a history of contentious interactions with Wikipedians, including uncivil remarks and complaints about BMK's editing practices

Here is the relevant thread of interactions from User talk:Froid#Don't tag..., opened by BMK:

Copied and pasted thread from Froid's user talk page

Don't tag... ...fix it. Drive-by tagging simply leaves the work for other people to do, it's much more collegial (and efficient) if you actually fix the problem instead. BMK (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC) There's no prohibition against noting cn's and unreferenced articles, pages, and sections. Moreover, both noting the need for references and contributing said references contribute to improving Wikipedia. Sometimes I do fix the problem (which cleans up work the original contributor left undone); at other times while reading an article that I see needs citations or better references, I indicate that need, but I may be focused on another agenda or have limited time to chase down references, in which cases it would be INEFFICIENT for me to switch gears to go on a reference hunt. In still other instances, I might be reading Wikipedia on a device (such as my phone or ereader) that permits me to note the need for references but is ill-equipped to search for and/or type them in. Whatever the case - whether I hunt down and fix a reference or not - it would be irresponsible to notice the need for references yet not indicate that finding. Froid (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Also, I see you have reverted my notes indicating the need for references. You appear to be unfamiliar with the rules for using references - one cannot merely state facts without providing supporting evidence. If you dislike providing such evidence, don't just remove the tags; let someone else provide such support. And please read one or more of the following guides for citing references, found at such links as these: Wikipedia:Citation_needed Template:Unreferenced_section https://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+cite+references&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb I'm going to replace my good faith and well-founded edits. Let's not get into an edit war; if you dislike my notations, then please call in a mediator. Froid (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I've requested input from a third party to help resolve this: see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bryant_Park. Froid (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah, 9 years here and 145K+ edits means that I'm "unfamiliar" with referencing. Stop being so fucking lazy and fix a problem when you see it. And stop tagging "the sky is blue" facts. BMK (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I've expanded my request for intervention (regarding your reactions to my tags pointing out unreferenced and underreferenced content) to now also include attention to your disruptive and uncivil (category 1a 1b, 1c, and 1d) behavior. As per Wikipedia guidelines, I'll tag your user talk page accordingly. Froid (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I see no need for admin action here. BMK said "fucking", and he complained about Froid tagging a page rather than being bold and fixing things himself. BMK is obviously frustrated... but sanctions aren't going to address the underlying issue, nor is escalating things to the dramaboard as soon as one party in a dispute gets a little angry. Step back, take a sip of water, and maybe a nap, then come back to this and see if this is really something that requires immediate administrator attention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• BMK needs to be more civil in his interactions (telling someone to stop being "fucking lazy" is unacceptable) but the case is not severe enough to merit admin attention.I agree with Mendaliv, people need to calm down and talk it out rather than posting on ANI. Also in the future, please refrain from posting the entire discussion - a link will suffice. —Dark 08:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I collapsed the copied/pasted thread to keep from confusing people; when I first saw this thread I thought there had already been some responses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have never run across a editor that is so crass, rude, offensive and demining since I started editing here, then Beyond My Ken. I feel he has lost touch with the fact that this is a public site and his interactions become a part of the history of each article, potentially diminishing the value of it, should a detailed review be conducted of the history. He has used profanity upon me in the past, and from what I see seems to have the need to belittle other users in a manner that most of the time results in that user never returning. I have seen it more then once here and have tried to redirect those user into a educational tool (The Wikipedia Adventure) to learn, yet it seems to me that BMK's prior bashing and verbal abuse and in short order simply drives them away, this is already a continued pattern of unsavory interactions with the community, and if left unchecked will without question result in the continued pattern of driving away new editors that often simply do not understand the policies yet if provided some insight and guidance could become productive members of Wikipedia. While some of his edits might have value and conform to policy, is it worth it if some poor editors first encounter is with this user, he will continue to drive away new users if not dealt with. talk→ WPPilot  09:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Diffs or it didn't happen. Please point to some users he has driven away. Since you claim he does this on a regular basis it should be easy to compile a list.--Atlan (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Even from the viewpoint of a user who has frequently been in conflict with Beyond My Ken, I don't think it will be easy to compile such a list. He may come across as rough at times (and sometimes get into edit wars due to wiki markup). However, there's really no point in complaints over minor things (like this thread), where the only admin action needed is to tell BMK that cursing is a no-no. Epicgenius (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      • "wppilot" is a bit of a crank, I wouldn't take that claim seriously. Had a bit of a run-in over his direct lifting of text without attribution from a source (detailed here last month, and the defense didn't match the reality at all. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I didn't take the claim seriously. In fact I find it ridiculous and there's no way he can back it up. But that's the point. He shouldn't make baseless accusations. Those are worse than BMK's rudeness.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A specious complaint, with no action required imho, except a warning boomerang. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User Tarc's comments are incorrect, and that user is a loon, IMHO. He referred to a edit that I made that was not rephrased enough for him. [[21]] is an example and I have noticed others, BMK enjoys getting under peoples skin, over time, even calling me a asshole in the past. I have suggested to BMK that he tone down his belligerent rhetoric and offer assistance to the new users [22] but his weasel worded edit summary's and the whack a mole mentality seems to continue. @Atlan simply review the history of BMK's edits its public. It is funny that Tarc has isolated 1 edit (out of the tens of thousands I have made) that he feels makes my contributions worthless, - what a joke, from a college student none the less, kids are funny! BMK is disruptive, like it or not. talk→ WPPilot  15:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to do the work for you and review BMK's edits. If you make an accusation, you have to back it up with evidence. Otherwise withdraw the accusation. Baseless accusations are disruptive, like it or not.--Atlan (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are three from the last 2 weeks alone

• User talk:Hudson11377
• User talk:78.35.244.159
• User talk:84.44.195.210

talk→ WPPilot  16:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well upon reviewing the matter at Hudson11377's talk page, I find that editor being warned by BMK about edit-warring at Grand Central Terminal. Apparently Hudson wanted to change the infobox image but several other editors reverted that change, requesting that a discussion be opened at the talk page to gain consensus. I see nothing untowards regarding BMK's posts to Hudson's talk page, and in fact see another editor warning Hudson about making baseless claims of harassment. Do we need to investigate your next 2 links to the IP editors' talk pages, or are we going to find more of the same? Which is to say, are we going to find nothing of substance to support your allegation? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure what evidence you think you are presenting. BMK has made no posts on the talk pages of the two IP's. On H's talk page this section User talk:Hudson11377#You really don.27t seem to understand... contains reasoned responses to someone about image use. Then this section User talk:Hudson11377#This is your only warning has not one but two other editors backing up BMK's request. As there is no action for an admin to take based on these you might want to ignore BMK and go and edit some articles. MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BMK's efforts are more coy & are often done in the edit summary. My point is simple Meta:Don't be unpleasant, sums it up really well. @MarnetteD, great idea, ciao! talk→ WPPilot  16:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@WPPilot: So you have an editing dispute with BMK. Big deal, I disagree with his edits too sometimes, but I don't whine about it to the admin's noticeboard, because it's not worth pursuing. Point is, almost every editor replying on this thread is telling you to stop your accusations, unless you have substantiative evidence of his behavior. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot has a history of making unfounded accusations, assuming bad faith about other editors, unnecessarily escalating conflicts, and taking simple criticisms as personal insults. During the last discussion I had with him, in April of this year, I made it necessary to point out this history to him. Which led him to withdraw from the discussion, claiming that it was "sailing season". You can see it here in the COI noticeboard archives.

It's ironic that WPPilot claims that BMK has driven editors away from Wikipedia, because WPPilot drove Hijiri88 from Wikipedia after a conflict that WPPilot again escalated unnecessarily. In another incident WPPilot also threatened legal action against BMK, and accused BMK and another editor of being sockpuppets only because they both disagreed with him. (Again this is all explained at the COI noticeboard archive.) I've warned WPPilot that his behavior is unacceptable, he has a pattern of disruptive editing and when called out on it will usually put on a pacific face and withdraw prior to action being taken against him (which I suspect is how he has avoided a block for 4+ years).

I've tried to guide him, tried to stick up for him (somewhat) because he has made some positive contributions to the project over the years, but frankly I'm tired of his unending pattern. He has shown up at noticeboards multiple times, usually in a thread started by him, to vilify whoever he is in a content dispute with at the time. He has never changed and I doubt he will. I've pretty much given up on him at this point. -- Atama頭 19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a thread about another editor, not about me. I am sorry I gave my opinion, but I am entitled to one. My point was to assert that civility should be a given, not a gift and that perhaps a new editor would be better served if that editor was dealt with in a manner that is more constructive. As this has turned into another attack upon me, I withdraw my opinion and observations, as posted but do still feel strongly that civility/or acceptance of the lack of it, is not in the spirit of this site.

Wikipedia can be confusing to a new user and IMHO if people were more helpful, as opposed to the rapid manner that some users seem to target, that it might be better. @Atama, your wrong, and perhaps should have just let it go, but the fact is I contribute things of value here. I have received many barnstars as well as been recognized as a contributor of a number of featured pictures. My comments were designed to do nothing other then to allow others the chance, to do the same. I am sorry that you feel I need to change. talk→ WPPilot  20:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's called WP:BOOMERANG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

...And as predicted, when called out on his own actions, WPPilot withdraws with calls for peace and tranquility. This happens every time. -- Atama頭 20:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, WPPilot also mentions non-sequiturs when confronted—detracting from the conversation at hand—saying that he made many good contributions, for example. Epicgenius (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I agree that civility should be a given rather than gift, it shouldn't be subject to a suicide pact; lapses should not be grounds for throwing the book at an editor in otherwise good standing. More importantly—and this goes to general issues with ANI—we should not let civility breaches serve (whether intentionally or incidentally) as leverage to forcibly resolve a content dispute in a particular way. For better or worse, Wikipedia is not a court of law; we need to take great care in acting on procedural grounds when the outcome would have substantive effects if we want to maintain such a stance. In short, I believe the best option if there is a serious enough pattern of incivility, is for an uninvolved third party to kick off a RfC/U. Where there's an ongoing underlying content dispute, I don't think ANI should take action in any but the most obvious situations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Useful advice. WPPilot, here's a helpful comment for you. You won't get anywhere on any discussion board without providing diffs and links for the conduct you complain of. The links in your original post are useless; you don't need to link the admins to our best-known policies, you need to link them to examples of what you're talking about. Also, don't link to an entire user talkpage. See the help page Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to proceed. It tells you step by step, it's not hard, and then you won't have to paste in whole chunks of text (which nobody wants to see); just link to it. (P.S. I also agree there's no admin action needed here.) Bishonen | talk 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

IP block not in accord with Wikipedia guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP address 76.171.127.128 blocked by Bearian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after a talk page warning was deleted (re. an edit made to another page). Per Wikipedia guidelines, The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. Block should be removed. Meteoritekid (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

1. This does indeed seem like an unnecessary block, so some explanation by Bearian is welcome to understand this (error? socking? something else?)

2. May I ask what your interest is in an IP block made ten days ago? And why you posted the notification at User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll, a page which didn't exist and which had no incoming links? Fram (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Semi-private computer/IP, sockpuppetry is impossible. This may not mean much coming from a complainant, but it is true.

2. Bearian enacted a ~30 day block on the IP, in effect until the ~23rd of June. If unwarranted blocks are being made by an administrator, s/he should be informed of the issue. I apologize; I tried to link to the userpage, but apparently used the wrong {{ prefix. I am not well-versed in these kinds of details; I think it is now fixed. Meteoritekid (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The block doesn't make sense, 11 days after the IP's last edit. I think maybe Bearian meant to block a different IP but made a mistake. Like you say, Bearian should be informed of the issue, but instead you chose to bypass him and run to ANI. Why didn't you just ask about it on his talk page? Why did you create User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll? Why did you remove the block notice from the IP's page? Your actions make very little sense.--Atlan (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a regular on Wikipedia and am not familiar with most policies beyond looking into this issue. I have never been to this page before. I googled how to deal with unwarranted blocks and was led here. It seemed more likely to be productive than hitting up the person who enacted the block itself, assuming that they knew what they were doing. I deleted the block notice in the hope of removing the block. That apparently doesn't work. If you think this would be best dealt with by contacting the user, I'll go ahead and try that. Meteoritekid (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I created a page User talk:Bearian/RfaPoll if it exists; I thought I mistakenly linked to it here instead of his user profile. Genuinely confused if I am the reason for that page's existence, unless it has to do with the statement at the top of this page: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so." (?) Meteoritekid (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Regular or not, if you found the words that say you have to notify them about the ANI filing, then you cannot miss the words "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't want to 'file a grievance against someone' so much as get the IP unblocked. Per google, this seemed the place to come. Looking over the other entries here, the post does not seem out of place, but I have noted your comments and will not come here again if it can be avoided. Meteoritekid (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the {{unblock}} template you added to the IP's talk page, as that is for use by the blocked editor - the correct way for a third party to enquire, as you have now done, is to first ask the blocking admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jgstokes is CANVASSing AfDs

Jgstokes (talk · contribs)

User:Jgstokes is very active in the creation and editing of LDS-related articles. However, some of the biographical articles on LDS figures lack sourcing independent of websites and publications independent of the LDS church. One such article was Kevin S. Hamilton, which was redirected after a weeks-long AfD discussion here. He canvassed that AfD by leaving messages here, here, here and here. The messages were not neutrally-worded, and were targeted toward audiences likely to agree with his point of view on LDS articles. When he did this, I warned him here that canvassing AfDs was unacceptable. After an unsourced article on a second-tier LDS official was closed as delete, I nominated two more of them for deletion here and here. After making votes that completely ignored AfD and arguments-to-avoid protocol, Jgstokes then proceeded to canvass those AfDs again here, here, here and here. As noted, revious attempts to inform him of policy have failed. Could somebody set him on the right track policywise, both in regards to not canvassing and vis-a-vis arguments to avoid? pbp 14:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

From your last list of diffs:

Hey, I thought you'd like to know that the articles about Terence M. Vinson and Gregory A. Schwitzer have been nominated for deletion. I have made my case for keeping them and will leave it to the consensus to decide. If you'd care to comment, I'm sure your perspective, whatever it might be, would be welcome. Thanks for all your great work on Wikipedia!

Wording looks fairly neutral to me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

PresidentistVB

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The behavior of this user seems to me wholly unacceptable including personal attacks (for example referring to other users as monkeys diff). A review of this situation seems long overdue. --_nonsense ferret 09:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Content redacted per some policy I read somewhere.] PresidentistVB (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Monkey Two (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

the use of multiple misleading signatures on the same talk page is certainly something I have advised you against (diff). --_nonsense ferret 13:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more things I'll submit since there is a mountain of information and it can be hard to file through it all, especially since he attempted to delete most of the things he's said from the relevant talk pages. Monkey Two has lead other editors to believe he was new to Wikipedia only to reveal almost a week later that he's had at least one other account before on WP. Here he posted on his page that he was an administrator and another administrator had to remove it.Here he threatened to "level" me and threatened hostility if I didn't accept his OR arguments. When he couldn't provide any reliable secondary sources to support his OR arguments, he turned to "tag bombing" the article. When they were removed by another editor and replaced with a single factual accuracy dispute tag, he went back and tagged the entire lead again. I was willing to try DRN and was waiting for him to create a post before addressing any of these issues, but since another editor has stepped in, I guess that's at of the question now.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very important to separate questions about the appropriateness of editor behaviour and substantive decisions about article content. I would suggest the former only are suitable for discussion here. --_nonsense ferret 17:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Content redacted per some policy I read somewhere.] Dr. Matt (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with nonsenseferret, which is why I didn't post any concerns about content and all of my diffs speak to behavioral issues. Also, is there something against posting entire articles to talk page sections? He's done this before on another user's talk page, and now he posted another full WP article to the John Punch talk page here. I don't know if a WP policy says anything about this specifically, but I do feel it's rather disruptive. However, this is only a drop in the bucket compared to how he's obliterated the talk page by adding over 20 new sections and subsections and dissecting/transplanting previous discussions so those conversation no longer make sense and are impossible to follow.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid.]Dr. Matt (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

no idea what any of this means, but if the allegation is that I have removed something from your revision history, then I'm sure anyone will be happy to confirm this is technically impossible. --_nonsense ferret 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid]Dr. Matt (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

:My reply seems to have been deleted so I will repost it - I have no idea what any of this means, but if the allegation is that I have removed something from your revision history, then I'm sure anyone will be happy to confirm this is technically impossible. --_nonsense ferret 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

in fact my statement above was restored by another user, so striking the additional copy. --_nonsense ferret 21:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I should be very grateful if you could confirm whether the above comment should be taken as a statement of intent to bring legal proceedings in this matter - I think it is very important to be clear about what such comments mean, just so there is no misunderstanding. --_nonsense ferret 21:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X][Ibid]Dr. Matt (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sure it would be much easier for everyone to keep this conversation together - why not post here --_nonsense ferret 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]I concur. See below. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• He cannot; he's been blocked (by me) for a whole whackload of reasons that are painfully obvious to all the panda ₯’ 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]Not "all." PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

...and he's removed his block notice. I'll let someone else take care of that the panda ₯’ 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[X]He took care of it himself and thanks you for telling him privately. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Er, lest there be any confusion or misunderstanding, blocked users are free to remove block notices from their own talk pages. There is no requirement that they wear a scarlet letter for the duration of their block, so for the moment there is nothing to "take care of". Encouraging someone else to go to his talk page and replace the block notice is just poking the bear. (And it's pretty obvious that this particular editor is already more than sufficiently wound up....)

A problem only arises if a blocked editor removes notices related to his or her block and then requests unblocking—the concern in such a situation is that an editor may be attempting to conceal or mislead regarding the reasons for their block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. They may not remove the block notice while blocked. I remember the RFC where that was clarified quite well. If someone has removed that wording, then they did it in violation of the RFC the panda ₯’ 00:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to call 'citation needed' on that. If an editor isn't in the process of appealing the block, the block notice isn't critical information. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I also thought the previous discussions had decided that blocked editors could remove the block notice (if not appealing the block), but it appears that is not the case—for example, see WT:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?. I suspect a major RfC will be needed to clarify the issue because the WP:BLANKING wording is very waffly and there are two radically different interpretations of what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That wording at WP:BLANKING just isn't how things are done. "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." "Any other notice"? Seriously? An AN/I discussion or an ArbCom decision imposes a topic ban or interaction ban, and the affected user can never remove that notice from his talk page? I know that that isn't enforced. Ever, anywhere.

Even a block notice (or a declined unblock request) is only important information if the user is in the process of appealing the block. If a blocked user blanks his talk page in a fit of pique, we don't force him to put the block notice back up. I hope that an admin who tried to edit war over that sort of nonsense would get little sympathy here—as the only purpose to doing so is to piss off the blocked editor in hopes of provoking them into actions that might draw a longer block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that the sort of ambulance-chasing non-admins that obsessively stalk this board, go around blocked users' talk pages expressly for the purpose of re-adding block notices even where the blocked editor is not making an appeal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I have suggested a modification of the extant guideline at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Current wording of the first bullet does not reflect actual practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The tone and language used by PresidentistVB sounds strangely familiar, and not in a good way. As for "it may be evidence", are we to take this as an indication that he is headed for Trenton, NJ? Guy (Help!) 19:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC) PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

[X]I hope my Talk page comment clarified it for you, nonsenseferret. If not, the answer most certainly is "no." The statement was to let anyone and everyone who would vapidly prosecute another user in a public venue, especially one with that user's name on it, and even if invited to do so, know that they would be the most likely subjects of such a proceeding, and not WP. I'm sorry for you all that you felt the question had to be asked; more so because you didn't know where I was going with it, and i think all of you should have. (And whatever happened to new user good faith/trust? - And yes, Scoobydunk, I am a new user, if 5-7 weeks is considered new. My previous account was used, to my recollection, over a period of years past to upload images.) I don't correct people, usually; but in here, I felt it my duty. The rules of the page specifically state, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here." I take that to mean, since it is reiterated twice in the Terms of Use policy, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or [if a] potential [for] libel/defamation exists, do not post it here," because that is what it should say, according to the section of Wikimedia Foundation's article, subtitled "Disputes and lawsuits." It almost makes titling a section on this page with a user's name an invitation. And I'll be a monkey's uncle, because I don't know what could be so important as to incite anyone to take that kind of risk, especially, in this case, when I don't even know why the section was created in the first place. Now, unless someone wants to make an accurate allegation (I've already told the Oversight Committee why none of Scoobydunk's assertions were anything more that I could tell - and I would know- than self-incriminating evidence of something, possibly stalking), then I make the motion that this section be considered for deletion, so I can get out of here. Thanks. PresidentistVB (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Floquenbeam, PresidentistVB also removed a large number of their comments from this thread. Is this really acceptable, even under WP:REDACTED? It essentially removes most of the context, which might be useful at some later date. G S Palmer (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I know he did, and no it's not really kosher. But at this point I can't imagine any benefit (now or in the future) to trying to add them back. If you're asking my opinion, I'd just leave it alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User effecting major category changes for biographies

Not sure how things work these days (I'm a 7-year admin but have effectively been on wikibreak for 2) but Hoops gza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing all non-hidden categories from a whole tonne of biographical categories such as Category:Barack Obama, Category:Winston Churchill and Category:C. S. Lewis to name but a few. He has been challenged about this on his talk page but has kept going. This appears to go against the entire spirit of Wikipedia:CATEGORY#Category_tree_organization, which views categories as a tree of related hierarchical entries rather than a series of amorphous, unconnected ones. Can someone with more recent understanding of goings-on in that field have a look and see if action is required to fix the problem? Orderinchaos 03:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the person who "challenged" me on it came to understand the logic. You'd see that if you had actually read my talk page. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the user who had added these categories to categories named after people (apparently only in the field of British writers) was User:Dimadick, so I am more or less reverting his changes. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic of removing categories from categories - that end up only having hidden categories. That flies in the face of over 5 years working with categories on wikipedia. Interestingly user dimadick has not been in the current conversation or invited or notified. There is no sign of a conversation seeking others opinions, and when I challenged the issue the links in my opinion show no sign of conversation amongst other editors.

The stance of removing the category from T.E. Lawrence category (where I first noticed this issue) - leaving it with no connection to the main part of wikipedia's categpry structure seems from my perspective be a mis-reading of what categories are about. satusuro 03:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops gza claims that Satusoru "came to understand the logic", but here he clearly indicates that he doesn't agree with that logic. The idea is probably some very strict interpretation of categories, where David Irving is a "20th-century historian", but Category:David Irving is not a "20th-century historian"[23], because a category can never be a historian, or because that category contains things which are not a historian (I've seen either argument used in such discussions). This treats categories are very strict trees, and not the "clouds" most people use them for, collections of related articles. I've reverted his changes per WP:BRD. Fram (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That still does not resolve Hoops attitude to interpretation, and the incapacity of the category policies to deal with such an interpretation. Surely removing any categories for any reason - so that a category is no longer in a category that is visible and part of the larger tree - is wrong? I fail to see how a category item can exist that do not connect with anything that is part of the larger tree. Also before responding to this note orderinchaos's comment at hoops talk page - what you're doing actually flies in the face of a category system (a category system is a tree rather than a bunch of isolated units - and a hidden category is a meta-structure, not a structure) gives a clue to solve the issue - there should be something in category policy and procedures where such a narrow interpretation is not possible - on the basis that by isolating the categories as was done is seen as a fundamental error of interpretation. Frams comment about the categories in question as 'clouds' rather than strict interpretation by hoops - suggests a way forward and needs to be discussed somewhere where category policy and procedure needs to verify the issue arrived at by consensus, and with proper deliberation. satusuro 09:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Fram has said here, I think that Hoops gza's interpretation is certainly a novel one that runs counter to long-established practice, and one that I think finds little support in the relevant guideline. To add to that, I'd like to expand that this sort of mass change is the sort of thing that requires consensus, and the right thing to do if someone raises a concern is to stop and discuss before proceeding further. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

You cannot have non-hidden categories as parent categories of categories named after people. The Yalta Conference is not a 20th-century British writer (Winston Churchill), and Helen M. Roberts is not a President of the United States (Barack Obama). You guys apparently do not understand why we have the hidden categories in the first place. - Hoops gza (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry your argument doesnt make sense Winston Churchill should be in both categories British writer and Yalta Conference as well as other WWI & WWII related ones, UK political, Boar War, etc. As there are multiple article relating to WC there should be a WC category for them which should then be in bio tree of categories, not as you have been doing in removing all categories and saying hidden cats are all thats necessary, when the hidden cats arent part of the article structure they are solely for WP maintance tasks. Gnangarra 15:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, that's not what he means. One of the categories on the article Yalta Conference is "Winston Churchill". By adding the cat "Winston Churchill" to the cat "Nobel Prize winners" (or whatever cat), you bring indirectly the article Yalta Conference into the "Nobel Prize winners" category tree, which is incorrect if you believe that category trees should be strictly linear, i.e. every article should be a direct member of not only the parent cats but also the grandparent cats and so on. In reality, this strict system isn't followed anywhere and the cat tree is more a cloud of related articles, which means that e.g. Canada's Worst Driver (season 1) is a greatgrandchild of Category:Academic disciplines, even though it isn't an academic discipline strictly speaking... Fram (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops, you need to stop this as it's a rather dramatic change. I suggest ceasing all such removals of eponymous categories, and bringing the discussion to WP:COP to discuss how and in what way eponymous categories for individuals should be categorized. There aren't obvious answers and there are good arguments on both sides, and to be fair it is currently inconsistent, but nonetheless the removals should stop and a clear consensus arrived at before additional damage is done.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoops is a good guy who means well, but there are some fundamental misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy at work here. Hoops has been the subject of several older ANI threads (1, 2), and all of them concluded that this is a case of WP:COMPETENT and not an editor trying to harm the project. As was suggested then, and may be suggested again, perhaps a mandatory mentor or oversight admin is needed here. Hoops has had some major problems with copyrights on images, OR in articles, and (as seen here) radical articles moves and category creations. I think he needs help not sanction and support not censure. -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we really need to knock this on the head. The contents of Category:Wikipedia categories named after American politicians are for mainspace, encyclopaedic usage. Hidden categories are for administration or non-mainspace purposes – none of these categories have this aim. The obvious solution is to have the eponymous biographical categories sit in relevant mainspace categories (like we have at Category:Presidents of the United States). The whole "Wikipedia categories named after..." structure has no viable basis as sole parents of these categories because of the combination that (a) eponymous categories are actually main content categories, and (b) "Wikipedia category" is not a defining characteristic of real topics. That was part of the reason for my original suggestion that these be flagged as "Wikipedia categories" so we can treat them for what they actually are – not a part of the mainspace category structure. SFB 18:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Fram's remark (Churchill & Yalta, above) explains User:Hoops gza's thinking, and I find it, while contrary to practice, quite logical. It is also supported by WP:SUBCAT; e.g., following the principles there, the categories re-added to Category:Friedrich Hayek in this edit ought to be removed from Friedrich Hayek – which is absurd, thus justifying their removal from the eponymous category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I read those principles quite differently, they seem to say that it is perfectly allright that an article and its eponymous cat share some of their categories: "Eponymous categories typically take on a selection of the categories which are present in their corresponding articles.". It also says "[...]by convention, many categories do contain their articles' eponymous categories as subcategories, even though they are not "true" subcategories." So it seems that the removals by Hoops gza go against established, accepted convention and apply a very strict reading of the cat rules instead. Fram (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the root of this discussion is that the guideline on how to categorise an article with an eponymous category is lacking. It's partially the same problem I raised two years ago. Only one reason is given for how one would choose (or not choose) to categorise an article with an eponymous category ("to prevent a loop") and that statement isn't obviously supported by the current arrangement on British Islands. Guidelines should make their purpose clear, not simply advise without context. The benefits of excluding an article from parents of its eponymous category are not always obvious. For example, what is the benefit to the reader of excluding the nation articles from Category:Archaeology by country? Is depriving the reader of viewing all the top level national archaeology pages at a single venue an intentional result? The underlying reasons for this guideline should be discussed further at the Categorisation talk page. SFB 17:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Samsamcat

The user repeatedly re-adds non-free media to their user page. Werieth (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did running here replace asking the editor on their talk page? Resolute 13:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the users history of abusive behavior, I dont want to deal with the BS. I know the user will ignore anything that I post. Im just cutting to the chase. Werieth (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably because that user has a very poor attitude to anyone doing that, i.e. [24]. I'll issue a warning (though it'll no doubt be removed with some abuse) and then they have no excuse to do it again. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I know his history, but even so. I've just explained to him the reasoning, we'll see if he accepts it. Resolute 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was just working out how best to easily explain the difference between "permission" and "free license" :) Thanks. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NP. Hopefully this will resolve this concern. Resolute 13:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• user blanks warning, vandalizes my user page, re-adds media, and then tells me to Go fuck yourself. while vandalizing my user page again. Werieth (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User has since left a message stating he's leaving the project, so the problem may be resolving itself. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not the first time, alas. Resolute 18:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request Neuroscience complaint be filed with possible reprimand of an editor

I want to file a complaint that began when I was not allow to post at two entries by a contributor or editor. To keep me from posting he has made serious allegations, including defamation of a scientist and notable person (who I cited as a reference source in various related entries) and who also has a Wikipedia entry. Additionally this editor has made false allegations of "copying" of this author by another, implying plagiarism (again falsely as I have checked the entries and the author cited the primary source, used quotation marks when appropriate, and there are absolutely no string of words that anyone could call "copying" or plagiarism). In fact I cited both authors as well as corrected false information in the second paragraph of the article. I was not allowed to post after that. The editor claiming that I was "promoting" an author and then began making a slate of of false accusations. The matter is serious and needs investigating to clear the author and reprimand the editor, who has put his territorial interest ahead of Wikipedia and has made serious but false and reckless allegations that can bring a lawsuit to Wikipedia. I'm not naming names because of the notice above about defamation. I attempted to go to "oversight," but the link was not working. There is a considerable paper trial at those entries, including the talk page of an administrator who became involved but ultimately has decided he does not want to get involved and advised that we come here. The information then is included in the Talk Page of History of psychosurgery and Talk Page of User talk:Randykitty under the subheadings: 9) "Assistance Required" and 12) "Do you remember this Edit?" I don't know if this is the correct place to post this information. Please advise and take action.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Notified Staug73 and Randykitty. LeBassRobespierre, Rk asked that you take this up with mediation, a third opinion or an RfC (I'll add to that dispute resolution). That's how we handle content disputes, and I concur with Rk that that's what's going on here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV issue

Is there something wrong with the administrator intervention against vandalism page? I've reported an IP who's been on a vandalism spree for the past hour (and they are still at it). And when I submitted the report, it appears that there is a backlog dating 1 June. Not sure if the admin's are aware, or if there is a tech fault. But I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Thanks. Wes Mᴥuse 15:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The backlog template is automatically set by the AIV bots. Could be that no admin is willing to involve himself/herself, or that they're not sure whether the IP needs to be blocked, since the edits don't appear to be straightforward, obvious vandalism. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. It isn't the backlog template though. There is a pending report on there dating 1 June. Wes Mᴥuse 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The template changes to backlog if there are five or more pending AIV requests, regardless of if they have been answered or not. Requests are removed manually if the user has not been blocked, and automatically if they have. Answered requests are left on there for an undetermined/arbitrary period of time, so the requester can see why action has not been taken. The 1 June request has since been answered. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN and Personal attacks from User:Ansegam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am having problems with user:Ansegam (talk) who is displaying serious WP:OWN on Historical inheritance systems. When I came first across the page, my intention was to try to fix the overlinking but after attempting to read through some of it and having read other peoples concerns on the talk page I decided that the best thing to do was to remove some of the excessive detail. I fully explained what I was doing on the talk page and no one has objected there. After my initial removal of the large list of names, most of what I did was basic copy editing for grammar, as well as filling/tidying some references. Ansegam has since reverted every edit made to the page since before my first edit [25] with no edit summary and no comment on the talk page. I feel that my edits are an improvement to the page and a step towards addressing some of the major problems that have been highlighted by other editors. I reverted Ansegams edit and left a note on their talk page [26]. Ansegams has now reverted again to the original version [27] and responded to my note on their talk page by calling my [28] "Mentally challenged" and saying "people like [me] destroy the world by making everything "user-friendly", thus destroying culture and wisdom and turning all people into fools who can hardy think and learn". They have also claimed my edits where vandalism and stated that they will superimpose their version if I try to make any more edits.

I would really like to see the article improved, no matter who is the one to do it. I understand thet Ansegram has put a lot of time into it but that kind of excessive detail does not belong here and their behaviour is unacceptable. I see no point in attempting to continue a dialogue with them if they are just going to attack me and threaten to block all attempts I make to improve the page. I would like an administrator to have a look at the situation and take any action they think if necessary. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious problem, and I commented at the user's talk. There are three related articles with excessive details: Historical inheritance systems and Systems of inheritance among various peoples and Systems of social stratification. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Much of it reads more like a research thesis than an encyclopaedic entry. Needs serious cleanup. NQ (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Found this - some context NQ (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that AfD sheds light, NQ. The attitude is a greater problem than the edit warring, certainly, but they are edit warring, so, somewhat for form's sake, I've also warned them about that. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

I just blocked Ansegam for disruptive editing after yet another revert. He was warned three times in the past 24 hours. Last warning was by NQ just over two hours ago after which Ansegam reverted another edit. He has been blocked for one week. Bgwhite (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raashid Alvi

Three new SPAs and two slightly older accounts have been making highly promotional edits, and assuming ownership of the Raashid Alvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page. Despite attempts to point out policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:COI, Wikipedia:Image use policy (specifically WP:Gallery), WP:LINKFARM and WP:INDICSCRIPT they are determined to have the article exactly their way, and totally unwilling to discuss any aspect.

Raashid Alvi's facebook page [29] which states "This Page is Managed by the Die Hard Fans of Raashid Alvi Saheb" also states:- Website - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raashid_Alvi
I suspect it is the same "Die Hard Fans" who are trying to control the Wikipedia page that they are directing their facebook readers to

Several of the SPAs are rather suspicious, in both their timing, often editing only minutes apart, taking it in turns to revert, and their detailed knowledge of Wikipedia:-

Iffatalvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted an image licensing tag with their second edit, and awarded a barnstar with their 16th edit

Nazhatafroz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted an image licensing tag with their fourth edit

Abrahamkhan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted a connected contributor template with their third edit, deleted an image licensing tag with their fourth edit and made a request for page protection with their fifth edit

Of the more experienced editors Hamdirfan987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started his editing career with a very similar dispute, over edits contrary to policy, at Khalid Alvi and has since uploaded over 100 images of Raashid Alvi – so appears to have a very close connection. Despite only making 318 edits in the last 12 months, he has also awarded himself a Master Editor service award (42,000 edits in 6 years)

Shakeeluddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a wider editing history, but has proved determined to maintain the link-farm.

In an attempt to resolve this, User:KDS4444 opened Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Raashid Alvi this morning, but User:TransporterMan has advised that – “conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, perhaps repeated violation of policy - are conduct matters which will not be addressed by the Mediation Committee and, if action is desired upon them, ought to be referred to the proper conduct forum.” –

If this is not the right place to bring this up, could you please direct me to “the proper conduct forum” – Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest can be addressed at WP:COIN. But I think far more serious is the sockpuppetry allegation. If you can paint a picture using diffs then start a case at WP:SPI and an investigation can take place. -- Atama頭 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

An SPI was raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamdirfan987 and I have protected the page. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a file on the article that has some questionable licensing claims. It was flagged but several of the users above have removed them. The file is a segment from a TV show and the original uploaded says this is allowed. Would someone familiar with copyright / permissions in India take a gander? To be honest, I doubt it adds much to the article and the file can probably be removed the article and deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: SPI results posted.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked all identified editors indefinitely. The CU-confirmed sockpuppets were blocked without much need for consideration, but the master (Hamdirfan987) took a bit more thought. Given the editor's clean block log, I wanted to see what they had done before deciding on a block duration. What I saw was a coordinated effort of deception using these sockpuppets, in an attempt to create the impression of support for Khalid Alvi (in what is alleged above to be a conflict of interest). There are also copyright violation allegations, and what just really rubbed me the wrong way was his awarding of barnstars to himself from his socks. That just showed me that this editor's intentions went far beyond an ignorance of policy. -- Atama頭 22:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tjmayerinsf

I'm actually not sure where to report this, but I figure that listing this here is a good first step.

Long story short, recently the article Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation was put up for deletion. The premise sounded familiar and a little searching showed that sure enough, the article was deleted/incubated previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disconnect (2013 film). The article was moved to the incubator (and later draftspace). However what I shortly noticed about Mobilize is that a few days after the AfD was closed, User:Tjmayerinsf re-created the article under Mobilize. This isn't the first time he's done something like this, as he previously did this with Tulip Time: The Rise and Fall of the Trio Lescano, which was deleted via Afd in 2008. He recreated it three times after the close of the AfD and never addressed the issues for its deletion. He also re-created the article for David Chiu (attorney) several times despite it getting deleted for copyvio. The article for Chiu now reflects him as a politician and any concerns brought up in previous versions have been addressed, but not really by Tjmayerinsf. I'm going to try to see if I can find sources for Tulip Time before nominating it for a speedy, but the problem here is that we've blocked people for this sort of behavior and Tjmayerinsf has been editing since 2006. There's no reason why he shouldn't know the rules for notability and that re-creating articles after they're repeatedly deleted can be seen as disruptive. I see where he was warned for posting copyvio (that and promotional prose is a common deletion rationale for many articles he's edited) but not for reposting articles, but again- he's been editing since 2006 (about 8 years) and as such should have at least some knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines to know where this sort of editing behavior isn't kosher. If it was just the once or just the ones back in 2008 and so on it wouldn't bother me overly much, but Mobilize was created last year.

I figure it should be mentioned here, as this concerns me greatly because it makes me wonder how many articles he's written or edited that have issues with them that haven't been found yet. He's prolific and I hate to bring this to ANI, but this is the sort of thing that just isn't kosher and does need to be addressed. I've left him an official warning, but at some point this goes beyond "I wasn't warned, so I didn't know". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that a long standing user would know the process around AfD. Recreating articles under slightly different titles afer a consensus is reached to delete the original would suggest WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:LaCenCt

Would any uninvolved admin check on this page please, user is transcluding other user's pages (including mine) on to their page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Have reported to WP:AIV as advised by the warning notice on thier page. Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I delisted the AIV as it's not the normal vandal type and already being dealt with here. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone actually try to talk to them? They might have been trying to duplicate the "look" of a userpage they liked and ended up transcluding the whole thing inadvertently. I removed all that from the user and talk pages and left them a comment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominally agree with FreeRangeFrog here; new users do weird things sometimes when they like how someone's userpage looks. It's really disconcerting when someone you don't even know does it, but it's something that should be handled via discussion. On the other hand, FreeRangeFrog's removal of the transclusions was reverted without comment. Given the attribution at the bottom of the page by LaCenCt, it seems pretty clear that the intent is to just copy the style of the page. If LaCenCt wants the format, we could just subst the userpage for him, then remove the admin templates or whatever. Anyway, Xaosflux, you might want to change that <includeonly> to be a bit friendlier than suggesting anybody who transcludes your userpage is a vandal (e.g., the kind of notice normal templates throw that should always be subst'd). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You might also try using <onlyinclude> if you really don't want your userpage to be transcluded. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• They're trolling. I've deleted and salted the page, and will block them the next troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam:, I have no particular reason to doubt you, but it seemed fairly innocent to me. I've had someone copy my userpage before. The fact that the user didn't respond to queries about it is a bit annoying, but deleting and salting the userpage? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Except (1) Xaosflux has evidently had this problem before, since he created that header in 2006, and (2) Why Xaosflux's user page? No offence to Xaosflux of course (mine is worse) but it's not that fantastic a user page. It strains credulity that they innocently found that page and decided to use it as some kind of template. Combine that with reverting without explanation after it had been removed, and with their edits to Cluebot's page, and I'd say it's pretty clear they aren't innocently experimenting. If they want to experiment in their sandbox, that remains undeleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I have had the problem before, it used to be a more popular vandal/troll activity in the past. I claim no ownership of my userpage content, it is fairly bland; and encourage anyone to copy any aspect of it they would like (headers, clock, etc), however just transcluding it was a bit creepy. I haven't read up on community standards for this type of action lately, thus asking for someone else to look at it here. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I believe someone cut-and-pasted my talk page (with messages!) once. Again, it's a big fat "so-what" really, it's CCBYSA content, and I suppose with cut and paste they aren't attributing the unsigned bits, but I can't get excited about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
          
          • I've got to agree with Rich here. I don't see this as something qualifying for speedy deletion—I really don't buy that it's harassment (G10)... and to call it pure vandalism (G3) is too far a stretch in my view. I don't think the page should be restored, mind you, but I just don't see the point. Just remove the transclusion. If Xaosflux was having a problem with people transcluding his userpage, he could just use <onlyinclude> to ensure what was transcluded was something else. I agree the transcluding is really on the weird side of weird user conduct that I've seen... but it really does seem innocent enough to me. The solution is to either subst the userpage and remove any content that might deceive, or remove the transclusion entirely and notify the other user. I agree that transcluding another's userpage likely serves no legitimate purpose, and therefore should be reverted... but not to the point of deleting and salting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) I fail to see how this transclusion matters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC).
  
• Meh, you oughta see his contributions on the Spanish wiki. Either he's a troll or he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Either way, he doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:DeadSend4 harrassing my talk page

The above user has been involved in a content dispute at Talk:Christina Aguilera#Dispute for the past 3 hours, calling each others names, dismissing others inputs and all. The link should be self explanatory. I had notofied admin Acalamari of the users ways and warned the user for continuous incivility on their part when the attacks at my talk page began. From this to this the user has been continuously haraassing my talk page with insults and all when I have made it very clear that I'm not to be disturbed, threatening legal action, as well as complete mayhem. He/she wants me to intervene on his behalf for other user's supposed comments. So I have requested other users also here who are involved in the discussion. @Petergriffin9901: and @HĐ: for their explanations as well. And mind you, the situation is actually pretty tense in the talk page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to say to him about the topic but he kept on talking about irrelevant stuff recently. Simon (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indian forgot to mention that I had informed her calmly at first about being insulted as well and now that I threw in that legal action he/she suddenly spring into action but ignores the fact that I too have been insulted WAY worse DeadSend4 (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this Bio. Simply put, read the thread and count the insults/bad faith/fandom at work. He doesn't seem to be able to respect or work with other editors in anyway possible.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 11:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The user has still continued to harass my talk page and still admits to legal threats. This is sooo not done. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(reinserting the comment) And is now removing my comments. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC

Also, please don't act like a victim when I was NOT harrassing you, you just chose to ignore me over and over again. A simple "I'm looking into these comments" would have sufficed but you didn't. DeadSend4 (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you incapable of understanding the simple fact that you are NOT to remove others comments? You did it again here in this noticeboard in front of all admins and have continued the harassment. No wonder there's no sympathy for you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Called me the B-word. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You all can go fuck yourselves, I'm out. It's been fun! :) DeadSend4 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol. This guy is obviously missing some cogs upstairs. Acalamari was actually very gracious for not blocking us both (we crossed the 3RR) but all you did was continuously insult and bash him and his very fair and neutral actions. Shame on you.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 11:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) "I'm taking legal action now" in an edit summary is a pretty unambiguous legal threat. I'm not particularly crazy with IndianBio's comments on his/her user talk page, but that doesn't excuse DeadSend4's legal threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have indeffed DeadSend for NLT. However, there are additional issues above: although I have not seen the DIFF, they appear to have been called a "twat" among other things - there should be some warnings for NPA handed out where needed. I'm not sure it's normally blockworthy yet, however, whenever you drive someone off the cliff like has happened, it often IS blockworthy. Now, IndianBio is being absolutely ridiculous ... not just in their behaviour, but their statement above - they actually accuse DeadSend of "using the b word", when the diff they provide actually shows DeadSend using the letter b ... which yes, could have stood for "bitch", or possibly "bastard", but also possibly "Bio" or "buddy". This was a ridiculous morning for at least 3 people here, and rather childish by many the panda ₯’ 12:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The way this was going on, do you honestly blame me for thinking that he is calling me buddy? I'm sorry I have to disagree wtih you on that account. Anyways, thanks for dealing with this. Gooday to all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't leave yet ... a review your behaviour is still ongoing ... the panda ₯’ 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This comment by Petergriffin9901, as well as accusing a user (I think Bluesatellite?) of sockpuppetry (sans diffs). Those are just two diffs from the dispute at the Aguilera talk page. That's not good. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• [30] [31] Good block. Aside from the legal threat, he obviously lack the maturity and self-restraint to contribute in a productive fashion. —Dark 12:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I recall DeadSend4 from causing me to fail an earlier GA review of Christina Aguilera by making large scale reverts, though I think I was secretly glad as the review had become a long slog anyway. He was a bit abrasive but contributed constructively, and continued to do so, so maybe he just needs to not edit after a few pints (or over some other influence) and chill out, rather than being hit by the banhammer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Little help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi people, I would like your help in this rather confusing issue. Telangana is a new state of India which came into existence today seceding from Andhra Pradesh. Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh is a city actually located in Telangana. Now that the state is divided, the article must be renamed to Nizamabad, Telangana..But a patriot happily copy pasted all the content from Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh and made a new article at Nizamabad,Telangana which doesn't have the previous edit history. Since we always follow this naming convention of having a space after the comma, I hereby request you to

• Delete Nizamabad, Telangana
• Move Nizamabad,Telangana to Nizamabad, Telangana...

That's it folks...thanks in advance ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 11:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Support, I have requested move at admin page, but don;t know who copied it.--Vin09 (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just made a WP:RM request, filed as technically uncontroversial. Epicgenius (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Presumably there are some other articles about nearby places where similar changes need to be made?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a span of a few minutes 200.120.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has managed to call me a prick, a twat, and a piece of shit. I had previously warned him not to be uncivil in his edit summaries, a tosser. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's no good. Calidum, I'd suggest you use edit summaries when reverting. It's not like you were reverting vandalism when, for instance, you restored an unsourced (though probably true) assertion about what an article subject is best known for. Anyway, given this editor has received an only warning for NPA in the last 24 hours and persisted in making personal attacks (as well as edit warring warnings, which seem to have been disregarded), a short block is probably appropriate to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Block away. I could not care less. Personally I consider that stalking someone's edits, reverting repeatedly without giving a reason, and going out of one's way to be obnoxious and provocative is a much more damaging thing than responding angrily to such behaviour. If the insulting behaviour of reverting without having the courtesy to explain why resulted in editors getting blocked, this place would improve rather dramatically. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, KOH. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

====He's back====

See more personal attacks below. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

More personal attacks from an IP

Shortly after his block expired, 200.120.158.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blanked his talk page with the edit summary rm a lot of chuntering retards. He had previously been blocked personal attacks, including calling me a prick, a twat, and piece of shit. (See #Personal attacks above.) given that, and his pattern of tendentious edits, I think WP:Not here may apply. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the unacceptable edit summary, I've reblocked them for one week.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another set of eyes needed at Bhupinder Singh Hooda

At Bhupinder Singh Hooda, there is an editor who is apparently the subject of the article who is attempting to remove a section from the article. He is claiming the information is wrong, the allegations have no proof, and he is trying to protect his image. See recent edit summaries in the article. I have attempted to convey to the editor how he should proceed, but so far is only actions have been to remove the section. Myself and another editor have reverted him. I believe the section is properly sourced to reputable sources and complies with WP:VERIFY. This is a WP:BLP issue. I'd like another set of eyes on this with someone more experienced with the BLP realm than I. I am notifying the editor in question. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the sources only report this as an allegation - and state that the woman responsible for bringing the court case had subsequently withdrawn the petition, [32] a section entitled 'Controversial second marriage' and an assertion that the marriage was 'illegal' was not only undue, but a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. If the subject of the article was indeed responsible for removing it (as I have done), he was perfectly entitled to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Andy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockhopping conspiracy theorist

These Tokyo-area IPs are probably the same user blocked previously (see ban discussion).

• 180.52.166.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 110.3.187.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Recent edits are mostly unsourced, NPOV insinuations of conspiracies, war profiteering, and tenuous loyalty by Jews. User seems to have changed tactic from editing BLP articles to mostly articles about historical figures. This user has an idiosyncratic style of edit summaries, which typically include many slash characters ("/").

Examples:

• Edict of explusion diff: POV, implies Jews had never been legitimate residents of European countries.
• Oliver Cromwell diff: unsourced, implies funding by Jewish merchants in Amsterdam
• Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting diff: unsourced, implies divided loyalty or citizenship of convenience for victims
  • Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting diff: ditto, from the other IP
• Samuel Samuel & Co diff: unsourced, implies war profiteering by Jewish-owned company
• Heartbleed diff: unsourced non-sequitur comparing Heartbleed bug to malware of possible Israeli origin

Proposing a block of these IP as for previous IPs used by this person. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly the same person: I blocked two static IPs in the last few days. I'll block these. Acroterion (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A certain user has stepped up their childish, vindictive nature

A certain user must think I'm an idiot and can't see what they are trying to do. They changed their tactics. They know very well that the "Results and schedule" box, separate from the other thing we've disputed over, has been unhidden each week to reveal what's underneath it, the next race. Isn't it funny how last week, when SOMEONE else unhid the FedEx 400 box, this certain user didn't say anything? But when I MYSELF unhide this week's race in the same fashion that the other user did last week, SUDDENLY the user in question has a problem with it? Also, isn't odd how they just NOW suddenly decided that they don't like the un-hiding of that box, when, after all these months, they NEVER had a problem with it? Seems fishy to me. Sounds like they know they've lost on the other thing, so they are now trying to stick it to me wherever they think they can, no matter how lame the reason. Let me ask, why last week did they NOT revert the OTHER editor who un-hid the box for the FedEx 400? It's because there's nothing there was wrong with it; the only thing wrong with it THIS time is the fact that it was ME who un-hid it. That's the vindictive nature of the person in question, and it's not fooling anyone.

This is the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man

This is what the box is meant to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=prev&oldid=611353692 As you can see, that displays how the box indicates the upcoming race (which is a totally different section than the one being disputed a few weeks ago). This box has, by other editors as well as myself, been revealed each week using the un-hide feature in the editing process, to show the race valid for that week, and it's been done that way for quite some time. But, suddenly now, the user in question decided that they don't like it very much because they saw that this time it was ME who revealed it, and decided to use it as an opportunity to try to get under my skin. Why didn't the user in question revert it last week when it was some OTHER editor who un-hid the box? Funny how that works, isn't it? This is what it currently looks like, and as you can see, the box is missing now that the user in question hid it only for personally vindictive purposes, something they didn't do when it was another editor who made the same kind of edit last week that I made this week: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=next&oldid=611384932

And while I'm here, I may as well go ahead and let you know about another situation. Since clearly the user in question keeps an eye on what I do, they saw today an article for deletion conversation that I'm involved in, and decided to put their two cents in merely for the purpose of opposing me on it, again to try to stick it to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Brickyard_400

As you can see, all of it, the new tactics change to try to bother me, plus the butting into the deletion article conversation just to oppose me out of spite, has gotten to the point of nuttiness. I don't go around reverting other editors' edits out spite or for any other reason, I keep to myself. But the user in question not only does it, but also makes a habit out of it, even stooping to changing tactics when something else wasn't working for them. And who knows how many other users out there that they have done it too, especially the ones who maybe didn't take the time and effort to rightfully complain about it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you please actually talk to the user you're in conflict with rather than coming to ANI straight off? This is about the fourth time in the last few weeks you have come here with the same issue (1st, 2nd, 3rd). Like we said before in those discussions, WP:DISCUSS with USM what their issue is and work it out between yourselves rather than coming to ANI every single time you think they're in the wrong. You're fighting about an infobox and the timing to reveal the results of a race not run yet, not actual article content. We're not under a WP:DEADLINE to have the edit show up or not until after the race, and does it really matter for an upcoming race? Also, anyone can comment on an AfD, and they only said they were going with article creation MO for arguing deletion, not some kind of vendetta. Someone interested in NASCAR racing and editing in the subject is going to comment in an NASCAR AfD; you can't get around that. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, I'd like to make a suggestion. Two, actually. First, read WP:TLDR: Nobody's going to be predisposed to listen to you if they think that you're ranting. Second, could you stop using URL's and use regular links instead? If you need to link to someone's contributions, it can be produced by typing [[Special:Contributions/Example]], which will render as Special:Contributions/Example. Thanks. G S Palmer (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said a few weeks ago, trying to communicate with them has proved fruitless, that's why I'm here. I don't come here because I like to. And anyway, when you have someone whose mission it is to maliciously target one single editor with new tactics because the old ones didn't work, there is no getting through to them anyway. Although in the past I tried. That person likes to leave messages on people's pages basically getting across the idea that they have the last say on everything, no matter how ridiculous. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Johnsmith2116? Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You have been told by multiple people (in fact, as I recall, by everyone other than you) that your earlier claims of being hounded/attacked/battled against were spurious and that you, not them, were the cause of the issue. Your continued claims that USM is being "vindictive" have crossed into personal attack territory - I would strongly suggest you strike this comment, especially, as it is a blatant and egrerious personal attack - consider this a warning that if you make any such further attacks you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, you need to review the WP:FIVEPILLARS, especially regarding assuming good faith. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they are trying to "spite" you. Conflict happens on Wikipedia all of the time and the right response is to talk it out. As I think I suggested earlier, go to WikiProject NASCAR to hear the views of other editors if you feel like it is a him vs. you situation. It always helps to include other editors in the discussion if you are finding it difficult to communicate with a specific editor. But you have to try to talk it out and stop coming to AN/I over what is, essentially, a content dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

IP consistently adds unreferenced material

172.3.208.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP occasionally adds unreferenced material to various articles on Wikipedia and has ignored edit summaries in reverts as well as warnings on their talk page. After the last revert, which can be seen here, the editor proceeded to quickly revert changes without using "undo" as seen here. Warnings from Level 1 through 4 have been given. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit and Ta-Nehisi Coates - request for topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As of a half hour ago, User:Useitorloseit has made 310 edits to Wikipedia. The account has made only 33 edits to article space, 20 of them to a BLP article, Ta-Nehisi Coates. 19 of those 20 have been to insert disputed material about the juvenile arrest record of the subject of the article. With 310 edits, this user could have brought the article up to FA status, but instead the vast majority of those 310 edits have been to talk and project space, including multiple threads here and on WP:BLPN, arguing about this disputed material. Along the way this editor has been belligerent and accused other editors like myself and User:NorthBySouthBaranof of all manner of nonsense. It is clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and worse, has wasted the time of one or two dozen productive editors since February. This user should be topic banned this article and its talk page and can revisit this article and topic ban after he or she proves him or herself to be a productive Wikipedia editor and not an SPA. Enough is enough. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Enough is enough indeed. This editor's privileges should be constrained to anything but that BLP (at a minimum). Total time waster. Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread. [33] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban regarding all aspects of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Viewing all of Useitorloseit's contributions confirms that this is an SPA wanting to add negativity to a BLP. Their agenda was clearly stated in the first edit which has edit summary "added info about his criminal past". Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This issue involves disputes over changing consensus and the quality of arguments for deciding consensus. I request RfC be allowed to run its course, due to repeated prior attempts to block discussion.

Content: An explanation of the disputed content is inside collapsed box:

Collapsing for the moment to stop edit war, leave it alone for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the content dispute: Ta-Nehisi Coates is a blogger for the Atlantic magazine who focuses on issues of African-Americans, race relations, crime, young black males, inner city schools, etc. (Reparations for slavery and Shooting of Trayvon Martin are two examples of issues where he has had an impact). He has written about his discipline issues in high school over the years, and I want to include a mention of that. The proposed edit is this: "Coates attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute but was expelled twice for disciplinary violations and he graduated from Woodlawn High School."

The edit meets Wikipedia's content requirements: it is verifiable, based on the author's own repeated discussion of the incidents over the years. WP policy allows such self-referential sources. There is no original research: these links are written by the author, not me, and they are being used to support only one thing: the straight fact of the incidents, nothing else. Lastly, this is a neutral point of view: it doesn't obscure the existence of these incidents, nor does it emphasize them. I believe this edit should be added to the article.

Conduct: I definitely edit-warred in the beginning, but that is long past and I have addressed other concerns such as being an SPA here under "I don't edit Wikipedia often" [[34]]. Other users have abused the Noticeboard process to shut down debate: My first RfC was immediately deleted by an involved user, TheRedPenOfDoom, who then warned me on my Talk page. When I deleted [[35]] the warning, he reported me to the Obvious Vandalism [[36]] page. My edit was obviously not vandalism, and TheRedPenOfDoom deserves sanctions for misuse of the vandalism board to close down debate. The next edit [[37]] had 2-1 supporting, with 1 ambiguous. The 1 opposed, NorthBySouthBaranof, reverted it 3 times, then reported [[38]] me to the BLP board. The next edit [[39]] had a 3-3 split supporting/opposing. NorthBySouthBaranof talked about reverting to the last uncontroversial version due to no consensus [[40]], then IN HIS VERY NEXT POST, tried to have me topic banned [[41]]. He deserves sanctions for making false statements about the state of consensus at BLP & ANI noticeboards. There's more. When he reopened the 2nd RfC when it was closed minutes after I started it, he didn't include [[42]] the RfC tag, so it wouldn't attract other editors who might disagree with him. He harassed [[43]] or tried to prevent [44]] other editors who might support me from joining in. I am asking the RfC to be allowed to remain for 2 weeks to draw comment, then we can close it and I will accept consensus and move on. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What possible difference could the RFC make? You haven't taken no for an answer since February, and you've done it at the top of your lungs. Assuming the RFC does stay open, which I have zero objection to, why would we possibly believe that would be the end of it, since you've given no indication that you've ever been willing to drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Simple: because no discussion has ever been allowed to play out. Try me. Delete this topic ban, allow the RfC to stay for 2 weeks, and if I start again I'll support your topic ban. You don't have a clue about me and you've been wrong from the start. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There's been months and hundreds of edits of discussion already. You will apparently never be satisfied. I say leave the RFC open for two weeks and topic ban you. If you truly will be satisfied by the two week RFC, after all these months and hundreds of edits of complaining, then the topic ban will have no effect on you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've provided links on how many times debate has been disrupted by opposing editors. If you choose to ignore that, don't blame me. I stand by my request. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

References
References

Disagreement is not disruption. You've had ample opportunity to be heard. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One edit had 2-1 support; another had 3-3. So who says it was so clear-cut? Useitorloseit (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Ta-Nehisi Coates and all other BLPs, as well as 1RR on other pages as someone completely uninvolved, I had been considering leaving him a message about WP:Forum shopping after seeing him raise the issue repeatedly over the past week on different WP: pages I watch, but got the impression that would only get him to try and draw me into an article issue I'm completely apathetic toward. Clear WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC) -- EDIT: After further discussion with Useitorloseit (see below), I'm seeing severe WP:CIR, WP:TEND, and WP:NOTHERE issues with this editor, and do not think he should be near any BLP and should be restricted to 1RR on other pages to mitigate potential uncooperative behavior. This is if if we continue to let him edit at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Thomson, one editor said there was no consensus[[45]], then 20 minutes later claimed on ANI that consensus was clearly against me[[46]] and I should be topic-banned. You cannot work out consensus if people will openly lie like that and poison the well against you. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-read what NorthBySouthBaranof actually posted before a month of dealing with your arguing. He said that there was no consensus to include your addition, that your addition was controversial, and that the last non-controversial version did not have your addition. He never said what you said he said. There is no hypocrisy in what actions of his you've presented. Honestly, that you failed to get that from the post you linked to me (assuming you weren't hoping that I would just take your word for it) only reinforces my views on the matter. In fact, it leaves me worried. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I quote: "If you believe that there is no consensus, then we will have to revert back to a version before you began introducing the issue, removing any and all mention of the incident until such time as a consensus is further developed." He even suggested which edit to revert back to. Sounds like he was saying "we need to work it out", but then he suddenly went to ANI so he wouldn't have to bother. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And I quote: "there has never been a consensus developed that any mention of the incident belongs in the article". Also, what you're selectively quoting is, even not in the proper context, saying that your controversial addition to the article should not be included until and unless there is an actual consensus to include it. It does not preclude (but definitely includes) the possibility that a consensus to not include it would develop, as has happened. Consensus is not created, changed, reversed, or otherwise affected by one editor refusing to get the point or drop the stick and back away from the horse. A consensus has developed since then, and you are the only person who doesn't see that. And a month is not "suddenly," it is plenty of time to work plenty out. It just didn't work out the way you wanted. If you continue to fail to get this, I'm bumping my vote to a topic ban on all WP:BLPs and a WP:1RR restriction. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, "suddenly" referred to his posting on ANI 20 minutes after talking about reverting on the talk page. I never said it was a month. I will accept consensus; I just expect to be allowed to have an RfC without having it deleted for once. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Which ANI report? Because the link you've provided was for over a month ago, and this ANI report is from today. Doing your job for you and searching NorthBySouthBaranof's contributions to find out what you should have linked, I see that you've generally not gotten it through your skull that the work is DONE, and that your addition lost. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The link you say I "should have linked" is the same one I did link, in my post at 00:26 4 June. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The one you linked to at :28 after, this link, is from Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. It is not the other ANI report you kept talking about. You said that he went from Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates to ANI in the span of 20 minutes, and provided no evidence. You kept discussing some ANI report without clarifying that you were not talking about this one, but an earlier one. You could/should have linked to him filing the report as well as proof and clarification, and so that your claim that he went to ANI 20 minutes later (as if it's relevant) was proven, and so that people new to this conversation would not think that you're talking about this ANI report from a month later. Without that link, the only conclusion that was possible to draw was that you were talking about this ANI thread we're in now, instead of the one from earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I proved links and therefore evidence for both in my first reply to your comment, at 00:26 4 June. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

After double checking, I'm still seeing an irrelevant case of WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDHT on your part. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, merely to attempt to drag a living person through the mud through a unbroken obsession about a single minor incident. support topic ban . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per TRPoD. — goethean 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, and, believe it or not, support including the information. Here is the point. This is the article, by Coates himself. Clearly he doesn't see writing about details of his troubled history as a personal attack. And the reason for that is that it gives him credibility. Coates, as best I can tell from a quick skim (I don't think I'd ever heard of him before today) seems to be notable for writing and speaking to and about a young black audience that contains many of what we call "at risk youth". The fact that he had a tough childhood himself makes a big difference, if he mentions that it doesn't seem as if he's talking down to them from a pedestal, but that he has been there too. And that we write just how tough is important, it's not the "Frank Capra" overly idealistic tough kids with dirty faces that we sneer about; he assaulted a teacher, possibly twice, and got expelled from school for it. We really should write that in his article, and not because it makes him look bad, though it does - and not even because it makes him look good for overcoming it, though it does - but because it seems vitally relevant to the rest of his career and to the reason for his notability. --GRuban (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be possible to have a reasonable discussion concerning what material should be included after an SPA editor with a clear agenda is topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • If, as it seems here, the main reason to ban him is that he wants to include this one sentence, and we can have a reasonable discussion about including that one sentence, I don't think we need to ban him. After all, it's not as if he's vandalizing the article, he started an RfC. We've got noticeably ruder editors still editing constructively here. --GRuban (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • 1) the content is included and 2) Coates has described numerous OTHER events in his life that have had a far greater impact. The editor's single minded focus on bloating this single factor is a core issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • A reasonable case can be made for inclusion. The reason to ban him is not because of the sentence, but because that sentence is basically his only contribution to Wikipedia. The reason to ban him is that he's an SPA engaging in forum shopping, dead horse beating, and belligerent behavior. How much more time must we waste on a user who has made next to no positive contributions in four months and 310 edits? Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I unblocked Useitorloseit on 23 April after he'd been blocked for edit warring. The unblock included a one-month 1RR restriction to the Ta-Nehisi Coates article. He'd been sporadically active until 23 May; that day, he both removed the sanction notice on his talk page and archived Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates. It's hard to interpret as anything other than an attempt to conceal the prior debate and have another go at getting the material included.

I haven't written him off as a user. However, I feel that his fixation with this topic is impeding his growth as an editor. Thus, the topic ban seems the best way to encourage him to grow as an editor and gain experience in the editing process without spending copious amounts of his time (and other users' time) on iterations of the same debate. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I take issue with the prevailing view on Wikipedia that the only way to be judged a legitimate user is to edit lots of articles. I am a low-volume editor who doesn't have an interest to contribute as often. But my contributions should be judged by their content, not my edit count. I've gotten enough support for my edit to show it's not so outrageous or biased. Did everyone forget this RfC is due to the 3-3 deadlock? Why doesn't that matter to anyone? All I want is ONE RfC that doesn't devolve into flame wars over blocks or speedy closes. That's the real reason my nonarticle edits are so high. Then I can rest knowing I had a chance to make my case and be heard on the content, not insinuations about me. The only fixation I have is becoming interested in the process of dispute resolution. It's not based on quality of argument; it's whoever will stay and revert. In the ensuing mess, quality of argument is just another contender. By the way, I archived that stuff to try to draw a line behind it and focus on content. Fat lot of good that did. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit, I know what it's like. I too am a part time editor who doesn't average 100 edits per day, nor get paid for them. Unfortunately, when editors who are very active decide they want to make mischief for others for seemingly no reason, and then we complain about it, it tends to fall on deaf ears. I noticed that an editor who has been trying to stick it to me from some time also reverted one of your edits on this very page a few hours ago. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not what anyone is saying at all. This has nothing to do with however many edits you made. An editor with 100,000,000 edits would be getting in trouble for your behavior (and would have probably just been indefinitely blocked by now because there would be absolutely no reason to give them near the benefit of the doubt you've been given). You have made a lot of edits in a short amount of time, but almost all of them have been focused on only one thing that almost everyone has told you to stop pushing. The issue is that you're a single purpose account that refuses to listen to acknowledge any consensus that isn't exactly what you want. There are some possibilities for good single purpose accounts (User:Giraffedata's project is an example), but your actions do not mark you as a beneficial SPA. That you refuse to get that no one condones your behavior for a reason and that you continue to lie to yourself (and others) about the situation makes me doubt you'll be of benefit to the site, even with a topic ban. I have seen plenty of editors blocked (not banned from a single article, but blocked from the whole site) for far fewer problems in much less time, so you should be grateful that every admin who has passed through here is open to the possibility that you'll grow up, get over your mistakes, and do something productive instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor (I have never edited the article in question or its talk page), I was alerted to this dispute by Useitorloseit's attempts at forum shopping. At that point, I read the talk page, and this page, and noticed that Ian.thomson had the same experience as me. I am inclined to say "well, dang": Useitorloseit's actions are so egregious that [at least] two entirely uninvolved editors have noticed and come here to say "yes, this user should be banned from this topic". This is a clear case of a single-purpose account that is not here to work collaboratively. -sche (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite topic ban regarding Ta-Nehisi Coates. This editor's first edit summary characterized the BLP subject as "criminal" based on a juvenile arrest without any evidence of a conviction. For four months, the editor has been completely obsessed with only a single thing - sustained, compulsive efforts to insert material about the subject's juvenile scrapes with the law into the article. Repeated pleas asking the editor to expand and improve other aspects of the biography, or to work on improving other articles, have been rebuffed or ignored. As this is an enormous project, there may well have been examples of worse SPA behavior. But this is pretty bad and I am convinced that this editor's behavior amply justifies an indefinite topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I reached out and offered to “talk it over” [[47]] with this user, but instead of working with me, he just demanded I accept his position [[48]] and then stopped replying. He previously lectured a supporter of the edit to “withdraw those words”, adding “I will be waiting.” [[49]] That is a clear case of failure to work toward consensus in good faith.

• Oppose This is a request that is opened precisely as an RfC is running its course! I've been randomly invited to contribute to the RfC, and tried to contribute, but through this nomination the whole process is being disregarded. Moreover, the substance of the dispute is laughably minor: It revolves around whether to include or not in a person's Wikipedia entry the fact that he had been expelled from high school! Cause for satire. -The Gnome (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The user in question is a single-purpose account who has no intention of contributing to the development of a better article about Ta-Nehisi Coates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Reply I want to make sure it's clear to the powers that be that there was a legitimate split over consensus, and that very few people actually joined in. My last 2 edits [[50]] [[51]], which were different, had a combined total of only 6 editors who commented, and they split 3-3. Aside from those 6 editors, NONE of the people in the current survey had EVER commented or even participated in the discussions, with the sole exception of Gamaliel (who started this ANI post and who once voted “Opposed – DEADHORSE” with no further comment[[52]]). Again, the idea that discussion has been clearcut is a fiction created by opposing editors. Consensus can only be worked out by good-faith discussion, not repeatedly posting on noticeboards and poisoning the well against people, as has been done here. Several of the survey votes are traceable to noticeboard watchers who’ve seen these complaints raised over and over and are voting based solely on that. I renew my request for the RfC to run its course – the article is untouched and there’s no harm being done. I also believe making false statements on ANI ought to have some consequences. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and 1RR. Useitorloseit is obviously a single-purpose account. And he's just breached 3RR right here on this very page, trying to remove Floquenbeam's description of the content under one of the hats further up this thread. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Block Request: User Ian.thomson and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Bad-faith request, asking for sanctions against editors because they were doing the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Update: I first requested intervention about editors reverting my own reply to an ANI discussion. The editor ian.thomson has gotten very combative and disruptive, starting a 3RR violation complaint about me and accusing me of "personal attacks" for labeling his reverts vandalism. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom has persisted in his reverts despite being asked not to. I am asking for a block for both of them for at least 1 day. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom keep editing my reply [[53]] [[54]] to the Topic Ban discussion listed several topics above this one. I believe I am entitled to write my own replies, without having people edit them against my will. Both editors oppose my edit and this amounts to nothing more than vandalism. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe this edit is what the OP is referring to. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, when you keep attempting to continue your smear of a living person by plastering the same content you have been overwhelmingly told REPEATEDLY in MULTIPLE FORUMS is not appropriate onto multiple pages; it will continue to be removed per our WP:BLP policies and your insistence on attempting to restore it merely reinforces the obvious: that you have an unhealthy obsession and must be topic banned to prevent further disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Note, OP has been reported for edit warring over the BLP violating material being inserted into the near-unanimous topic-ban discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's a smear or a legitimate edit is up to discussion to decide, not for you to just delete unilaterally. 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism by involved, opposed editors. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTVAND. And technically, we could go and revert more since it falls under WP:BLP. Meanwhile, the edit report against you stands since it is not vandalism according to site policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OP is now making personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, let's see what an admin says. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- Does the Guinness Book of Records contain an entry for "most times dragged to ANI for utterly invalid reasons"? If so, TRPoD must surely hold it. Reyk _YO! 02:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Reyk just summed up my thoughts there, insofar as this is an "utterly invalid" ANI report, and frankly, I am tempted to boldly close it, but will wait to see if any other administrators or commentators view the situation differently. No admin action required, in my opinion. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Except maybe on Useitorloseit. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I would need to see a separate pile of evidence for that. Go Phightins! 02:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... You're changing this to a block request, even though you're only purpose here is to WP:TENDentiously WP:Edit war to violate WP:BLP against consensus, making personal attacks on those who stop you by calling them vandals? Are you even capable of acknowledging that ya done messed up? I mean, the multiple topic ban discussions over a few months are plenty of proof you don't understand what cooperation is, but that combined with not being able to acknowledge when you've made a mistake makes you someone this site doesn't need. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Everyone take a deep breath. Stop reverting. Stop calling people vandals.

The addition of content here is not a big crisis - it is sourced, it's just possibly WP:UNDUE - so there is no real reason it has to be completely deleted. However removing it due to a stricter interpretation of BLP is not vandalism. Useitorloseit, you are "more" wrong than they are, you're edit warring, and if this discussion was not about topic banning you (where you should be able to defend yourself), I'd have blocked you already. Hopefully the wishy-washy solution of collapsing it will make everyone dissatisfied, but not COMPLETELY dissatisfied. If anyone removes the collapsed material completely claiming BLP, I'll be disappointed, but ultimately I won't block someone for a strict but not unreasonable interpretation of BLP; I'm asking you to leave it collapsed. If the material is uncollapsed, I'll block for edit warring.

We now return to the topic ban discussion, already in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

TIME TO CLOSE THIS NONSENSE. (sorry for the shout but this is insane. Why waste more time? Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New account Nbgdjbt keeps making POV edits on Kosovo related articles

Nbgdjbt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just check all of his/her contributions putting a pro-Serbia POV in all their edits. I'm getting bored of cleanig up their POV pushing. Can someone deal with this? I need to get to bed. Regards IJA (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat

I asked whether a previous note was a legal threat. This latest post appears to be a clear legal threat. I don't have time to post more diffs but the edit history is short. Valfontis (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely falls under WP:NLT... Oregon controls the other 49 states? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, unequivocal legal threat. As of last week, Saltonking44 is off a 24 hour edit warring block. Support indef whether on NLT or civility grounds (i.e., for using empty legal threats as a means of gaining leverage in a dispute). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user per WP:NLT. Go Phightins! 00:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, all your states are belong to OR. Valfontis (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet another grossly offensive DYK now on the main page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Did you know... ... that an American serial killer said that he killed women before having sex with them because "I like peace and quiet"?" -linking to our article on Incidents of necrophilia. Can I ask that an admin pulls this grossly offensive DYK from the main page, before it does any more harm to Wikipedia's reputation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that definitely needs to be replaced. It doesn't even necessarily have to be replaced with a DYK for a different article (although I don't see why it's been forked from the main necrophilia article). Something neutrally phrased about the (now collapsed) Moche civilization practicing religious necrophilia would be infinitely more tasteful. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's now been removed, by Floquenbeam. [55] At this point, I suggest we start thinking about what we are going to have to do to stop this sort of nonsense happening again - it seems obvious that many DYK regulars are unwilling to show the slightest restraint, and will use any excuse for sub-tabloid sensationalism, regardless of what effect it has on Wikipedia's reputation, or on its prospects for broadening its contributor base. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

[Third Opinion]Seems more like a Censorship issue to me... Dudel250 ChatPROD Log CSD Logs 01:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:NOTCENSORED? "words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner" - and there is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about the serial killer's comments. Not least because, as our article on him makes clear, it was conclusively proven that he 'confessed' to crimes he didn't commit, and appears on multiple occasions to have said whatever his interrogators wanted to hear - which makes the veracity of the hook more than a little suspect. Not that this seems to have occurred to the DYK regulars, who evidently don't give a toss who they offend in their quest for further facile dubiously-sourced 'factoids'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness. and The hook should be neutral. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M9820841415 and WP:SPAM on multiple articles

User User:M9820841415 has been vandalizing Wikipedia by adding an insignificant reference to his/her own work on several important articles, probably for WP:PROMOTION. In a few days he has vandalized 9 articles about biopolymers and gels by self-promoting a poorly written and not-related-to-the-topic, reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/M9820841415

--Jgfermart (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTVAND, it's not vandalism, but it is spam per WP:REFSPAM. Ian.thomson (talk)

It is vandalism as defined in WP:VANDTYPES Link vandalism:

"Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling."

"Spam external linking"

Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially.

And in some cases also editions are followed by one or two words editions to avoid easy reverting of the edition as defined in Edit summary vandalism

--Jgfermart (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the words "if the activity continues after a warning." This is the closest to a warning he's received. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that the editor felt that the article is poorly written and not-related-to-the-topic. The article in question is published in Chemical Society Reviews ("Chemical Society Reviews (Chem Soc Rev) is the Royal Society of Chemistry's flagship reviews journal, publishing high-impact, succinct and reader-friendly articles at the forefront of the chemical sciences."). The wikipedia has been a great resource in my studies since my highschool, and I believe the adding the reference adds value to existing article. The wikipedia articles were carefully edited, and thoughtfully the reference was added. The intention here is not to spam. Here is the link uploaded article.

Added reference to wiki page: Gel, Biomaterials (The article discusses use of hydrogels within the biomaterial applications, citing all important work in last 5-7 years in the field of bioengineering)

Added reference to wiki page Click chemistry (The article discusses use of various click reactions in material synthesis. Summary of click reactions is present in the published article on page 12 (7346)).

Added reference to wiki page Polyethylene glycol, Hyaluronan, Heparin, Alginate, and Chitosan: (The article extensively discusses materials for hydrogel preparation on page 5 (7339), citing important applications in the field of biomaterials).

--(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Glancing over the article and where you linked it, it looks like you just inserted the reference where ever there were shared chemical terms. For example, here you added it as a source for the statement that alginate is used for cell encapsulation, information that is present in your article, but that your article gets from "M. Tang, W. Chen, M. D. Weir, W. Thein-Han and H. H. Xu, Acta Biomater., 2012, 8, 3436–3445" and "W. H. Tan and S. Takeuchi, Adv. Mater., 2007, 19, 2696–2701." Why did you not cite those sources instead of your derivative source if you weren't just trying to increase awareness of your article in particular? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if the article were relevant for a specific topic about general biomedical uses of hydrogels, the article lacks relevance for any of the specific subtopics. There are articles with more detail and importance about each of the polymers involved. Considering the article to be significant for 9 different topics on biomaterials reveals a biased opinion (authorship?). --Jgfermart (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and I would like to apologise for causing any inconvenience. As I mentioned earlier, I added the citation in good-faith and to add value to the existing wikipages. After reading your comments, in retrospect, I believe that I made a mistake, and I sincerely apologize for it.(talk) 02:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap - talk page soapboxing

Per WP:TALKNO: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article."

Today, Steeletrap (talk · contribs) placed a soapbox/criticism on the talk page of an article subject, with no value towards article improvement. Two editors replied ([56][57]), explaining that the talk page was inappropriate for this, and the section was closed-off to prevent escalation and discourage participation in such a forum. Steeletrap was warned that such dicussions go against guidelines, but removed the user page warning. They then restored the soapbox section to the page, and added more of their personal opinion/criticism of the article subject, and has made a contentious change to the article related to their opinion. I'd appreciate an uninvolved admin to take a look, remove the talk page soapboxing section, and weigh any appropriate other actions. I will point out that Steeletrap is subject to a topic ban in an area extremely close to this article subject, so their inappropriate behavior around BLPs is well-known. --Netoholic @ 22:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap's comments (while in a new section) are really more appropriate in the ongoing RFC as to whether or not Molyneux should be described as a philosopher in the lede. I've suggested that she move her comments to that section. Once (or if) she does so, this ANI can be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments like that are just as inappropriate and against WP:TALKNO there, too. An RfC should be about what the sources say, not personal opinion. There's already far too much of that there. -- Netoholic @ 00:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkpages do involve opinion. See WP:TALK#USE, which says "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." Of course this deals with opinions about what should be in articles and not non-WP editing questions. My point is appropriate in that I have encouraged Steeletrap to better state her opinion on whether describing Molyneux as a philosopher in the lede is appropriate. What is inappropriate is the suggestion that Steeletrap has violated her TBAN. Molyneux has nothing to do with Austrian Economics or the Ludwig von Mises Institute. She is as free as anyone to edit the article and discuss article content within WP guidelines. – S. Rich (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Explaining is the key word there. Per WP:TALK#USE -"The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material". Steeletrap's post was a statement of his own opinion, NOT an explanation of where he got that opinion (as in by citing sources that advocate that viewpoint). That is the difference between helpful collaboration, and degeneracy into forum-style arguments. --Netoholic @ 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Truther did the right thing here by challenging Steeletrap to explain what thoughts she had about improving the article. You chipped in too, although a user talk page comment may have been more appropriate. But you could not leave well enough alone. Having made your comment, you had to go and "close" the thread rather than waiting for a response. I would have liked to see what Steeletrap had to say, so I unhatted the closure here, specifically asking that we wait to see what Steeletrap had to say. Well, now, that's too much for you, isn't it? Eleven minutes go by and you remove the thread here. Well, what good has your confrontational hatting and removal done for the project? Steeletrap has reverted your removal, added to the thread, and added an !vote to the RFC. If her pseudo-philosophy commentary was not helpful, the best course of action would have been to ignore them. But, no, besides 1. criticizing them, 2. hatting them, 3. removing them, and 4. making other critical article talk page comments about them, you have to 5. bring this ANI complaint. I strongly recommend that we get an independent observer to come in now to end this nonsense by closing this silly ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you've made your participation in this part of the report and seem to not understand how disruptive it can be, I'd like ask an admin to issue S.Rich a warning also, for his part in encouraging talk page forum/soapboxing in violation of WP:TALKNO. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this, but I suspect that Ansegam (talk) is evading their recent block. 85.136.72.124 (talk) has reverted the article Historical inheritance systems to Ansegram's preferred version [58]. This ip has also made edits to Systems of inheritance among various peoples [59], a page that Ansegram has heavily edited. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty transparently him, given that IPs from the same block have repeatedly shown up among series of edits of his in the history of the same articles. Block reset and lengthened to ten days from now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:MrMoustacheMM

I initially reported this editor on WP:ANEW, but the only admin to respond didn't seem to want to do anything, so I figured I'd start a new case here. In retrospect, this editor's editing habits go beyond just edit warring. The original case is here. I'll leave it to whoever looks at this to look there, instead of repeating that long list of issues (I will add a few below).

Summary: This editor ignores WP:V, edits according to their own opinions (which they think are a better source than reliable sources), ignores other guidelines and project pages, and usually refuses to engage in discussion to come to a consensus. They will remove sourced info, claiming that it is wrong or that they know better; if reverted they immediately revert to their preferred version without discussion, and will continue to edit war, certain that they are posting the truth. Except in a few rare cases, they will refuse to engage in WP:BRD, or they will start discussion and then end up reverting to their preferred version anyway. There is also problems with civility, and from what I've seen I'm not the only one who questions their edits. I was drawn into various edit wars with this editor, until I realised that I was doing so, and have stopped editing articles this editor edits until some sort of result is achieved here (in other words, I have realised my mistake and am no longer edit warring).

Evidence:

• [60] Removal of sourced material to fit with this editor's personal opinions; many of their recent edits have been of a WP:GENREWARRIOR nature.
• [61] Removal of source and addition of unreliable source.
• [62] Removal of sourced material.
• [63] Removal of sourced material. After some edit warring, editor finally starts a discussion: [64]; unfortunately, they immediately revert to their preferred version: [65]. After about a day of the discussion being opened, the editor once again reverts to their preferred version, instead of waiting for comments from other editors (or a reasonable amount of time): [66].
• [67] Removal of information generally considered good to have on discography pages per WP:DISCOGSTYLE; also note the lack of good faith on their part, as if I'm out to get them.
• I attempted to help this editor edit under WP policies and guidelines, but they simply weren't interested: User talk:MrMoustacheMM. Note the various levels of incivility at times.
• This editor will remove discussion and warnings from their talk page, without heeding them: [68]. It's true they have the right to do with their talk page as they want, but it looks mostly like they're trying to hide these warnings in the hopes that no one notices them.
• Quotes from this user (from my talk page) supporting that they have no intention of editing according to WP:V, and are certain that they know better than professional writers: "Listen, just listen and try and understand what I am saying and my point of view as a massive fan"; "unsourced or sourced I don't give a shit"; "Most of Wikipedia is unsourced" (as justification for adding more unsourced information); "anyone who knows Opeth knows that all of there albums are labelled prog rock"; "there are exceptions to those rules [on Wikipedia] and this [adding unsourced genres] should be one of them".
• Recent evidence that other editors have disagreed with this editor's edits: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75].

Occasionally this user has a valid point about something, but more often than not their edits are simply "I'm right, you/reliable sources/everyone else is wrong". The few times they have a point, they refuse to discuss, edit war, and otherwise edit poorly, so that the validity of the original point just disappears. As shown above and in the ANEW case, I'm not the only one who has had issues with this editor. I'm not sure what's needed here; I don't think a topic ban (temporary or permanent) will be enough. I'm loathe to bite a newcomer, but there's a point where their stubborn obstinacy makes it impossible to edit in a collaborative way with this editor, and maybe a temporary block will give them time to reflect on WP policies and guidelines, and maybe start anew, willing to collaboratively edit. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this user is trying so hard to get me blocked is both upsetting and embarrassing, he already reported me to edit warring notice board and when he didn't get the result he wanted there he thought he would try here.

As the reviewer of that case has already established we are both as guilty as each other of edit warring and it was recommended that we both take time away from the topics which it appears we both have.

Regarding the "evidence" the user has posted (71) was just 1 post which I apologised and admitted my mistake, (72) was the matter with him, 73 didn't disagree with me he just said it needed more discussion first we I agreed and started a discussion on the talk page. (74) wasn't even a disagreement It was a suggest which I listened to, (75) me and that user Bretonbrequet spend hours editing discographies together improving them. (76) was to do with this editor again and (77) was just an "opinion" from another user that hasn't even had anything to do with me.

We have both edit warred and both have since stopped I am willing to discuss the changes to do with the page and have learned my lesson regarding edit warring. This user has scraped the barrel of my many edits to find any that could make me look bad and calling me a genre warrior or whatever he called me is absurd as until a few days ago I haven't even edited any genres regularly. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have since checked out the genre warrior topic and it couldn't be more wrong about me, 95 percent of my edits are not editing genres check my history if you want. I don't edit bands I don't like, I have never placed my opinion as genre as I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and my opinion on such subjects is invalid and I have had multiple consensus with users my main one being with bretonbrequet. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(2) insist on applying every genre they can think of to an infobox, possibly for the avoidance of doubt, e.g. "The Beatles = skiffle, pop music, country music, psychedelia, progressive rock, Merseybeat, rock music, baroque pop, folk rock..." Just because the Beatles, a consensus rock and pop band, did a few songs that briefly experimented with country sounds does not mean that they should be labeled as a country band forever.

This is exactly what I tried to tell the other user, because Opeth - Herritage is labelled progressive metal and is sourced I check out the link and the bit that apparently backs up the claim that it is progressive metal is not referring to the album but 1 (one) song i even left a message on the users talk page which he decided to ignore and not respond to. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither approach is particularly helpful. Neither is making unwarranted subtle distinctions between subsets of larger genres, e.g. within R & B, hip-hop or pop rap or grime. These aren't genres; these are styles.

As is this, on the Meshuggah album pages they are nearly all labelled Extreme Metal which I tried to start a discussion about after he reverted me because this is not a genre but a term for a number of different heavy metal sub-genres, the user replied simply saying something like others think otherwise before telling me to stop bothering him as he was busy. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment My thought is that Lukejordan02 means well and does a lot of good work, but doesn't handle conflict very well at all. If he would voluntarily agree to a WP:1RR restriction on all music-related articles (meaning you can revert once but then you have to discuss on the Talk page), that might solve this quickly. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely lost user

90.148.216.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been posting stuff on the Reference Desk (entertainment and humanities) in Arabic about (so far as I can gather from Google Translate) some guy named Mohammad Khalil, who lived from 1880 to 1964 (so not the cricketer). It looks like he wants to add it to article information or something. Normally I'd just revert and ask him to stop, but since he's posting on the English Wikipedia's Reference Desk in Arabic, I think it's safe to assume his English is on par with my Arabic.

I need someone else to notify him, because I don't trust Google translate enough to send messages in other languages, and sending him the notification in English would be pretty pointless. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You might try the list of editors at Wikipedia:Translators available#Arabic-to-English. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:MezzoMezzo: Would you be willing to create Template:Welcomeen-ar? You can use Template:Welcomeen-es as a starting point (no knowledge of Spanish required, this is just a starter template). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never made a template before, but this would be good experience. Give me a few minutes as I try to figure this out. By chance, are there instructions for template-making? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There isn't really a template-making guide; for the most part, a template is no different from any other page, except that it is meant to be transcluded or substed on other pages. I've actually set up the page for you; all you need to do is to translate the "Welcome" header and the text below into Arabic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! I am going to issue the template to the IP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well User:King of Hearts, I hit my first problem. When I try to enter the Weelcom-ar text, the whole paragraph gets screwed up because of the left/right alignment conflict. When I put it in, half the line ends up at the end of the sentence instead of the beginning. I can't find an option to change the alignment manually in the editing window. The text itself is ready, but this is the only thing holding it back. Any suggestions? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you create a new user subpage and paste just the Arabic text there? Also, could you add links to Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_to_Wikipedia and ar: to the translation, as appropriate? (If you are unable to perform it technically, let me know which words in Arabic correspond to each of those.) Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, but there is one thing to note. After the four tildes, I left an Arabic letter H. This is a trick I learned in Microsoft Word when writing in Arabic. If you finish an Arabic sentence (which is right to left) with a punctuation mark, it throws the entire formatting off and it leaves the punctuation on the right side like in English. If you type at least one letter (not a number or character) after the final punctuation, things are fine. So that H is a placeholder until I can figure out how to align the Arabic text on the right. Does anybody know how to do that? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI getting things done in short order with a minimum of drama? I didn't sign on for this. (I think MOS:RTL might have the answer for you; there are special control characters you can use) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I got it using {{rtl-para}}. If that's correct, you ought to be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not. My sig in the Arabic version looks kind of screwy. And putting it outside the {{rtl-para}} template isn't so hot either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I took another look at this and got it so my sig displayed properly (by surrounding the ~~~~ with ‎). Hopefully an Arabic speaker can confirm that the right-alignment and such is correct... beyond that this template seems ready for use to me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, you got it totally right. Even the "welcome" in Arabic was aligned properly on the right. I tried sandboxing that stuff and couldn't get it right. I think the mission has actually been accomplished. Is this an ANI record? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Glad I was able to help out a little. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible web hosting activities from a registered editor

EuroFan98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like for an administrator to check the above named user page, as it would appear the content is of a make-believe contest, and possible web hosting activities. On June 1, I notified the user of this concern and gave them the opportunity to address the issue. However they have not responded nor addressed the issue. So I am seeking a second opinion from administrator's to see if the content is against WP:NOTWEBHOST. User has been informed of this ANI report. Thank you. Wes Mᴥuse 12:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe it's not a userspace draft? I think the best venue for this would be MfD unless there's some CSD criterion that clearly applies (I don't think there is). I certainly don't see any obvious disruption requiring immediate, out-of-process admin action. I mean, just looking at it, it looks like a userspace draft for a musician participating in some contest, which would fit in with the topic area EuroFan primarily edits in. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I work on ProjectEurovision and fully aware that there is no such contest known as the "EuroHeart Song Contest". The only such contest is a fan-created contest held on Facebook and is not affiliated with any of the events created and owned by the Eurovision (network). Wes Mᴥuse 13:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then either MfD or possibly WP:CSD#U5 would be the way to go. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mendaliv for the advice. I shall look into both options and opt for the most fairness to allow the user chance to explain the content. Although I have given them chance before and got nowhere. Wes Mᴥuse 13:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be various sites and YouTube videos posted about this, but I can't see anything that suggests that this is actually a thing with a real-world presence. I've certainly seen imaginary talent contests and reality TV shows made up out of whole cloth and posted to Wikipedia before, with vast amounts of effort being expended to make it look real. -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation, harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Greatmarine3 is impersonating me, his userpage is a carbon copypaste of my userpage. He is also block evading, see User talk:180.131.233.121. His edits to my user talk page are identical in nature to these edits made at Japanese architecture. Also note how 180.131.233.121 is registered to the United States Armed Forces Europe, Middle East, & Canada - there is a strong link between the IP and the user's name. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Having the same userpage as you is not impersonating you, Plus you don't own your userpage anyway ......, Go and find something useful to do. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? This US marine is claiming on his page that he is an Australian Chinese with 35,000 edits who speaks Japanese. He's also begging for attention on my userpage. He is also linking to my Weibo and QQ accounts. He is also using my personal SHA-512 hash. If this isn't impersonation or harassment, what is? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith here. The user may be an Australian Chinese. You do not know this person's real identity, thus cannot assume they are not an Australian Chinese. If the user has got the same design as yours, does not mean they are impersonating you. I'd take it as a compliment that they admire your page design so much that they wished to do the same design. It's called trending. You've obviously created a trendy design that another user has fallen in love with. Wes Mᴥuse 13:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He is a US marine. US marines cannot be Australian citizens. Also, you sure have some nerve defending someone who has just been blocked for repetitive vandalism at Japanese architecture. We might have a bad history between us, Wesley, but you're being intentionally provocative here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I'll be dammned .... Seems Wesley Mouse beat me to it :), Totally agree the bloke simply loves your userpage. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, be nice. The user has obviously taken a liking to your design and has decided to use it. The evidence is clear that the user is still personalising it. Rome wasn't built in a day. Give the guy a break and give him chance to add his personalised touches to it. Bet you once he has done all that, that none of the other "identical" material will be there. The only similarities once he's personalised it will be the colour/layout design. I've had users copy my page design, and I take it as a compliment. At first they have the same information as I, but in time they update their version with their personal information. Wes Mᴥuse 13:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Since when is WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK no longer policy? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a serious allegation to make, you do realise that? And you're basing judgement of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK just because he has the same user page design, and edits the same articles as you? Have you not heard of the word "coincidence"? The editors I spoke of that copied my user page design also edit in the same areas as I do. Doesn't mean that they are impersonating me, or are sock evading. It feels as though a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Wes Mᴥuse 13:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get it. This person is 180.131.233.121, who is blocked for vandalism. You're not supposed to be editing for the duration of time whilst you are blocked. This is how the policy is set out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This IP user who is registered to a United States military ISP makes this vandal edit telling the world how lonely he is, plus this one and this one. I revert two of his edits, and place a warning on his talk page. He gets blocked by User:Materialscientist, and then a few minutes later he starts editing as Greatmarine3, an account which he created minutes before that. Using this new account, he writes on my user talk page how lonely he is. Surely this is as blatant as WP:DUCK can get. "Buht we don't know for suuuuure!" you might add - how on earth can you rationalise such a statement at all? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And now you're an expert in knowing the IP addresses of registered Wikipedian users? There is no way you would know that Greatmarine3's IP location is 180.131.233.121? Get a grip. For all I know, that IP address could be your location, my location, or even the Queen of Sheba's IP location. It feels like you're just trying to find any fault to target Greatmarine3 just because he has the same user page design as yours. Wes Mᴥuse 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia based on his earlier actions, and therefore I have no reason to believe that his userpage edits are done in good faith. What happened to not giving troublemakers attention? He sure as hell is desperately trying to get attention based on what he did at Japanese architecture.

Finally, Wesley, you're grasping at straws. First, you claim that "this user might be Australian Chinese". When I point out that he edits from a US military ISP, you backpedal and then goes "but he likes your design". When I point out WP:EVADE, you then you claim that it's a coincidence. When I point out diffs to justify WP:DUCK, you then state that I have no evidence. You're trying as hard as you can to mess with me, aren't you? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And now you assume I am "messing with you". Are you for real, or has a lack of oxygen affected your rationale thinking? Watch that boomerang doesn't come flinging its way back at you. Wes Mᴥuse 13:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Aright then, let me change my statement. You're not trying to mess with me; I suspect that you're trying to mess with me. The two of us are no stranger to dispute, and I have ample right to suspect that if I were someone else, you would behave much differently. We were on opposing ends during the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning RM, various other RfCs, and more recently a dispute regarding the use of a flag belonging to a terrorist organization at Türkvizyon Song Contest responsible for many killings in China in the past few months. I have good reason to believe that you would have ignored this thread if I were someone else - whether or not my suspicions are correct, that is another story, but I have the right to voice this one right out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• @benlisquare FYI I came here to report another issue which is a thread directly below this one. So I did not come here just because you posted this thread, so your suspicions are incorrect I'm afraid. And what are you on about Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning RM, various other RfCs? I have not taken part in those. I don't even have interest in whatever this Bradley Manning is connected with. I work primarily on articles relating to Project Eurovision and one only needs to see my contributions to realise that fact. The only time that I last encountered you was at Türkvizyon Song Contest when other editor's even disagreed with your rationale that we should not use flags because there is a "law in China" that prevents them from being used. The contest itself uses those flags to depict contestants, sources are used to verify their usage, and you were told by other editor's that your rationale on this "law" held no weight when we are dealing with US Wikipedia here. Wes Mᴥuse 14:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What the...? Ok, both of you, cool it. Have your unrelated disputes somewhere else and stop using this thread as a proxy; it's impossible to examine what's actually going on here with all the sniping. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright, back to the main topic here. I revert a series of IP vandal edits at Japanese architecture. The account "Greatmarine3" is created, and the first thing this account does is message me on my user talk page. This is as WP:DUCK as it gets, ignoring all the forum sliding above. I am very confident that the IP and the user account belong to the same person. They write in the exact same style, they write the same things, even the timeline matches a typical case. A checkuser would definitely confirm my suspicions, but even without checkuser, the evidence for WP:DUCK is already overwhelming based on the diffs that I've linked above. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: I concur with everyone else. You need to give this person a chance.

...Naw I'm just kidding. I've blocked Greatmarine3 indefinitely. They're clearly not here for anything other than trolling/vandalism. And this looks like harassment against the person who got their IP blocked originally. I'm amazed that nobody jumped on blocking this editor sooner. -- Atama頭 14:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

They were blinded by AGF. BMK (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some rather clueless "AGF!" bleating in my day, but this thread takes the prize. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Shashini12311

Shashini12311 (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppets (Shashini123 (talk · contribs) and 61.245.172.23 (talk · contribs)) have repeatedly been adding content in the lede saying that Canadian Tamil Congress is a terrorist entity, usually the first sentence of the lede. The have added the same information to a number of other articles as well. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and they have been warned several times on their talk page by myself and another editor. They have ignored the warnings.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a note, it probably would have been good to notify the other two users even though you suspect that they are socks. G S Palmer (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on the other cases, but I don't see that the Canadian Tamil Congress article example has been handled well. Yes, the wording was misleading as it was a listing by the Sri Lankan government but the wording concentrated on the UN resolution the listing was said by the government to be under. And yes, it probably doesn't belong in the LEDE. And yes it needs a secondary source, preferably multiple.

But the listing of an organisation as a financier of terrorism by any government, no matter how questionable that listing may be according to others, surely belongs in the article. And while it may technically be the responsibility of people trying to add information to get the sourcing, wording and position right, continually reverting because it's wrong surely helps no one. In some cases even if not here, it may even stop the edit war.

I would note that the wording used here [76] is almost fair. It's still in the LEDE, but far down enough that it's a more minor issue which really should have been corrected rather than reverted. It also lacked a secondary source which is unfortunate, but does anyone really think no secondary source noticed/commented on such a controversial listing? (I definitely didn't and found a secondary source in 30 seconds.)

To be fair, the reversion came here [77] after the claim had been added for a second time, so there may have been some confusion, but User:70.29.181.53 who modified and moved the claim was clearly trying to fix the problem and improve the article, so they deserved to be helped not lumped in with the other editor. (The fact that the other editor added the claim a second time when it was already in the same paragraph in the LEDE suggests to me they weren't going to stop hence why I was careful with my wording earlier.)

In other words, rather than simply looking at bad edits as something to be reverted, people should remember to work out if there's actually something there which definitely should be in the article since the goal should always be to improve wikipedia. Particularly in a case like this where the addition is small, it's surely easy to see that there is actually something there that does belong in the article.

P.S. Despite being a strong defender of BLP, I would also object to any universal application of BLP to this article. Obviously people are involved in this organisation, as they are in any organisation, but it's large enough that issues which affect the organisation can't be said to directly affect individuals. Heck the only people currently named in the article (discounting sources) are a judge, a person the CTC sued and someone they gave an award to. This doesn't of course mean we shouldn't get things right, but we also shouldn't be applying the high standards which BLP rightly requires to large organisations, otherwise we might as just as well apply them to everything. (Of course BLP can still apply to stuff in the article. For example clearly there are possible BLP issues for anyone directly named in the article and we should make sure the stuff about them is correct and that it's worth mentioning them in the article.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I know this isn't really a ANI issue, but is there any general coverage about the recent listings. Not necessarily an article specific to the listings, perhaps coverage in a more general one like 'List of organisations banned by the Government of Sri Lanka'? It seems to me there's great coverage of the listings [78] but because so many organisations were listed at one time and many of the listings are controversial there often isn't specific discussion or even mention of the actual organisation. It may help to have a general article for coverage of the listings where such issues can be covered (probably linked as a 'main article' in the specific organisation articles where the listing is mentioned). Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This ANI notice isn't about the validity of mentioning the "ban", merely the actions of Shashini12311 which are a violation of core content policies. The fact that Shashini12311 has reinserted the same content even after your edits is evidence that they are here to make a point. Unless Shashini12311 is dealt with they are going to continue with their POV edits and waste other editors' time. Five editors have already waster their time on Shashini12311.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Shashini12311 has reinserted the content again, ignoring NeilN's advice.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave them a final warning a few hours ago after that insertion, indicating further attempts would be reported here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of refs and Pushing POV

Hello admins,

I have noted this user is continuously pushing his/her POV in this article.

He/She keeps deleting reliable refs (eg. New York Times) and replaces them with internal wikipedia pages. Then he/she takes advantage of the situation and adds figures to the table which do not exist in any sources that he is providing.

This is the history of the article and his/her persistent vandalism since 15th May: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghan_diaspora&action=history

He/She is also using sectarian and divisive editing that has been provoking other users to engage in edit wars with him/her.

Your help is needed in rectifying this situation. Thanks. --103.10.197.146 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this revert embodies the complaint. LouisAragon seems to be substituting a couple references for a NY Times article, including a conference article hosted by Boston University, and a UNHCR report. While there have been something like 4 reverts by LouisAragon since the 31st, I see no breaking of 3RR. This looks primarily like a content dispute though. Of course, LouisAragon has been put on notice as to the discretionary sanctions available under WP:ARBIPA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The NYT reference wasn't removed, it was put at the bottom, and a reference tag directing to it was added using Harvard citations. I semiprotected the page, to stop the back and forth, if someone feels it should be upped to full I have no objection. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. This ANI request should probably be closed as frivolous. This is a content dispute with some edit warring... semiprotection is appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

..Yeah, I had applied for semi-protected status myself due to all these edits/reverts by anonymous IP's and labelling everything done before them as "vandalism" and "PoV pushing". It's interesting by the way how all these "anonymous" IP's never are able to find their way to the respective talk pages of the articles, but know how to reach the WP:ANI page. Ah well. Do the mods agree with reversion of the IP's last revert based on "vandalism" as it's completely ungrounded on the reasons? There are multiple sources added and there is not even 1% chance how that can be mistaken for "vandalism". Like all other Wikipedia editors he needs to learn that he has to discuss if he wants to make drastic changes and push for a WP:CON. What he's doing is pushing for a consensus by reverting and labelling it (unrightfully) as vandalism, PoV etc. It doesn't work like that obviously. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, pardon for being an IP (therefore being automatically regarded as inferior) but I was wondering why this user whom I have brought up a complaint against can add figures to that article without providing any sources and deleting the sources the sources already there? I mean I was under the illusion that on Wikipedia one has to provide sources for the edits. Is this not the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.197.130 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right that LouisAragon is putting undue emphasis on the fact that you're an anonymous editor. It doesn't make a bit of difference though: this complaint is unfounded and should be closed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. You mean one does not need any sources while editing the articles? Because as you can see in diff, he is changing the figures without providing sources. This is my question, which you have tried to sweep under the rug. Does one need sources while editing? --103.10.197.58 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now. I went through the history of the article once again and I see that you are biased since you have been saving this person now for a while. Then I guess, me being an IP and you being I don't know what, then this issue is resolved. Good. Note to any more powerful admin than these two: If you want to keep the quality on Wikipedia then keep an eye on your internal collusions for pushing POV's without providing any sources as these people are doing here. It is over for me.--103.10.197.58 (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The user has again vandalized the page by changing the figures in the table without any sources. And it was really wonderful to see that not even a single admin on this page took notice of my complaint. Such a useless board full of BS bureaucracy. --103.10.197.194 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, "vandalism" means something done intentionally to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia—I see no evidence that, even if the edits made to the article are incorrect, the changes were not made in good faith. Secondly, you claim it's the same user: this is false. A third party (and highly proficient editor) was the one to revert the changes you made. You need to make a credible effort to discuss the content being disputed at Talk:Afghan diaspora, and to do so without engaging in personal attacks (claiming another editor is a vandal without clear proof is a personal attack). Finally, your claim that the changes to the table lack sources is patently false: every single line of that table has a source. While I haven't checked those sources, I'm frankly not interested in doing so unless you can articulate specifically and clearly which lines contain information not supported by their sources. If there is a reason that a source should not be used, that's a different discussion entirely. Either way, neither discussion belongs here, and your continual attempts to shame the viewers of this board into acting by claiming there's some kind of cabal of administrators protecting the other side in this dispute are only serving to harm your credibility. As I said above, this complaint should be closed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User posts same inappropriate text 3 times on same day

User Paulbeckerblut has three times on June 5th added his/her diary-like text to the article Seasonal affective disorder, at 17:50 (reverted by ClueBot), 17:53 (reverted by Methecooldude, and at 23:30 (reverted by yours truly). See this edit. He has thrice been warned on his talk page and hasn't responded there. He's (figuratively) asking for a block. Hordaland (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

First, second, and third time adding the unreferenced content. A fourth time should get a 3RR block, plus a final warning for adding unsourced content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User stalking and harassment by Snowmanradio

Dear administrators. I'm being wiki-stalked by another user, Snowmanradio, in a harassing and disturbing manner. SMR makes significant changes to articles I have, whilst the are being nominated at GA, with no discussion, and instead presents extensive lists of minor issues that are unrelated to the unceasing, large amounts of edits being made.

Timeline:

• We met at Anatomy, 20 May Esophagus [79], 30 May Cervix [80], 5 June Parathyroid gland [81])
• Since 20 May SMR has been, every day, posting lists of things that are wrong with the articles, either in the GAN, or on the article talk page. This is extremely distressing.
• SMR has made no other edits to anatomical articles other than my current GANs
• These unrelenting criticisms are coupled with extensive amounts of edits.

Snowmanradio repeatedly insults me ("It is misleading ambiguities and amateurish style that I am concerned about." [82], again "I have partly re-written the introduction because is was badly written, amateurish, and factually wrong" ([83]) and again ("It is really basic stuff in the field of contraception", [84] )

• SMR does not engage in any form of compromise and there is no point rebutting these statements.
• In addition Wiki is about collaboratively improving articles, not destroying their authors.

SMR is extremely critical and posts long lists of comments he would like to see changed:

• Talk:Cervix/GA2 Talk:Esophagus, Talk:Anatomy
• SMR posts general comments about the articles' unsuitability for GA ("I would support a quick fail." [85], "I think that the article is not ready for GA nomination, so I would suggest withdrawing the current nomination" [86], " I would think that it could struggle to get through GA" about the article already at GA, Anatomy: [87]
• At the same time he makes an extensive edits within a short period of time that change everything from completely rewriting the lead (cfr. Cervix, 27 edits during the 5 days of review [88]), Esophagus (90 edits in 9 days [89]) to Anatomy (38 edits in 48 hours [90]) to Esophagus
• These edits are completely made without any form of discussion and, when discussion occurs, persevere despite opposition [91].

SMR is also following my contributions. Apart from commenting sequentially on my edits, I discovered this when SMR performed this edit: [92], a mere half-hour after my own edit, of a page not edited since 2008.

SMR shows no understanding of the GACR when making an unceasing list of demands coupled with his extensive concurrent editing (documented here: Talk:Cervix/GA2#Stop)

I am more thank happy to work with other contributors on a review, and I believe I have a track record of doing this both as reviewer and nominee, and in article space. Users can see my talk page, numerous GA reviews, PR reviews, GANs, discussions in the WT:MED, WT:PHYSIOLOGY and WT:ANATOMY namespaces, or ask any number of users. In contrast, SMR has a number of users who have in the past expressed complaints with regard to his editing style and ownership of articles. These include:

• Chiswick Chap ("I do not feel, for what it's worth, that the approach being followed is collegiate... [SMR] I would ask that you do not post to my talk page, this to remain indefinitely unless I invite you back there; and I shall not post here again. ") [93]
• Epipelagic ("Snowman, your sustained harassment of hard working editors has been going on for a long time now. Please stop it. If you think you can improve articles then just improve them. ") [94]
• Cwmhiraeth (see Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth)
• TylerDurden8823 and CFCF, who have interacted with SMR on the article pages, may also express concerns.
• 97198, who states "I'm inclined to agree with LT910001 [about comments listed at Talk:Cervix/GA2#Stop]... I am more than happy to collaborate with other users in writing, improving and reviewing articles but many of your contributions to this review have been less than productive and unnecessarily nitpicky for a GAN. You've shown a complete unwillingness to compromise on any of the points you've raised and it seems as if, regardless of what changes were made, you would never support this article's passing. GA is not about making articles perfect."

I am not happy when dealing with a reviewer who follows me from article to article, significantly rewrites content I've put a lot of effort into making while it is actively or about to be reviewed, who is unable to compromise during discussion, and who personally insults me.

I contend that:

• SMR should not be constantly harassing me, day on day on day, about articles I have been involved in.
• SMR's extensive edits and reviewing style are an example of WP:OWN

I ask that:

• SMR be limited to 1 edit per day on the articles that are current GA nominees
• SMR be immediately banned if I am personally attacked again
• SMR be limited to a set of comments, delivered in a single edit, to a GAN.
• SMR to take reviews with himself as primary reviewer instead of deliver pseudoreviews per Esophagus or intensive and exhausting second reviews per Cervix. --LT910001 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have notified SMR and the users mentioned. --LT910001 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing you have presented is reason for sanctions by itself, but the obvious stalking combined with the repeated similar incidents with other editors must not be tolerated; I've blocked for 48 hours. No comments on any of your four requests. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Snowman's intentions are good - he has been scrupulous and impartial in assessing article material's faithfulness to a source. Diplomacy isn't his strong point however and I think he may have some difficulty in seeing how an editor may be frustrated their end (I certainly know I was feeling exhausted after one FAC he got stuck into one of my nominations, but for the most part his criticisms were fair. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cas on this. He seems quite motivated to improve the pages he works on, and I don't think making critical comments about an article or its suitability for GA status should be seen as an attack on the editors. I don't think this was a good time for a block. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problems with users who want to improve the articles collaboratively and in a collegiate way. Please have a look at the pages at hand and understand I've now had 15 straight days of this user following me from article to article. SMR has been interfering in a very nonproductive way in GANs, and Casliber I am not referring to his corrections but his behaviour. As opposed to FA, GA has different standards and I'm not sure that these are recognised by SMR. See Talk:Cervix/GA2#Stop. In addition, because SMR has shown no signs of being able to compromise, it is quite impossible to reason with him/her about some of the points put forward and this makes discussions difficult to impossible. I have no problem with a user pointing out errors (although I'd prefer that these were corrected) but it is SMR's attitude and behavior towards me that I am concerned about, rather than a comment about his editorial accuracy. --LT910001 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Frick.Photoarchive

User Frick.Photoarchive was {{uw-softerblock}} earlier today by 5 albert square for having a promotional user / editing on behalf of a company. After raising the issue on 5 albert square's talk page both of us seem to agree that the username will need a change, yet we don't seem to agree on the way this should be handled. Albert's stance is that the editor can request an unblock after which they receive the ye-usual 24 hours to file a CHU request. Personally I believe this approach is unnecessarily bitey towards the editor since they have been editing constructively without any attempt to promote Frick Collection (Edits so far include writing new article's detailing artists or updating them). Instead i would favor an unblock and a friendly pointer to CHU for a username change.

Albert seems to have logged out for the moment, and I don't want to simply undo the block while we are in disagreement. That said I would very much prefer to have this sorted out before the blocked editor returns only to be greeted by a block template. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually saw that, and I believe the blocking may have been bitey in this situation as well. The user seems the type who would have responded to a gentle prod in the right direction. - Purplewowies (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Foffa Bikes

While looking at the Recent Changes I came across a dispute at Foffa Bikes between editors and someone seeming to represent that company; I don't know the whole story but User:Danifoffa has made statements that the other users are posting "defamatory" statements and has threatened to take legal action against the other users. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The user is also edit-warring, under the user name & also under Special:Contributions/86.3.184.24. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The added content in that diff along with the edit summary in this edit are clear examples of legal threats in my eyes and aside from those I see potential ownership and conflict of interest issues here as well. Blocked the editor indefinitely until these legal threats are either retracted or resolved. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Their IP will need to be blocked too [95]. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind; was autoblocked. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This also needs a dose of WP:DOLT. The first para under "Controversy" was completely based on a single thread in an online forum. I've pulled it.[96] The second para's "admitted to prohibiting resellers from discounting his bikes, in breach of UK and EU price fixing laws. Foffa inadvertently, and falsely...." is blatant editorialising, taking an extreme interpretaion of Foffa's words and imposing the editor's understanding of the law upon them. NebY (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I've rewritten that para too[97] - the accusation that the subject "implicated XXX in the price fixing conspiracy" could not stand. NebY (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:107.219.204.241

@Dennis Brown: IP 107.219.204.241 (talk · contribs) with a long history of disruptive editing, warnings and blocks has deleted all warnings and posted a direct attack on other editors on his/her talk page. IP was blocked for one month on June 3rd by Dennis Brown so I'm not sure if the block was lifted for some reason or the IP user found a way to evade it. In any event, enough is enough. This is a hard core recidivist and a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. I respectfully request an extended block and perhaps some sort of page protection to make it harder for this kind of silliness to recur. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Most recent edits to the talk page.

• He is blocked but any blocked editor (even an IP) can edit their talk page. As far as removing the block template, consensus seems to be that this is fine if he isn't trying to get unblocked, and he isn't. As for calling a group of editors "cowardly", that alone isn't going to get me to take additional actions. In all fairness, I've probably said worse, as have a number of other editors who have been here long enough. It is rude and a bit uncivil, but not really action worthy in my opinion. This falls under "talk page venting". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom deleting academic sources and inserting self-published Shugden websites

Kjangdom is not even remotely pretending to adhere to Wikipedia policies anymore. Not even remotely. With misleading edit summaries, he is deleting whole swaths of journalistic and academic sources such as Bultrini, Dodin and Thurman while inserting self-published Shugden websites. And he never denied being a director of the International Shugden Community, whether here at ANI or on Bushranger's talk page. Lastly, most of his edits are from old Wikipedia revisions i.e. meatpuppeting Truthsayer62, a blocked editor. Heicth (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good afternoon! Heitch - the edits you have consistently made to the Dorje Shugden controversy article violate both undue weight principle and neutrality. The anti-shugden sources I removed last night help address the issue of undue weight. Moreover, at the end of May I expressed my concerns about the Thurman sources on the talk page, and received some helpful feedback from another editor who also raised concerns about the weight given to negative coverage of the controversy (after your editing). You abstained from this discussion on the talk page, and instead chose to bring it up on this admin page. I suggest you try to be more active on the talk pages than these admin pages - which I believe would comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Then we can reach a consensus. This seemed to work well on the talk page of the 14th Dalai Lama just recently, with a lot of discussion on the talk page which as you know, helped us to arrive at a consensus on including the Dorje Shugden controversy on the Dalai Lama's page.

Any neutral reader / editor who looks at this article on the Dorje Shugden controversy will immediately see how outrageously biased it still is, - just look at how long the section "Views of the majority of Tibetan Buddhism" was after your editing (937 words) compared to "Replies from Shugden practitioners" (a mere 32 words). This one fact speaks volumes about the intention behind your editing. Please explain to me how this does not violate the undue weight policy. Just ask yourself how you would react if we had 32 words in the section "Views of the majority of Tibetan Buddhism" (the word 'majority' here is wrong in opinion, but we can come back to that) and 937 words in the section "Replies from Shugden practitioners"!!! There are a number of reliable sources presenting a more positive view of this situation which I will be drawing on. Anyone who knows about this issue will know that the negative spin you have put on this issue simply presents a false picture of the situation. I plan to give this article some attention over the coming months, primarily because you have misrepresented the issue so badly. Let's work together to improve this article, without you reporting me after every edit I make that you disagree with, OK? Your approach does not exactly promote a friendly, co-operative learner-friendly environment to editing Wikipedia, does it? As I have previously said, I am new to Wikipedia and happy to learn from my mistakes, but you need to be honest as well and reflect on what damage you are causing the article with your persistently inappropriate, negative and one-sided edits. Kind regards, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that Heicth is not much more experienced than you are, based on his own edit history, and the presumptuous, borderline hysterical, nature of his opening comment here is a significant indicator of his own being very possibly too strongly involved in this matter to be objective and unilaterally determining the nature of content himself.John Carter (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone show us where the steps in WP:DR have been followed? This appears to be a content dispute, and the fact that a talkpage discussion took place where the OP did not participate does not fill me with great confidence. The "meat" accusations are mere red-herrings from what I see the panda ₯’ 10:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No red herrings. See here. And as you can see Kjandom refers to secondary references as "anti-shugden sources", and thus deletes them with no hesitation. Its pretty ridiculous. Heicth (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact there have been no attempts at any other venues of dispute resolution yet, because, I believe, Heicth, who is himself very much a new editor, hasn't so far as I can see really even attempted to resolve this matter through any other venues than posting overwrought, possibly hysterical, comments here. That is probably as ridiculous as anything he would claim of others, although, given his extremely limited experience as an editor here, perhaps understandable. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually - that diff doesn't show Kjandom removing "anti-shugden sources", it shows you speaking to Bushranger about Kjandom. Nor does the Shugden page show a revert by Kjandom where he states he's removing "anti-shugden sources". Are you sure you have the right diff ? Kosh Vorlon    16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the second thread Heicth has started in recent days regarding this matter, the first of which is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Shugden SPA replacing academic material with self-published Shugden blogs and websites. I believe the information in that thread indicates that Heicth himself could reasonably be descibed as a POV pushing SPA on this topic, as well as perhaps others. However, Heicth seems to be the only one with such an itchy trigger finger to reporting matters here. I believe it might not be unreasonable for all three pages related to the Shugden controversy to be placed under temporary full protection, thus forcing all those apparent SPAs involved to actually talk to each other before making changes, and I think that Heicth also could not unreasonably be warned to maybe make more of an effort to refrain from acting on the type of basically battleground mentality which both ANI threads he has started in recent days at least mildly indicate he seems to have. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Kosh, Kjangdom refers to removing "anti-shugden sources" in his comment right above. John Carter, I am not a POV pushing SPA. I have worked closely with various admins since day one. You are simply unaware of who I am and the history of the Shugden pages. Heicth (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might be useful for you, as a comparatively new editor, to maybe actually read WP:SPA and the relevant pages regarding POV, because you seem to have not familiarized yourself with them. And I also believe that a review of your edit history here indicates that you actually are a very focused SPA editor relating to the Dalai Lama and the Shugden controversy. And I would love to see the evidence of how you have worked closely with others. One recent discussion I remember I had with you at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#Please delete long Gardner quote I believe shows that you don't work very closely at all with others, as I indicated there, one should make alternate proposals for content, which you did not do, and so far as I can tell simply removed the material on your own, which is hardly a real indication of your working "closely" with anyone. As for your statement of "who you are" above, I don't know, and actually, don't care, who you are, unless perhaps you are the Dalai Lama himself, which seems to me to be extremely unlikely. The fact that your previous user name, as you indicated, is User:TiredofShugden is yet another indicator that you are rather single-mindedly focused on matters related to Shugden, and promoting certain material in articles related to it, which is more or less the way that POV pusher and SPA are defined. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked editor Truthsayer62 was edit warring with admin Dougweller, hence my first username. I am no SPA or POV pusher.Heicth (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your last sentence, your own edit history, linked to by me above, says otherwise. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I very much urge Heicth to attempt other forms of dispute resolution, as he has yet to try any, before starting another inflammatory ANI thread. I also believe it would very much be in his best interests to take advantage of the invitation to the Teahouse he has received. This thread, and the earlier one he started, could themselves be taken by some as a form of harassment as per WP:HARASS, and I sincerely urge him to cease from such conduct immediately. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I know Cullen328 and myself have expressed concerns over Kjangdom's advocacy. And Chris Fynn, a seemingly knowledgeable Tibetan Buddhist, questioned some of the factual claims that Kjangdom put forward. Kjangdom is currently edit warring at the 14th Dalai Lama page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I believe Kjangdom just now broke the 3 revert rule, despite the warning I gave him on his talk page. And I see he deleted that warning. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have expressed those concerns. I am concerned about all POV pushing at Dorje Shugden related articles, but especially at our important and highly visible BLP 14th Dalai Lama. I encourage uninvolved editors to watch it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious he is a disruption. Ahh, people don't want me to say anything.... The Depressed Loser (I am not here) 12:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User Keeps Removing Useful References

The user Macaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted my edits on Google Panda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) three times now, even after I've contacted him on his talk page to stop doing so.

Here he removed a link to Search Engine Watch stating that it is spam even though SEW is a big name in the SEO industry, so big it meets the notability requirements to have its own page. His comment was "fourth spam from the same site: link useless, the content is already linked to a page from Google, not need to a duplicate." The link is not spam and there was no reference for that statment to a Google page.

Here he removed a link to Moz, stating spam: link is useless and not related to the page. Moz is a big time SEO and Analytics company, therefore it is relevant. It is not spam since they already have their own Wikipedia entry.

Here he removed another link to Search Engine Watch stating it is spam once again.

Here he removes a whole line from Moz stating There is not machine learning in Panda, just a formula. The sentence seems to be added just to put a link. However, if you simply watch the video and/or read the patent, you'll realize that Panda is a machine learning algorithm. Macaldo did not take the time to do his research and thought that the statement was placed only to get the link eventhough it is known that Panda is a machine learning algorithm and Moz is an SEO authority.

Here Macaldo removes a link to googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com, Google's official blog for webmasters stating spam again: yes Google made a list for guidance on quality, but published it on its site, not on the linked site. This is not spam since it is Google's official blog.

Here Macaldo removes another link to SEW stating it is spam even though, at one point, Google did ask for data points.

Here and here Macaldo removes articles that exaplains the Google Panda patent as the USPO entry is hard to understand.

This behavior of removing valid sources is not new to Macaldo. Here, from Macaldo's talk page, a user complains about Macaldo removing valid sources from the Microsoft Silverlight page. He uses the same comments when removing the links and the user informes him how his removals were unnecessary and, yet, today, he is doing it again.

For Macaldo's edits reveal that he is unfamiliar with the SEO industry and for his edits show that he did not take the time to do his research and for his edits removed valid sources that have their own Wikipedia pages, I'm asking for admin intervention. I would like my edits to stay on the Google Panda page, an admin to talk to Macaldo as to how his behavior is wrong, and for Macaldo to stop reverting my edits on Google Panda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedora2014 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 5 June 2014‎ (UTC)

As I've just said on Macaldo's talk page, it does help to have third-party cites in articles, even when we have a primary source from the subject of the article themselves. Otherwise, if we carried this policy to its logical conclusion, we would end up relying entirely on entities' own statements about themselves. Third-party confirmation is definitely useful, even when redundantly confirming statements made by the subject of an article. Removing third-party cites whenever you find them on the basis that they are redundant, particularly when they are from respected industry sources, is not helpful. -- The Anome (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If anything, our preference for secondary sources means we prefer third party over first party sources. Not sure how one would write a secondary source about oneself, come to think of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A man survives a horrible accident but suffers permanent amnesia, researches into his own past, and writes a book about it. Secondary source on himself! -- Atama頭 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like the pilot episode of a TV series. As a twist, he is assigned the subject, and doesn't realize it is about him, until later.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question, it wouldn't be hard. Say you're in the news for something or another; after the incident's over, you publish an article analysing the news coverage of you. Since they're written in the context of the event, the news reports are primary sources, and your article is secondary. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here a summary. Searchengineland and Searchenginewatch are two content farms which are used to put lot of useless links on Wikipedia in the SEO articles. SEW is used to add useless and irrelevant sentences in the article just to add a link to their site, as a reference. SEL has a different technique, they publish a short article to echo each announcement of Google and put a link on Wikipedia to these short articles. I have removed tons of them and replaced them by a link to the original source, which, anyway, contains more infos than the short article on SEL. Even if it is true that the two sites publish sometimes useful and detailed articles, all the links I have removed are not in this vein. There are either irrelevant or small pages with no additional infos over the orginal source. So, take that in mind. There is no reason for a page of Wikipedia to have 10 links on these SEO sites, whose content is all but encyclopedic since they know nothing about the Google's algo which is secret, as you know. Macaldo (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "Here he removes a whole line from Moz stating There is not machine learning in Panda, just a formula. The sentence seems to be added just to put a link. However, if you simply watch the video and/or read the patent, you'll realize that Panda is a machine learning algorithm. Macaldo did not take the time to do his research and thought that the statement was placed only to get the link eventhough it is known that Panda is a machine learning algorithm and Moz is an SEO authority.".

I have read and studied the ~30 pages of the Panda patent. Not a a single reference to machine learning. I studied each formula, each algo (there are just some lines of code). Zero machine learning here. So your "SEO authority" looks as a joke. Remember these sites are filled by contributors with various levels and backgrounds. For the others arguments above, they have the same quality. He speculates I am new to SEO because I removed links to SEL that is a sort of God in his mind. I know this site for years and I saw how a quality site turned into a content farm over time. Macaldo (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:182.249.240.21

This user (182.249.240.21 (talk · contribs)) who has multiple IP addresses has been constantly deleting sourced material on the article on Emperor Jimmu despite no clear consensus on the talk page to do so. He took his complaint to the original research noticeboard but instead of waiting for a reply he continued to delete the sourced material. The user has been continuously making accusations against me of engaging in original research, though the article clearly reflects what the sources say. In his latest post he issued a veiled threat to report me. Could you tell this user to keep discussion focused to the matter at hand without making threats and to consider alternatives to complete deletion of sourced material?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New user claims to be a returning "indefinitely banned" user

FASTigerETURNS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims at User:FASTigerETURNS/sandbox to be "a ex editor on wikipedia, who was banned indefinitely for his unhelpful comments and edits."

His edits upon returning include claiming that Iron Maiden fans burned down the Rainbow Hall after not receiving a refund for the show, killing one of the band members (easily recognizable as false with the least bit of research), citing a "personal interview" when given a link to WP:RS.

He is either evading a block or ban, or is a troll pretending to be such a user. Either way... Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 16:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Arsène Auguste / Administrator User:GiantSnowman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just invested about 1.5 hours to add to the article Arsène Auguste (see diff). Administrator User:GiantSnowman thinks, he can make a 100% revert, because he thinks inline references and POV, or whatever. All information I have integrated into the article can be gleaned from the links I have provided. I am not a 24/7/365 Wikipedian and simply cannot afford the time to perfectly document according to most detailed suggestions. Of-course, we can have a myriad of articles consisting essentially of two sentences following artful all the highest principles, with five references of for all the most trivial details interrupting every sentence two times, etc, then we mark them stub and hope that somebody will write something to an article that has marked it as low in importance and low in quality and then put some markers on the page of the article. When I want to write an academic work, probably, I will not select a topic low on anybodies importance and quality scale, etc., but rather more interesting subjects such as Martim Francisco, or Nicolas Ladany when I can afford the time. For this I then get generally rewarded by a reviewer with low importance and start class in terms of quality. Anyway, I find it more rewarding, when the Guardian quotes my research, Jonathan Wilson quotes at length in on of his books from one of my articles or FIFA uses in its most recent magazine a graphic created by myself.

I suggest, the Administrator User:GiantSnowman can select to request a reference in an article if something seems unclear to him, or something to that extent. His general reverts are simply indolent, utterly devoid of any respect. This is well beyond what is acceptable in terms of professionalism or general standards of common decency. It defies any spirit of co-operation. Anyway, Administrator User:GiantSnowman will tell, that he left unanswered messages on my talk page. A while ago, I had already problems with him, and I don't deem it helpful conversing him at any length. Also, in consideration that a revert is a revert.

I have written well in excess of 300 new articles and contributed to many more substantially across several language platforms. In addition to that I have contributed with more than 1000 graphics. Allow me to say, that I don't require to be lectured about quality standards which favour minimalistic stubs to which at a random count 200 added every day. Of-course, favoured are also complicated presentation forms, with little balls as indicator for goals, which allow football fans to play around for hours without contributing anything to the substance of an article.

I suggest, the team looks into the matter and forms a conclusion, I personally am not into the arguing business but rather leave it there, if the standards applied in this case are the way to go. Maybe, I am simply not suitable as a contributor here, and uninformative stubs which essentially don't offer more than statistic websites are not worth my while. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

CC: @GiantSnowman:

@OAlexander: I won't correct the obvious error myself but I want to make clear that I am not an admin and I have not performed the linked edit. Please correct the above text to the name of the editor who did perform said edit. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant:: Please accept my most profuse apologies. I have great respect for your contributions and beyond that with your project. Very sorry about that! Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for changing it. Green Giant (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Giant Snowman is acting as an editor at the article, and hasn't taken any admin actions, so constantly labeling him as "administrator" doesn't seem necessary. His reverts of you were explained in edit summaries. I see that you have not even tried talking to him on his talk page or the article talk page. You're not a new editor, OAlexander, you've been on Wikipedia even longer than me and you have plenty of editing experience, you should know better than to run straight to ANI before even trying to resolve your content dispute in any way other than edit-warring. -- Atama頭 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried with the colleague in question the talk-page method in the past - to no whatsoever avail. I am not an expert in conflict resolution, as I avoid conflicts or usually encounter colleagues who are accessible. I request your suggestion, where I shall paste my above blurb instead. I then expect not to be exposed to the all to frequent friends-help-friends aspects of WP. Cheers, and thank you very much. OAlexander (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This doesn't belong here. And OAlexander, you wrote "The defender played initially professional football" - in normal English that implies that he then carried on to play something else, non-professional football perhaps. I don't think that's what you meant. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing "The defender played initially professional football with Racing" can also imply that in the very beginning he played football elsewhere and then continued to play professional football afterwards wherever - and so he did. Anyway, such things can be easily changed to anybodys liking; changing does not constitute complete content removal. Whoever wants, may deal with such issues in whichever way. OAlexander (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

On this article OAlexander has removed valid references while at the same time adding unreferenced material; while this is not a BLP (he died 20 years ago) they have a nasty habit of adding unreferenced material and POV/OR to BLPs (see this where he states that 'his good looks afforded him the moniker "Sexy-Lexie"', or this. My edits have done nothing more than challenge/remove completely inappropriate content, and I have certainly not abused my position as an admin. Furthermore this editor has not attempted to discuss the matter with me, and they did not inform me about this ANI thread. Boomerang, anyone? GiantSnowman 15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User has now reverted me without explanation and added a whole heap of unreferenced material to a BLP, can an uninvolved admin please take a deeper look at this editor's contribs? GiantSnowman 15:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To the "Sexy Lexie" I have since added a reference, one of many, many possible ones. The links I have removed in the Arsène Auguste article where insubstantial - the one to the webarchive site is eg, completely covered by the NASL-jerseys site., etc. The total reverts leave not much room for any discussions on talk pages, even less so, when such procedure has been tried before in the matter of the article Seth Burkett a while ago. I get the feeling that User GiantSnowman wishes to play here here the role of some Überuser. I affirm, that any content that I have added can be traced by links I have provided. The total reverts are rather remindful of vandalism, to be more to the point. It probably was GiantSnowman should have chosen to communicate via talk pages rather than full reverts. His actions were devoid of any respect or collegiality - certainly not in any spirit of co-operation. To call the content he removed "completely inappropriate" is brazen. If this is acceptable procedure, count me out. If GiantSnowman - or anybody else - with the given links would not have been able to reproduce the content of a short article inside a few minutes, if there is distrust, they probably should not be pontificating. With your high quality standards and low procedural qualities, there is no point for me contributing. Does now the grand Boomerang-gang-bang come upon me? Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And what about all the other information you added which is, and remains, unreferenced? You seem not to care about WP:BLP in the slightest. GiantSnowman 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the article subject passed away 21 years ago, so BLP shouldn't apply (per WP:BDP it applies for up to 2 years after the subject's verified death). Regardless, WP:V applies everywhere. The both of you should be discussing this at the article talk page and using dispute resolution methods. OAlexander, you've reverted twice, and GiantSnowman you reverted 3 times. This edit war should stop. My suggestion, GiantSnowman, is to outline on the talk page what content specifically you object to including without a source. OAlexander, find a source (or sources) that can verify that information and be included inline. If after that you still can't agree then follow the usual steps; third opinion, RfC, etc. But please do it on the article talk page, not here. -- Atama頭 16:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, all information was traceable with the links that were provided. I have no win the Lex Schoenmaker article entered into the competition of vileness with GiantSnowman. If what the colleague puts up here is ok - then I am definitely wrong here. Maybe, I should no longer wasting my time here adding to articles, but also focus on content removal. That seems to be the prestigious thing to do here. I personally think, what GiantSnowman performed here was ill-willed by design and constitutes vandalism. I leave it there. People of reason seem to be thin on the ground here. I will notify accordingly in due course OAlexander (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact you are engaging in WP:POINTy editing by blanking the article, and the fact you state you are engaged in a "competition of vileness" shows you do not have the attitude to edit here. Your edits are becoming increadingly disruptive, and I would invite an uninvolved admin to block. GiantSnowman 16:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor has blanked again, can someone take a look ASAP? @Atama: @Dougweller:. GiantSnowman 16:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: The article Lex Schoenmaker now looks like far too many Wikipedia articles: four trivial links for two facts, three horizontal lines, mighty infobox and table of contents. Else totally unsatisfactory. OAlexander (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. OAlexander The edits you made to Lex Schoenmaker look like a blatant violation of WP:POINT; in other words, if you are going to be challenged to provide sourcing for one article you need to strip a related article of everything that isn't directly sources. Per your own admission this is "totally unsatisfactory". Please self-revert, this is intentional disruption. -- Atama頭 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: OAlexander blocked 24 hours by TParis. -- Atama頭 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Owning and Bullying by Livelikemusic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the past two days, I have been working to make the Theresa Donovan page more accurate and thorough. In adding information about the previous actors to portray the role, my edits were reverted by livelikemusic with the explanation that they "violated" site policies. They did not "violate" anything. I re-did my edit and again, livelikemusic reverted it saying the current actress is the "most notable in the role" as though that means any previous actors should be ignored and can't be mentioned on this site. He then began saying there were "policies" against my edits. In actuality, there are no policies against my edits.

To me, lying about violations and policies to deter someone from making edits is a definite sign of bullying.

I then added a period to the end of a sentence and livelikemusic reverted that too with the explanation of no punctuation allowed in an infobox. I asked, "Where does it say that?" to which they have not yet replied. I added a brief explanation about another character being portrayed by more than one actress and that got reverted too with the explanation of it already say's that elsewhere. I added two commas to a sentence because it needed them and livelikemusic reverted that too because they didn't feel the sentence needed commas! I can't even correct minor punctuation errors without livelikemusic reverting them!

That, to me, is also definite bullying.

Along with all that, on the Theresa Donovan talk page, livelikemusic accused me of "attempting to own" the page by reverting his edits but, I have not reverted his edits, I have merely made edits of my own and gotten every single one of them reverted by him with his false "policies," "violations," and accusations of "owning."

That, to me, shows owning on his part.

All of this can be verified by reviewing the edits made to the Theresa Donovan page and it's associated talk page or by clicking this links to see the diffs: 1. here 2. here 3. here 4. here (deletion of the period) 5. here (again) 6. here 7. here (deleting my comma)

Thank you so much in advance. As per policy, I have left a message on livelikemusic's talk page regarding this complaint (although he immediately deleted it).Cebr1979 (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

All of this can be verified by reviewing the edits made to the Theresa Donovan page and it's associated talk page. Please just post diffs of conduct you believe supports your argument that livelikemusic is engaged in inappropriate behavior. At first glance this just looks like a content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me how to do that as I don't know everything about how to properly link to something. I'm new here. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Diffs have been added.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, I have been accused of reverted each of their edits to Theresa Donovan, which I have not done. I reverted some edits, which were explained, such as the addition of child actresses and a comma I felt was mis-placed; I did not revert each and every single edit Cebr has done. As I attempted to explain to this user on the page's talk page, the character of Theresa Donovan was not a notable enough stand-alone character per the Soap Project and notability of a fictional character on a soap opera until current actress Jen Lilley took claim of the role last year; I also used prime examples of GA's on the Soap Project as more examples of why I believed they should not be placed within the infobox. And my revert of the punctuation point was because on the template page, and Soap Project page, they did not represent it with such punctuation. Cebr is merely seeing my edits as not in good faith, yet I was merely trying to work alongside some of their edits, for the sake of civility. However, I was continued to be accused of owning the page, while I was continued to be talked about personally as an editor, and not my edits themselves.

(edit conflict) I did not lie, nor attempt to deter this user from making their edits on this article. Their perception is gravely mis-taken, as I attempted to explain to them. I stopped responding on the talk page, as I found it not okay for us to be softly baiting and biting each other in such a manner. My edits removing a comma was reverted, and removal of a period was reverted after a string of edits made exclusively by Cebr; if I'm going to be accused of owning a page, shouldn't they also be with those edits? As for the brief explanation of another character being portrayed by another actress, I noted that a note was already included on the page, which notes that two other actresses portrayed said role (Kimberly Brady) during the most recognized's actress' absence from the role. Continuing to be accused of bullying is something I take seriously, as never in my entire lifetime, on or offline, have I ever bullied someone. Bullying is something I do not tolerate in my life in any kind of way, especially in today's day in age where it's at the forefront of a lot of serious issues in society with our younger generations. And may I add: a user can remove anything they do choose from their talk page, so why that continues to be brought up is beyond me. I've asked Cebr to not contact me directly via-a talk page several times, as it appears no matter what, there never seems to be any resolve that comes out of anything. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You never made punctuation edits to the page, I did and then you reverted them... which made them incorrect grammatically. I had to change them back or have the page be wrong. Also, I had to contact you via your talk page as that is site policy when making a complaint against someone.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Would also like to add that as a long-time editor who has worked extensively to protect the authenticity of soap articles, and other articles, I am appalled and deeply hurt by the claims continuing to be made against me. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like nothing more than a content dispute. ANI is not the place to resolve this. If you feel discussion at the talk page is deadlocked, you may want to involve the broader WikiProject on soaps, or some other dispute resolution process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added diffs for you to see which clearly show bullying and excessive reverting which is a sign of owning: 1. here

2. here 3. here 4. here (deletion of the period) 5. here (again) 6. here 7. here (deleting my comma)Cebr1979 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Which I tried doing by pinging other editors that were close to the Soap Project, and I was accused of owning the page by bringing in other people, and that the other user's edits were not expert or important; which I never did. I attempted to keep things civil, but kept feeling baited by Cebr based on feeling their incivility on the talk page. I asked for guidelines that support their liking, and they didn't. I provided several and was told that I was mis-interpreting to act as "broad and self-suiting". livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And I didn't know trying to do what I believed to be grammatically correcting something and adding a preferred plainlist to be "bullying". Has the definition of that changed as well? Is there nothing I can do right in Cebr's eyes other than just quit Wikipedia? Because now I am feeling very personally attacked and bullied into leaving a hobby and passion I've had for several years in helping make better. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And once again, Cebr is using "mine" and "my", all words Wikipedia suggests going against, as it suggests a user owning a page. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will say this: never in the eight years of editing here have I felt such an injustice by Wikipedia. I made a report last week about Cebr and their personal attacks against me; the report was deemed unfit was they weren't "personal enough". Cebr was told to stop making accusations and refrain from all communication (which Cebr just removed). I thought working on the talk page of Theresa Donovan we could come to some sort of settlement. I also tried applying the preferred plainlist format that most infoboxes are converting to (an edit seen as bullying). At the Soap Project, the example template does not include a period after "Actress as Character" format, hence my removal (once again, accused of bullying there). I then removed the note concerning Patsy Pease and her portrayal of Kimberly Brady, explaining that a note was already included for visitors to read (Accused once more of bullying). Removed a stand alone comma after the word "and" as I did not feel it was grammatically appropriate to use there (accused of bullying again). I ask, how would any of these edits be seen as bullying? On the talk page, Cebr continued to accuse me of using policies as an interpretation as "broad" and "self-serving", accusing their edits as not being "expert" (which I followed and refuted). Cebr then accused me of not just accepting "an encyclopedia entry being more thorough", which was not what I was refuting. I have been accused of many things, which Cebr was advised against doing. I remained civil in my interactions, despite feeling baited and bitten, after being accused and attacked of many things. At this point, it feels like if I don't say "Fuck It" Cebr will continue to attempt to drive me out of Wikipedia, which is how I'm feeling. I'm not accusing them of doing such (as I'm sure I'll be accused of doing). I'm feeling that eight years of my dedication and appreciation for Wikipedia is being over-looked and under-appreciated. At this point, enough is enough. I played it civilly, and was still accused and attacked by another member of this forum. How many more times does it need to happen before action is properly taken? If an Administator has further questions for me, I'll be gladly happy to answer tomorrow when I log back on. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 04:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The F word doesn't seem like keeping things civil but, oh well. Anyways, I didn't "just remove" anything. I cleaned my talk page up last week. Anyone can go to the Theresa Donovan page and see the edit history. Anything anyone does, you always revert for this reason or that. Even here where a sentence simply wasn't enough for you so it had to be reverted. The sentence said true information but, it wasn't enough for you so had to go. You are owning the page (as you do with many pages) and you are the one trying to make others "go away" so you can reign as supreme editor on your favourite pages. The only "injustice" is that someone hasn't stood up to your bullying before. You should probably drop it now before I come back with a ton of more diffs from a ton of more pages.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And stop shoving your "8 years of editing" down everyone's throats! That doesn't make you any better than anyone else and shouldn't even be mentioned. Ever. That's exactly where an "owning" mentality stems from.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• With the exception of a few edits by User:Mendaliv, you two haven't allowed anyone else to participate here. Shut up and wait for neutral parties to intervene. This isn't another board for you two to rehash all of your dispute all over again.--v/r - TP 05:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Per Mendaliv, the diffs just show run-of-the-mill content dispute. DeCausa (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The diffs weren't there when Mendaliv wrote that. The diffs show constant reverting by livelikemusic.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes they were. You added the second set of 7 diffs after his post. That just shows the two of you edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they weren't. I added both sets of diffs at the same time. When I first posted my original message, I didn't know how to post diffs. Once I found out, I edited my first post to include them and added the second set (both after Mendaliv's comment). You can see that by checking the history of this page.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but it doesn't make any difference. It's still per Mendaliv - just a content dispute. And you've been edit-warring. Btw, you shouldn't be changing your posts after others have responded to them. DeCausa (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So? Mendaliv is not an admin. Anyone can give input, sure, but that's all it is. His say is not final.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Er, yes anyone can give input and I just gave mine, which is to agree with Mendaliv. Have a look at the other threads and see how this board works before you jump to conclusions as to how you think it works. DeCausa (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am frustrated with the apparent inability of editors to deal with 'content disputes in the proper forum and the constant allegations of behavioural violations with bad faith, which is counterproductive towards finding a solution to these disputes. I have consistently called on both parties to discuss changes and keep allegations to a minimum, and am quickly losing patience over the constant posts to this board at every slight perceived violation. If you continue to cause disruption and continue to make bad faith allegations, I will pursue an interaction ban between the two parties and/or a topic ban on soap-related articles as the only recourse to stop the disruptive behaviour. The behaviour exhibited is beyond childish. —Dark 11:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My issue is not the content being disputed, it's all of my edits being constantly reverted by livelikemusic. I am not the only editor he does that too and many other editors simply go away rather than alerting anyone. In any case, I can see this is going nowhere fast so I will continue on and hope livelikemusic does the same. I mean, wikipedia is a big place, there's got to be countless other pages for him to revert and countless other editors for him to quote his false policies too. Thank you for your time. Cebr1979 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You can say your issue is with behavior, but you'd be wrong. Resolve the underlying content dispute like adults—both of you—and any "behavioral" problems will just evaporate. Hell, you might even find you have a lot in common. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I tried attempting to resolve the issue, and involve other soap editors to provide their own insight and feelings on the situation, and I was met with trying to "own" something, and was accused of things I was not doing. And as for the "F" word, Wikipedia does not censor. Once again, I'm being attacked and being made accusations against me. And TParis, I made that statement last night because I was logging off and wanted it said right then and there. I had no issues with letting others discuss. I never brought any behavior problems into this issue; I kept it completely on the topic of child actresses. So I am still dumbfounded that we're back here at ANI., when I'm accused of making things "my policy", which I am not. It's baffling and quite offensive, especially to be told to "stop shoving" things down everyone's throats. Once again, more assumptions and incivility on an editor's part. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, you need to keep trying then. ANI isn't the place to resolve this dispute. And sanctions don't lie against Cebr1979 for making this complaint. I see virtually no participation in the dispute from editors other than yourself and Cebr1979. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I have been. And those ping'ed have not responded and may never. But now I feel like no matter how/what I edit, it's going to be seen as "bullying" and "advancing my own agenda" since it's clear soap articles are the common link. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Once again, I'm trying to help the article, and I'm being accused of owning the page, when a valid quote was removed. They removed a quote, which they believed to be about The Book of Esther, however if you check the reference, it is specifically about her joining the cast of Days of Our Lives. Once again being accused of owning a page and "doing this again". Obviously Cebr and I cannot seem to come to understandings about things, and I believe this issue has gone far enough. I've tried working with Cebr, however, I'm continually just told I'm "wrong". May be taking this to content dispute now, but figured I'd also bring this here. But I've tried working alongside this editor, and like I mentioned before, I feel like I'm continuing to be accused of "bullying", while my edit was valid, as per the source and reference proves. And another edit I was told was wrong, since it was used on multiple other pages, etc. Yet, I cited the infobox template, and was still reverted. Yet, following suit of soap opera, specifics of a job are not specifically listed. I'm once again feeling like no matter how I intend or hope to help the editing process, I'm just simply "wrong" in my actions, and viewed upon as bullying. Do I have to quit to make another editor happy? I shouldn't have to, but once again, it's how I'm feeling. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is so tiring. There were no accusations made today by me! I pointed out a lie, true. That can be seen. As for reverts, her edits are still there! I made some edits, she reverted them, so I clarified them. Could someone please tell me how to remove this section of the ANI from my watch list? I no longer want notifications when something is added to it. Cebr1979 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The star or when you're editing unclick "Watch this page". And accusations were made, plus I am a he not she. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Whew! Thank you for being useful. This whole thing was useless as livelikemusic has already taken it directly to an admin (see so here).Cebr1979 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cebr1979:: You would do well not to follow editors with whom you are in disputes to other people's user talk pages. It's not particularly friendly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I was hardly concerned with making friends.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Let me clarify. If you keep it up you stand a good chance of being blocked for Wikihounding. Ease up on Livelikemusic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify: there is a reason why I removed this from my watch list.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I only noticed when I went to livelikemusic's talk page to get it off my watch list too. Don't jump to conclusions.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that both editors are well past 3RR today on the Donovan article. Warned both. Continued reverts should merit blocks. I'm in favor of leniency for edit warring done thus far rather than risk driving away productive editors. I will take a look at the content dispute given Livelikemusic's complaint that there has been no interest in outside involvement... I don't particularly enjoy American soaps, but I'll take a look. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've kept quiet on this right now, however, I have not "moved on". Conclusions have been continually put against me (via-accusations) and I have remanded beyond civil with Cebr. The civility continues to not be returned; I attempted to resolve things by taking it to the talk page, and was then accused of "doing it again", etc. And will continue to state I feel that nothing I say and/or do will ever be OK for this user. It was not my intention to violate 3RR, so I apologise for doing so. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, deary my! livelikemusic is wikihounding me! The only way he could know about the "moved on" comment is if he followed me to Mendaliv's talk page!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not Wikihounding at all. I was there to follow-up to a message I thought I had left for them concerning Theresa Donovan, only to find I hadn't left it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just an additional note, if Cebr1979 and livelikemusic fail to discuss their article changes on the talk page (and gain consensus for such changes) and continue reverting each other, I will treat it as disruptive edit warring and will sanction accordingly. I also would like to provide a precautionary warning regarding the improper use of multiple accounts to make changes to such articles - that is not tolerated. Wikipedia is based on consensus, I don't care whether you think you're right or not, you will discuss controversial changes civilly and without accusation. I hope that I do not have to see a thread on ANI about this again. —Dark 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Was there an example of socking going on or why was that brought up? For the record, I only have one account and this is it!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If you only have 1 account, then you have nothing to worry about. —Dark 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

i hope not, either. I had no intentions of re-opening something against Cebr, and did not see them opening one themselves. I've attempted to try and reach consensus with the user, and continue to be accused of bending guidelines to meet "my own agenda" (which I do not have). I continued to keep the discussion to the article, and I continued being accused of doing things "my way", etc. Accusations continue to be made, against me, despite my intentions to co-habitat with the user, as the common interest we appear to share are soap articles. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made my comments on the article talk page, along with recommendations. This is a pure content dispute. I see some frayed tempers on both sides, most likely stemming from the reverting that was going on. I caution both, again, to not continue it, and to continue discussing. As far as the infobox issue is concerned, I recommended starting a broader discussion as to possibly rewording the soap character infobox. As to the use of the quotation dispute, I suggested that further research may produce valuable content based on the matters discussed in the quotation. As this is a pure content dispute, and both editors have been warned for 3RR, I move that this discussion be closed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment, Medaliv. Thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And I am stating for the record: this is the only account I have knowledge of having registered to Wikipedia, and have been editing under such account for eight-years. I'm sure sockpuppet was brought up for fear that one may register a new account to "side" with themselves. However, as someone who has constantly reported repeated sockpuppets, I would never do such a thing. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please Look into the matter

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

---

Speedy deletion won't be enforced here (in fact it should only be enforced for copyright infringements and gross attacks/BLP violations). Furthermore, Ichgab shall refrain from re-nominating this article for any reason of speedy deletion now that these tags have been removed multiple times. There's WP:AFD for further discussions. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I nominated the article Nirmal Kumar Ganguly for speedy deletion on more than one ground which Shirt58 reverted for no valid reason or reasons best known to him.I request the administrators to visit the concerned page and take a just decision. Ichgab (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no necessity to give reasons when removing a speedy deletion tag, which anyone can do except the article creator. If you still stink it should be deleted, WP:PROD it. BMK (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, just, God no. I don't even know what to say to you. THEY AREN'T YOUR TOOLS! You don't get to dictate to other people when they must or must not used the tools the community has entrusted with them. Placing a speedy deletion tag does not obligate an administrator to do your will. Okay, that's out, good. Now. You placed an A1 tag which is for very short context that makes it impossible to identify the subject. There is plenty of context to identify Nirmal Kumar Ganguly: he is an Indian microbiologist and has a range of career positions including "Emeritus Professor of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and was Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi (1998-2007). He is currently President of the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research". You listed A1 a second time, that's addressed in my last sentence. Then you listed A7. A7 is a maybe and arguable, but I think being a Emeritus Professor is enough of a claim and being director of a national government medical body is enough of a claim of importance that an AfD is necessary to determine notability and the A7 tag isn't appropriate. Please take this scolding seriously and don't ever insist that admins, or anyone, enact your will by decree.--v/r - TP 19:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ichgab, you need to stop restoring the CSD tags. Once any editor (other than the creator) has contested the speedy deletion through the removal of the tag you cannot restore it. They have been removed three times now (including by me). You need to stop edit-warring to restore the deletion tags (two of which are incorrect by the way) and take the article to AfD if you believe it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't waste your time on a PROD as it will be removed too. WP:AFD if you must but I think the subject clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

• Since I was not (as required) advised of this discussion, I'll leave this note here pour encourager les autres. I can sum up my rationale for instantly rejecting the speedy deletion in two words: Padma Bhushan. Careful with those speedy tags, please. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

PoV pushing. WP:3RR, political allegiance, bias, and so go on

There's currently a long tiresome edit conflict going on on the Iran page (and some pages related to it) wich consists of constant reversions, edits based on personal opinion, and a violation of WP:3RR as I see it. None of them resort in discussing it, and therefore resort to spamming undo's/RV's. The users I'm talking about are Arvid Qasemy (talk · contribs), Qizilbash123 (talk · contribs), and User:Soroush90gh (He's in a completely different way related to the topic unlike User:Qizilbash123 and User:Arvid Qasemy). User:Qizilbash123 is neglecting and declining the reliable facts and keeps spamming reverts and undo's. He's constantly removing the sources and statements given and replacing them with sources given or favoured by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, neglecting and removing all other souces that are already given (if you check the edit history of the page and of his own you see that he's deliberately pushing on certain things such as lowering the amount of Iranian casualties in the war, or even resorting in removing the fact that the Iranian women protested against the newly inposed Hijab laws), or just merely replaces them with his own sources of a different opinion. He's heavily pushing an agenda and being a total nuisance to the Wikipedia community by doing so. Here some minor examples of his work both on the Iran article, and other related Iranian articles; [[98]], [[99]], [[100]], [[101]], [[102]] (Can it get more obvious than this last one?)

He also violates WP:3RR here -> (links [[103]], [[104]], [[105]])

(01:53, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (134,872 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (Undid revision 611310437 by LouisAragon (talk)) (undo | thank)) -

(14:02, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (135,307 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (Undid revision 611346894 by Soroush90gh (talk)) (undo | thank)) -

(23:51, 3 June 2014‎ Qizilbash123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (134,872 bytes) (-1,286)‎ . . (restoring stable version without A. Qasemy's photos and Soroush90gh's bias) (undo | thank)

Then we have User:Arvid Qasemy who constantly keeps editing and reverting the same Iran article with redundant edits purely based on his personal opinion without any edit descriptions given or any consensus, and also doesn't seem to care a bit about the constant rv's/undo's that are going on. being a total nuisance on his own. He's also removing completely well written pieces without any reason or any edit summary given (such as here [[106]]). Note how both him and Qizilbash123 didn't even bother once to reach a WP:CON during all this time. Finally we have Soroush90gh despite he's not doing any PoV edits or whatsoever or anything going in against Wiki law so far unlike Qizilbash123 and Arvid Qasemy, he still keeps the nuisance triangle as I call it alive as he keeps undo'ing and reverting it like Qizilbash and Qasemi. Seeing that he couldn't reach anything with them, he should've brought it to the mods a whole lot earlier. Make a visit to the edit history of the article if you want't to see more [[107]].

I don't know what precise penalties should be given to wich people in question here, but this nuisance should be stopped as soon as possible. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all I suggest LouisAragon to WP:CALM a little bit - I just saw his actions on other article (disputed below) and I agree with his edits, but his summaries sound as yelling or even threats. As I understand from rules, person engaged in edit checking should be cool and discuss, not avoid it. Prior of removing image from "Iran" article I backed it with explanation on talking page, and prior of planned replacing climate map I also made proposal about it. I gave advice to user Arvid Qasemy to do the same thing, and I believe his edits are good faith and only problem is that he's making changes without discussions. However, in case of user Soroush90gh we have similar problem but with obivous bad faith: he has inserted irrelevant photo with biased description few months ago without any discussion, and he's desperately trying to keep it inside by forcing edit wars. Considering he also avoids all explanations and discussion, it's pure WP:BIGOTRY. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I didn't get what's wrong with removing biased assertions like this[[108]] or even conspiracies about "World richest man"[[109]]. Last one is example of childish dispute by political fractions, revolutionaries have claimed Pahlavi had "$20 billion" and now monarchists claim Khamenei has "$95 billion". Of course, no Forbes or any other serious sources for it, except of their pamphlets. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already warned Qizilbash123 about edit warring on the Iran article. The way I see it, we've got two options here. Either block all three indefinitely, or the articles are locked and we force discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus. My preferred option is the latter. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it's Arvid Qasemy. Thanks to you dear LouisAragon for being such an active and careful user, and to dear Qizilbash123 for his help and advice. I believe that I am an amateur here, I'm new to this system, and your critique of my work is right, but I also believe that I can defend my activities. I'm not trying to remove or completely change an information, I'm just trying to use better photos and add some new and notable information. Such as the information about the Religion, which (thank God!) is not removed, except my other edits. And I wonder why do you guys remove the photo and information about the "protest of Iranian women against the hijab and new rules"?. It IS an important event. I will try to use what I've learned here, write the summary and my reasons, and do the edits again. I'm doing this all in order to improve this page. Please trust me and help me in this flow, and if I did a wrong thing again, just let me know and I will try to correct my works. Thank you so much. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a complicated issue. Let me explain. The user Qizilbash123, is going to simply distort the history. He is self-declared representative of all Iranian women. Let me talk about one of his views. He has stated that ALL Iranian women are happy to have Hejab, and those who aren't, are just "westernized minority". I'm not sure, maybe he is right, but I know just one point, here, in WP, you have to present resource for any single sentence. Soroush90gh (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Qizilbash123, what are you talking about? If you check the posting history on the Iran page and compare the dates with the dates from the sections you made at Talk:Iran, one can easily see that you were edit warring at first, and then resorted to edit warring and posting on the talk page at the same time. Instead of wasting your time there being a nuisance to the community seeing you couldn't push for a WP:CON with neither of the other two users in question, you should've brought it to WP:ANI wich could've solved everything much earlier without all this edit warring.

The fact remains, all three users keep the cycle alive and are currently quite a nuisance to the community with these continuous edits and reverts, while no single one of them bothered to have it solved per correct Wiki policy. All of them believe they're right, but no single one of them has shown as of why he is right with a reached consensus. Working per "reaching a consensus per edit warring and reverting" as we can call it. Take a look at here again please [[110]]. Even without the disputes solved, it still continues [[111]].

Based on all this, I have to agree with User:Mjroots based on how to reach a a possible solution here. Seems there's no other way. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Soroush90gh, you're the one who's disorting history - I gave source and you didn't prove anything but accusations and edit wars.:::LouisAragon, I'm not wrong when I say Soroush90gh has inserted disputed photo months ago.[[112]] --Qizilbash123 (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

LouisAragon asked me to take a look at this yesterday. It looks like this dispute has settled down a lot, just judging by the discussion at talk. There was one revert earlier today dealing with some content... but nothing egregious. If slow revert warring continues, I would support temporary page protection as a measure to try and force more discussion. As to whether there's POV pushing going on here... I honestly don't know enough about the content area to make a fair determination. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Block for ...

Pls block User:Čuraci vládnou, on Czech this means a vulgarity like "Penisses govern", -jkb- (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bambifanus 1000 (talk · contribs) seems to be related because of you-know-who too based on this edit. Nate • (chatter) 18:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Google translate (mostly) verifies that (as an alternate translation), second that that's an inappropriate username. A Google Translation of his only edit so far is complaining about the block of Erinplum2, saying (more or less) that it's 'proof' that this place is 'run by dicks.' We've got a trol. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There was actually a sock drawer replete with trolls. I've blocked all of them.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

thx, -jkb- (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

About editing anatomy articles

I believe that some of the allegations that User LT910001 has made about me are false, misleading, exaggerated, or inappropriate: Snowman (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• 1. On 5 June 2014 in an ANI, User LT90001 alleged that I had repeatedly insulted him with my edits [113], [114], [115] by my use of phrases like "amateurish", "this is basic stuff", "badly written", and "factually wrong" to describe content of articles; see User LT90001's edit. It is my honest opinion that some of the articles that User LT91001's has recently nominated for GA status looked amateurish to me in parts, and I informed him about this primarily to be helpful to him. I said this to give him insight into the articles. I have also pointed out a number mistakes or ambiguities in anatomy articles listed for GA nominations, to save the Wikipedia the possible embarrassment of showing basic mistakes that would be easily spotted by knowledgeable readers. Note that Talk:Cervix/GA1 for the "Cervix" article was a GA nomination submitted by User LT91001 in April 2014 and it was failed by User:TonyTheTiger, who also participated in the Talk:Cervix/GA2 to sort out unresolved problems that were originally listed in GA1. Sadly, User LT91001 appears to misunderstand the difference between helpful objective comments and an insult or personal attack. The administrator, User:Spike Wilbury has commented about this situation saying; "I don't think making critical comments about an article or its suitability for GA status should be seen as an attack on the editors." see his edit of 5 June 2014. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• 2. On 5 June 2014 in an ANI, User LT90001 alleged that I have been Wiki stalking him; see User LT90001's edit. The circumstances of some of my recent editing is as follows. I have been interested in the "Anatomy" article for years. I returned to the "Anatomy" article a few months ago and I participated in discussions on the Talk:Anatomy page with User:Casliber and User LT910001, where User LT910001 invited me to edit other anatomy articles and User LT910001 thanked me for my edits on the anatomy article; see LT91001's edit of 3 May 2014. All of the current WP Anatomy GA nominations are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Article alerts and the intention of this easy-to-find list is to alert Wikipedians of the articles that are currently active. I assume that all GA nominations are effectively invitations to every Wikipedian to participate, especially when GA nominations are also listed on a WP Project page. More recently, I have participated in three of the GA nomination discussions on the "Article alerts" list at WP Anatomy and I have made some helpful edits on the relevant nominated articles as well. I have been doing the normal work of a Wikipedian participating in GA nominations that were presented in a list. I am puzzled why User LT91001 has said that I have been wiki stalking him apparently through my participation in three (or four if the "Anatomy" article is included as well) anatomy GA articles or GA nominations. It is my honest opinion that I have not Wiki stalked User LT910001. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• 3. On 5 June 2014 in an ANI, it seems to me that User LT90001 did not use a neutral heading for an ANI that he started; see User LT90001's edit. The guidelines for using the ANI page instruct users to use an "informative title that is neutral" (see the show/hide box called "How to use this page" above near the top of the main ANI page). Note that User LT90001 did not use a neutral heading for the ANI that he initiated above, which he entitled "User stalking and harassment by Snowmanradio". Incidentally, I considered started this new thread as a level three heading under that level two heading as suggested by the guidelines on this page; however, I opted to choose a neutral level two heading for this new tread, which I believe is consistent with the guidelines here, partly because of the non-neutral nature of the original level two heading. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Inadmissible personal attack

I have been critical of the sourcing of the article Democracy & Nature. As a result, I was accused of "trying to destroy" the article on the talk page. The article is now at AfD. I requested at the talk page to refrain from personal attacks and was now answered with this edit, which I think is absolutely and totally inadmissible. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They've already slipped to Godwin's Law? Not a personal attack - not civil, but not an attack the panda ₯’ 22:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the attack, as well as the earlier attack in the header of a talk page discussion, and warned the user. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. The implication is clear. I'm a Nazi book burner. This kind of insult is inadmissible. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you mean impermissible. Anyway, it's a stupid thing for the other party to say, but a sanctionable personal attack? Meh. All too often, people get frustrated and say stupid things that only hurt the discussion. Under ideal circumstances we ignore that and try to keep things on topic. If the incivility or even personal attacks don't disrupt the discussion, then the discussion can be handled normally. If it persists, then sanctions can be considered. I don't think we're to the latter point, even though there's apparent excessive personal discussion at the talk page. In short, I don't see the need for sanctions just yet, though it would be good for an admin to keep an eye on the dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, I mean inadmissible (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th ed., Book Club Associates, 1977, p. 543). :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It was NOT an attack and it was NOT a comment. I explained to "my friend" that I'm busy reading about Nazi book burnings (a very important historical event) so I do not have the time to comment to his claims. I have more important things to do. It looks like that some people are more sensitive than others and in the case they happen to be wiki administrators who knows all the tricks and rules etc they use them for no reason. Another problem is that my talk page is not really mine. Someone comes, delete what he believes is not an appropriate behavior and later he open a discussion about. I though it must be the other way round. You open a discussion and at the end you delete or not the comments, attacks or whatever. I though wiki is an open project but looks like its semi-protected and semi-open. Some views are allowed while others not or with other words you have to fight to prove that you are not an elephant. I’m afraid what is left from the poor liberal democracy (Freedom of speech) now is demolished by the hands of some wiki administrators (bureaucrats). Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh fee and faw. This diatribe strongly suggests that you are not here to write an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

See my editing history to see why I'm here. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A correction: The phrase "Another problem is that my talk page is not really mine." I wrote above is not correct because my "not civil behavior" took place at the D+N talk page not mine. The rest is ok. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You also have a bizarre belief that you have "freedom of speech" on a private website. That's funny. Don't make that mistake again. the panda ₯’ 00:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Nikosgreencookie has now inserted an enemies list on their user page [116]. Rgrds. --64.85.215.195 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Idols. Not Enemies. It’s my personal page and I use it in any way I believe is appropriate to help me doing good work as regards wiki editing. I have to follow the great actions of my personal idols to be able to improve myself as an editor and a man. And who are you? If you don’t mind. You are not here to write an encyclopedia Nikosgreencookie (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your 'tribute'. You're digging yourself a hole here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The above comment: "You're digging yourself a hole here." is a personal attack. Please see: WP:NPA. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You should probably take a break from Wikipedia for the day and return when you have calmed down. Gamaliel (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

To even consider "You're digging yourself a hole here" to be a personal attack says a lot. Not everyone can figure out how this place works. Doc talk 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is neither a battleground, nor a court of law. Nikosgreencookie's behavior is simultaneously disingenuous and inflammatory. I would support an indefinite block, whether because this individual is not here to contribute to the creation of an encyclopedia, or because he or she is engaged in trolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What you say is no sense. Just check my long editing history to see my contribution to wikipedia. The rest is cheap stuff. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Second that support. This user seems determined to convince people they are here solely to be disruptive. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nikosgreencookie (talk · contribs) seems to do some decent gnomish referencing work that is beneficial. The recent edits (including to his "own" page") are decidedly not so good. Per WP:POLEMIC I removed his updated list of "idols" (which I was flattered to be among ;). If he reinstates them, he's in trouble. I don't think that he's a troll, and so I wouldn't vote for an indef right now. Let's see what he decides to do next. If a swift kick doesn't do it, so be it. Doc talk 04:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion that "you're digging a hole" is a personal attack is on the same level as the claim that being told to "drop the stick" was a threat of violence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Indeffs should not be proposed for WP:NOTHERE reasons. It's not even policy: it's an information page with a wide ranging list of behaviors that could indicate why an editor should be blocked. But blocked for what? Not being here to build an encyclopedia? Seems very subjective, no? This says we block for either protection or disruption. "NOTHERE" should never be linked in a block notice, nor it is ever a good enough reason to block outright. Now I'll get off my soapbox. Doc talk 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to start an argument on this issue, but I think it's fairly clear that this individual is engaged in disruption, and that his or her disruptive behavior will continue. Admittedly, NOTHERE itself is not always the clearest reason for sanctions, and in many respects it's the shortcut du jour—I recall some years ago that arguing that someone was a "net minus" was in vogue as a reason for blocking in spite of a history of positive contributions. Nevertheless, disruption is disruption, even if it's not primarily happening in articlespace (e.g., compiling shitlists in userspace, IDHT behavior). Anyhow, yes, WP:NOTHERE is an essay, but it's an essay interpreting policy; there's nothing wrong with blocking for complex reasons so long as the reasons are summarized in the block log, and a link to an essay is good enough for that. If it's an improper block, the community should clarify that the rationale articulated in WP:NOTHERE is invalid as grounds for a block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The punishment needs to fit the crime. I see no evidence to support an indefinite block on this editor. We don't toss someone aside based on the assumption that "his or her disruptive behavior will continue". How do you know that for sure? His only block was a 24-hour edit-warring block in 2012. He's upset with things here right now, and may very well calm down and move on productively. If he won't listen, and there is further disruption, he can be blocked. Doc talk 06:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me the action of the person behind the ip 64.85.215.195? I mean 64.85.215.195 appeared 3 times since 2005. @ 9 october 2005 @ 14 august 2010 and @ Yesterday. And for what? To send a "signal" to the "very right place" about my behavior in my personal wiki page. Is he a magician? I find it suspicious. It makes me to believe that he was intervened just because someone else asked him to do so. Is here base for me to claim that 64.85.215.195 is engaged in trolling? And if yes what actions must be taken? Any opinion and advice is welcome. Especially by Doc. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not remarkable. Lots of people edit from IPs, and people do get new IPs all the time. Could also be someone who accidentally logged out and doesn't want to out himself now by claiming the comment. In short, it doesn't really matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Doc talk 10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• ...and there's no such thing as a "personal wiki page" on Wikipedia - you have a user page and a user talkpage that are the property of the Foundation, to be used according to the policies you agreed to. One provides some info about yourself and your interests, the other facilitates communication. If you have a "personal wiki page", that means you must have installed some type of wiki software elsewhere :-) the panda ₯’ 10:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indefblocked. In my opinion, this post by Nikosgreencookie's, in a talkpage discussion entitled "Randykitty's attempt to destroy the article (24 May 2014)", a section created by Nikosgreencookie themselves, is indeed inadmissible, since it does imply, or rather in a sneaky way does say, that Randykitty is akin to a Nazi bookburner (and has "burned" sections of the article in an attempt to destroy it, like the Nazis burned books so as to destroy them). The people who make light of it above may possibly be missing some context. Anyway, users can lose their temper, no doubt. But Nikosgreencookie's response in this thread shows him as not out of temper/out of control, but instead as a troll doing the "plausible deniability" dance: "It was NOT an attack and it was NOT a comment. I explained to "my friend" that I'm busy reading about Nazi book burnings (a very important historical event) so I do not have the time to comment to his claims. I have more important things to do." I won't even dignify that with the appellation of wikilawyering; it's pure trolling and taking us for a ride. And also further embellished with the suggestion that if Randykitty unaccountably takes the reference to reading about Nazi bookburnings as not merely an explanation of why Nikosgreencookie is so busy, then that shows that Randykitty is oversensitive "It looks like that some people are more sensitive than others". A classic troll. The follow-up trolling on his userpage doesn't exactly help, either, but it's the original attack + the denial of it that's my focus. If somebody wants to unblock, I won't stand in the way, and they don't need to consult me first, but I hope they'll only do it if there's a decent unblock request without any dancing in it. I hope there will be one; I've no wish to keep this user blocked infinitely. I hope nobody thinks I'm defending Randykitty because he's an admin; on the contrary, I'd block in stronger terms and with a stronger comment about unblock conditions if he wasn't an admin. Admins do need to put up with more than other users. But no user should be expected to put up with that. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

I support the block. I was thinking the same thing earlier. This is someone tweaking the nose of the community and being disruptive for fun. -- Atama頭 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that this is not a troll. It's a misdiagnosis that is all too common. "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias." I do not see such an intent. YMMV. Doc talk 01:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I disagree, but reasonable minds will sometimes disagree. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But behavior that is indistinguishable from trolling can only be defended as 'not trolling' for so long. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of his intent of malice? Or gaming the system? Those two diffs above make him a troll?! I'm not saying I unwaveringly support this editor by pointing out that he's not a troll. So he unadvisedly used the term "Nazi": a major "hot button". Some other things need to be addressed as well. But a troll is a troll. This editor has done a lot of decent referencing work up to this point. 1 prior edit-warring block is insufficient evidence of a problem troll that must be indeffed. I shudder to think how an editor like "Jack" was sheltered here and repeatedly unblocked for so long by those who are now so quick to declare an editor like this a "classic troll". Doc talk 03:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The current unblock request is exactly the sort of problem that led to the block. Convenient claims that something problematic before is not so rather than owning up to the impropriety of what was said and agreeing to change is as much of a problem as the original improprieties. Coming here with blatant nonsense like the above claims that the Nazi book burning comment was a reference to something else... it's just continuing attempts to skirt responsibility for making uncivil comments. Furthermore, indefinite ≠ infinite: as Bishonen indicated above, the intent is not to permanently remove this person from the Wikipedia community, but rather to do so while the threat of ongoing disruption was there. Anyway, I won't disagree with the claim that not everyone would agree with a block here, but it's one of those things best left to individual admin discretion. If someone thinks the unblock request is credible and addresses the reasons behind the block, then by all means they should unblock. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: As of this morning, Nikosgreencookie has filed his/her fourth unblock request, which like the other three shows no sign of taking responsibility for the problems that led to the block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tomotadara

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

This editor is frantically trying to perform revisionist edit warring on both Wikipedia and Commons, disputing an image contained on 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. See also Commons:Village pump#Massacre revisionism/denialism in edits to file summaries. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Range block needed

Several IPs telling editors to Foff: 79.101.128.153 (talk · contribs), 79.101.150.85 (talk · contribs), 178.223.5.136 (talk · contribs), 79.101.150.85 (talk · contribs), 178.222.68.143 (talk · contribs), 109.92.197.183 (talk · contribs),all seems related t Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Igor Janev. Thanks, Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2014(UTC)

• Maybe they're right, Doug. Maybe we should just all fuck off. But I do always like a kiss-off before a "fuck off". Drmies (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Neil Gale and the Chicago Postcard Museum

• Neil Gale (talk · contribs)
• Chicago Postcard Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user holds himself out as the owner of the museum and has blanked the page twice claiming copyright infringement. I compared to the website and don't see where we've lifted any material from the website.

What I do see is that the user may be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, per this comment on Talk:Chicago Postcard Museum.

I don't think there's any validity to the copyright claim, but just to be safe, can I get some additional eyes on this? —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright law works. BMK (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A separate question, is the article subject notable? I've not looked into it in great detail, but perhaps it isn't which would solve the problem. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I looked at it and was wondering the very same. The article paints the subject as a museum when really it's a website. It got tagged as A7 when it was a new article, but it doesn't look like anybody ever sent it to PROD or AfD. While I personally think we should think hard about deleting something when someone related to the subject comes around making spurious arguments as to why it should be deleted... I'm not so sure here. Especially when it's out of the blue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe {{Notability}} is a good tag to put on the article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, and also ditched some of the fluff describing this website in terms more typical for a brick-and-mortar museum (though not to the point of being unfair towards other virtual museums). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just kicked this to AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably related to this, see Drgale, who evidently created an article on the Chicago Postcard Museum way back in 2007 (which got deleted per what sounds like A7; the log doesn't explicitly say A7). Probably the same person as Neil Gale. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem like the same person, since the curator of the museum is "Dr. Neil Jan Gale". If it had been created seven years later, it would have been deleted quickly, under WP:CSD#A7. Epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

And Gale just confirmed at the AfD that his blanking is at least in part out of frustration due to the article on his current pet project (a Facebook page) got AfD'd. Not that there was much doubt considering the timing of the events (see my discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Postcard Museum). Anyway I don't think further admin action is needed: this guy is probably going away once the AfD closes anyway, and it's not like his !vote is disrupting the AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The guy's still at it. I've collapsed the most recent series of accusations (disclaimer: these were mostly aimed at me personally). I think regardless of the outcome, consideration should be given to the fact that this individual is clearly not here to contribute to writing an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've opened a case at WP:SPI on this. Ivanvector (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I should note that "I've screen captured this entire Article for Deletion conversation for my future use" could be taken as being intended to cause a chilling effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the guy's trying to get me (or others) steamed. I regret that I fed into it with one response, but at this point I'm just collapsing non-!vote discussion that takes place. As to the SPI, I don't think there's much need for it... it's clear they're the same, and they haven't really been used for disruption. The guy just abandoned one account, as Bushranger indicates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Promotional username and edits

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

The editor above has been making edits to the financial facts in the infoboxes of major corporations in line with the ideals of a commercial enterprise with the same name and goals, xbrl.us/Pages/default.aspx. A typical edit looks like this with SEC sources in XBRL formatting. Beyond the obvious username violation, Tutelary queried their edits on their talk page a few days ago and has received only a limited reply which included an admission that some of the information added is out-of-date. Some of the information being replaced seems both newer and more accurate. The rapid-fire editing has resulted in numerous changes that ignore long-standing talk page consensus about various sources and the presentation of specific financials.

I'm not saying there isn't any value in what they're contributing but significant changes without any discussion with an obvious agenda are troubling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I queried them is because they were doing 4-5 edits a minute, and that much information I don't think can be added manually in that time span. My original concern was that they were using/operating as a bot, but didn't have the bot flag. Just a clarification, I questioned them on it today, not a few days ago. Here's their response: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tutelary&oldid=612008638#Bot.3F Tutelary (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, yes you did. I'm applying my Australian clock and I'm half way through the 8th. Your original concerns were and are valid, I think. And my concerns remain. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

It would appear 112.207.48.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Jeuzreel Villasante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP's edits have been exclusively removing sockpuppet notices on the userpages of confirmed socks of JV. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That does look suspicious. I've blocked the IP. De728631 (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing this revision history I wish we could block the block the whole 112.207.* range but then that would probably affect loads of uninvolved connections. De728631 (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Cody Legebokoff

The article, Cody Legebokoff, appears to be in violation of WP:BLP and WP:Libel. I am an administrator and could clear up the article itself, but I am rarely active here any more and am less familiar with those policies than others are. My specific concerns about the article are that we use the serial killer infobox, we claim he has four victims and has been convicted of crimes when, I believe, he's plead not guilty and has not yet had a trial. And we have a section on 'Victims' rather than 'Alleged Victims'. I believe it's justifiable bringing these issues up on this noticeboard rather than on the article's talk page because of the seriousness of calling someone a serial killer when they may be not guilty. So, could someone more knowledgeable than me tackle this particular issue? Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it libel (the wordings in the article are fairly careful), but you're right: WP:BLPCRIME does indicate that for living persons accused of but not convicted of a crime, we should seriously consider not creating an article. It may be AfDable per WP:PERP as well. Even if convicted, it's likely that the appropriate place would be an article about the crimes rather than the perpetrator. In short, this article should probably be deleted; if the crimes are notable, the content may be moved to an article about the crimes. If convicted, it may be worth creating a redirect. If acquitted, it's likely that neither an article nor redirect would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also notified the article creator of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I WP:BOLDly removed the infobox, since that almost undeniably needed doing. Neutral to other matters, but even if all other content is appropriate (again, I WP:DGAF what we do to/with the article), the infobox failed (at a minimum) WP:V and (to a degree) WP:CRYSTALBALL. I have added it to my watchlist, mainly to ensure the infobox stays out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion via the AFD process as per WP:BLPCRIME. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: The creator (BlueSalix) has now moved the article to Trial of Cody Legebokoff. I'm not sure where that leaves the current AfD.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor also marked the move of the article as a minor edit, and a move is not a minor edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trial_of_Cody_Legebokoff&diff=611917657&oldid=611917623 Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That was a clerical error on my part for which I apologize; see my explanation below in response to EdJohnston's observation. BlueSalix (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That move seems POINTy to me. Like the title, the changes to article just rephrase a few things to change the putative subject. The only acceptable article I could see is an article about the crimes, which would take great care in mentioning this person who is accused of and being tried for said crime. It is, for all intents and purposes, bullshit, and given this comment it's clear that the article creator, BlueSalix, just did it to "invalidate" every prior !vote. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure if the move of the article during the AfD is serious enough for an admin to move the article back and apply move protection, but it's on the border. Clearly it would have been fine for User:BlueSalix to propose during the AfD that 'Trial of Cody Legebokoff' would be a better title for the material, but he did not follow that route. As the creator of the article he should know better. Moving an article during an AfD breaks some links and messes up the AfD closure scripts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed absolutely that that would be the correct order of action, EdJohnston. That's why, in fact, (#1) I did propose it prior to executing the move (see my comment at 02:05, 7 June 2014 in the AfD), (#2) four hours later, a second editor concurred with the proposal (see his comment at 06:53, 7 June 2014 in the AfD). Only at that point was the article renamed. The one editor lobbying that the renaming is a WP:POINT issue that demands "sanction" [sic] has consistently obfuscated this sequence of events in the descriptions she's offered at the AfD and the ANI, creating an obvious question of WP:GAME (as per WP:BOOMERANG), in my mind. Regards - BlueSalix (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that another editor agreed with the renaming/moving did not create consensus that a move was appropriate. I disagree that that rename was appropriate. I would have favored the writing of a different article, describing the murders, with only an incidental mention of the suspect and the pending trial. The purpose of the AFD is to obtain consensus. As EdJohnston says, moving an article while a deletion discussion is pending is disruptive. I suggest letting the deletion discussion run its course, with no need to previous Delete !votes to be re-justified. I suggest that User:BlueSalix be blocked until the deletion discussion runs its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I was responding, specifically, to EdJohnston's observation "clearly it would have been fine for User:BlueSalix to propose during the AfD that 'Trial of Cody Legebokoff' would be a better title for the material, but he did not follow that route" by agreeing that would have been fine, showing that it was indeed the route I followed, and to apologize that the sequence of events was obfuscated by the selective description offered in the WP:POINT lobbying which another editor has decided to pursue. Secondly, I think a holistic reading of the AfD would establish to a reasonable person that there was consensus for a renaming, as four individuals have thus far called for such a renaming and no one has objected. I kindly ask all editors make the choice to keep this discussion to topic and not try to kneecap the other side of the debate by ginning up things that need "sanction" [sic]. This is a collaborative process, not BattleWiki. And, for my part, I do not suggest Robert McClenon or Mendaliv be blocked. I trust they will accept this note of guidance in the spirit in which it was intended, continuing to offer their excellent input while choosing to responsibly limit their demands for sanctions and blockings. Thanks, Robert McClenon. BlueSalix (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I object to the renaming. It is quite true that this should be a collaborative process. Renaming/moving an article while its deletion is being discussed is not collaborative. There had not been a WP:SNOW consensus that renaming was appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong in correcting or rectifying the genesis of an AfD complaint during the discussion process; our goal is to improve WP not to make sure our AfDs make it through. Also, Robert, I hope you don't mind but I went ahead and notified all the substantial contributors in the Legebokoff article that an AfD had been opened, as per WP:AFDHOW. I noticed you made the choice not to do that when you AfD'ed this article. Despite that, I continue to believe you have a valuable perspective to contribute and am choosing, in the spirit of deescalation, not to reciprocate your demand I be blocked by derailing the discussion with similar demands of my own. I encourage you to join me in thoughtful dialog and collaboration, which I think you will find has a better chance of improving this article than demanding others be blocked. Thanks, Robert McClenon! BlueSalix (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian.thomson. I agree the infobox was inappropriate (as was the category tag "Canadian serial killers"). BlueSalix (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Some admin take a look at this? Weird talk page behavior.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Va%C4%8Dice_Vejvan%C4%8Dice <- The user is a blocked sock puppet but appears to be consistent in editing their talk page, transcluding an administrator's comment as a reply to their own, when in reality they never commented on the user. Additionally, there is a large amount of non-English contributions and tons of images added, as well transcluding parts of User:Vejvančický's talk page. I'm confused on what to do about it, so I sought to bring it here for the overview of other administrators. Tutelary (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Reverted page, revoked talk page access, pointed them to UTRS. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess this could be closed then. I just wasn't sure what to do, didn't know if this was the right place. Tutelary (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the right place, you did it the right way (including notifying him), kept it short and completely on topic, which made it easy to resolve quickly. Perfect way to handle it. Someone will come along and close it in a bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just received a legal threat over the phone about Yank Barry

The caller refused to identify himself, but "just wanted to let me know" that legal action would proceed tomorrow. I directed him to the Wikipedia legal department, but he insisted that it would be directed toward editors. - Richfife (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• A recent SPA
• A slightly less recent SPA

Neither of them seem to be on the verge of throwing around legal threats, though.

If you should get any more phone calls, do also let them know about the talk page or about OTRS (not in those words). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also let them know that editing to balance the article properly continues - I've just blanked large parts of it per WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was undue weight, and use of primary sources, but some of the information removed appeared to be properly sourced - mainstream, non-tabloid newspapers - including one described as a newspaper of record, and was relevant to the article. Peter James (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No good being appeared to be properly sourced. Get it right, then include it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're asserting that it was "not properly sourced", but not getting into specifics. How is it not properly sourced? The sources look fine to me and to multiple other editors. Almost none of the text removed by you was added by me, by the way. - Richfife (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to notify the WMF legal department at legalwikimedia.org or, if you feel it is urgent, at emergencywikimedia.org where someone will make sure the right people see it. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: please do not contact emergencywikimedia.org except to report serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc. We cannot help with legal threats. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Struck. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Richfife, have you ever put your phone number on Wikipedia as a contact number? I ask because if you haven't, something is seriously wrong here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not. However, as a personal point, I make sure I am easy to contact. I'm in the phone book, etc. As I mentioned though, there was no caller ID and the caller refused to identify themselves. So far, just a single data point. An attempt at a chilling effect, I assume. - Richfife (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Has there been any particularly belligerent users or IPs editing about Yank Barry as of late? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Could be, could be - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You might do some Googling on your name and phone number. Someone out there might be bragging about having heckled you.--v/r - TP 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh. Let 'em heckle. - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: "User:Richfife encouraged people to "heckle" him in person, and then they did so". Excuse me? Since when is having a listed phone number an invitation to heckle? All I said was I didn't care, not that I was encouraging it. Is there any actual evidence that I'm being heckled? I just checked and came up with nothing. Yank Barry has a history of attempting to shut down criticism and there's no evidence that this isn't more the same. - Richfife (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess what, buddy. Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy... we don't care about your cause any more than anyone else does. Begone! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that this was an off Wikipedia legal threat directed at multiple editors and needs to be taken seriously, right? - Richfife (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am taking it hugely seriously. Just look at my face. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the deletions made by Demiurge1000 [117] being overreaction to the threat. It's well cited that the subject of the article was convicted of extortion. The Texas prison deal is also well cited. That deletion should have been discussed on Talk first. This article has been the subject of massive COI editing, extensive sockpuppeting, and is about someone who is heavily into self-promotion (he has a PR agency and is having a movie made about himself) and multi-level marketing. It was originally created by an SPA as a promotional piece, mentioned as such on the COI board, and then a number of experienced editors started finding more info about the article's subject. That's how we got here. John Nagle (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, see WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly in regards to this edit, you've been repeatedly nakedly asserting that the sourcing isn't good enough and not responding to people pointing out that the sourcing seems fine and asking for more detail. Are you too busy in real life right now? What's going on? - Richfife (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above brief "No" could use some expansion. Let's discuss the content issues on Talk:Yank Barry. Thanks. As for the threat, I've edited the Yank Barry article, I edit under my own name and am easy to contact, and haven't received any threats. John Nagle (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what Demiurge1000 means to say is WP:COATRACK. We have a BLP subject here where 85% of the article is negative. Per WP:UNDUE, the article needs to be balanced. The negative info needs to be rewritten in the way that it doesn't hijack the article disproportionate to this person's life.--v/r - TP 06:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If ~85% of media coverage of the subject is negative, "balancing" the article would be what would make it POV/UNDUE. (Not saying that's necessarily the case in this particular case, but an "85% negative article" is not, necessarily, automatically UNDUE.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had much the same concerns as TParis since I first got involved at the article. It used to be more blatant, the article was using the "criminal" infobox and the lead focused more heavily on his legal problems. The difficulty we keep running into is that there are two kinds of sources for Yank Barry. There are independent sources which are overwhelmingly negative, and there are press releases (or news articles that cite press releases) that are positive. It's difficult to get a balanced article when the press is focused on the problems he's had, and when there is a very blatant PR campaign to improve his image (a PR campaign that extends to Wikipedia; the article has been hit multiple times by sockpuppets connected to his organization as well as this recent personal threat against Richfife). I first got involved in the article from a request at WP:COIN because of those problems. I wish there was reliable coverage of such basic biographical information as his childhood and family, his marital history, even his musical and business career. Maybe someone with better resources and/or research skills can help out. -- Atama頭 15:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To help illustrate how widespread the problem at the article has been, here is a list of single-purpose accounts who have only edited this article or edited other articles related to Yank Barry, just in 2014 (there were more in the past):

• Gogvc (talk · contribs) - Since blocked for being a promotional account, username matches the domain name of Yank Barry's charity organization web site.
• Theprincessmom1 (talk · contribs) - A CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Gogvc, also blocked.
• Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) - The original creator of the article, now blocked for "editing against consensus, likely COI, plugging of one subject, etc.".
• Fmrjournalist (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Accurateinfo973.
• Npl10 (talk · contribs) - Not blocked, and admittedly not editing promotionally, has only edited to remove information about an upcoming film Barry is allegedly producing.
• Bestmomever (talk · contribs) - A suspected sock puppet of Gogvc, CU says it is a "likely" match to Gogvc, the SPI case is awaiting administration.
• BeadCatz (talk · contribs) - Just showed up today, editing in a very promotional manner and without sources.

Again, this is just since January of this year. And this only includes the accounts, there have been numerous IPs making such edits, and there have been similar SPAs editing since the article's creation in 2010, including those whose usernames blatantly connected them to Barry's organization. -- Atama頭 17:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and new SPA BeadCatz (talk · contribs) just re-inserted the bogus info which Atama had just deleted. [118] The subject of the article employs a PR agency ("The Publicity Agency", Tampa, FL)[119] to polish his image, and that does seem to extend to Wikipedia. We've been to COIN twice, AN/I three times, and sockpuppet investigations as listed above. The edits driven by the PR effort are so inept and heavy-handed that they're more annoying than effective. Kind of like the anonymous phone threat. It may be time for semi-protection, just to reduce the noise level. John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I warned BeadCatz after they violated WP:3RR at the article (they have reverted 4 other editors today). Another revert and I'll report at WP:ANEW (I won't bother to report someone for violating it if they hadn't been alerted to the rule first, especially a new editor - I assume they are new). Having SPAs show up to edit war and insert promotion isn't unusual at this article, unfortunately, and it's one reason why it has been a challenge to constructively develop it. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, BeadCatz, with a Wikipedia career of 2 hours, just hit 4RR at Yank Barry.[120]. They've been reverted by three different editors, and given multiple warnings. Please pull their plug, and I'd suggest a week of semi-protection so we can do something else for a while. John Nagle (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that the account was created in 2012. Are we dealing with a marketing firm sock farm?--v/r - TP 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the other possible socks listed above. All the others were newly registered, except for the one that created the Yank Barry article four years ago. John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs). It's like drinking from an SPA firehose. - Richfife (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the Dr did make two other edits prior to posting to the Yank Barry talk page, to unrelated articles (the biographies of a professional wrestler and an American football player). So this doesn't fit the pattern of previous SPAs. Though it does seem odd to show up out of nowhere to make practically the same argument of older SPAs. Also, I checked the creation log and the new account was created 4 hours before the block of BeadCatz so that doesn't suggest block evasion to me. -- Atama頭 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the possibility they learnt the trick many SPAs learn of at least trying to appear interested in other stuff can't be ruled out. The account creation is interesting. Creating before a block isn't a definite sign that it isn't block evasion since it isn't uncommon among block evaders, particularly persistent ones, to create and perhaps even start using a sleeper before they are blocked. Particularly if it's clear they are likely to be blocked. However it seems BeadCatz only had one edit, to their sandbox, when the new account was created so it doesn't seem it was obvious they would be blocked, unless perhaps they'd been around long enough to recognise that there's a fair chance the BeadCatz would be quickly blocked. Alternatively, they may have been hoping for multiple simultaenous socks. Another possibility is there's some degree of meatpuppetry and the SPAs actually belong to at least 2 different people. In which case the BeadCatz and Dr could be different editors. Either way while it may be premature to block, I think the Dr account should be carefully monitored, although I also wonder if it will stay around anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards meatpuppetry right now, but the fairly advanced level of the edits (properly formatted external link summaries for instance) makes me wonder. - Richfife (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The new "Dr Gonzo5269" editor is commenting on the talk page, not editing the article. We can try to communicate with them. That's progress. I put a note to the Yank Barry PR operation on User_talk:BeadCatz#Promotional_editing, pointing out that what they're doing is counterproductive. Maybe they'll engage more. Note to Barry's PR operation, if you're reading this: Get one account, make it clear you represent Barry, and discuss what you want to say on Talk before editing the article. You might get somewhere. Using lots of new accounts making hit and run edits is not going to get you anywhere. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out I am a new account so I'm not totally clear what the issue is here but I do not appreciate my name being thrown around in this manner. I have many interests on Wikipedia. I am a fan of Steve Van Zandt and it was through following him I heard of Yank Barry. I remembered liking the song "Louie Louie" as a kid. I began to do some research and it was from that I learned of the multiple Noble Peace Prize nominations which I happen to find rather impressive. Any info I post about Yank Barry will be something that has been reported in the past. I do know the Richfife account replied to my post in a heartbeat. Does he have something against Yank Barry? From my limited initial research I have found mostly positive information about Yank Barry. He seems to be genuinely helping the refugees from Syria. I will continue my research as I am now thoroughly intrigued by this whole ordeal. I do not see why there is a fight here or why some editors are against Yank Barry. Having said that I am not a meat puppet, a sock puppet, and I certainly didn't call anyone. As long as I cite my sources I don't see any problem with having a positive opinion about Yank Barry, Stephen Neal, Ben Askren, or anyone else I decide to take an interest in. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Richfife continues adding unsourced material on BLP Yank_Barry

This user is clearly violating BLP rules and directly going against WP BLP rules. He has made a claim that the subject filed bankruptcy. This is a serious accusation on a BLP page. It must be backed up with actual and real court documents of the bankruptcy filing and charge off. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. But USer:Richfife continues to ignore this. This is not the first instance of his complete disregard for the serious nature of such actions on a BLP. There is a zero tolerance policy on this matter as outlined by Jimmy Wales policy here: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

This page has seen so much negative and clearly biased postings aimed at causing financial harm to the subject. I went through the entire Talk:Yank_Barry#Nobel_Peace_Prize_nominee and was shocked to see this statement by User:Richfife, Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. on 03:59, 14 April 2014. This user should be blocked immediately to maintain the integrity of WP. (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

And how do we know you're not hired by Yank Barry to whitewash his article, hm? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Same way I might ask, Jeske, why I should trust you to be balanced and neutral about a topic of this nature? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC to Demiurge) Ganberreh has, including this An/I post, 6 edits to his name, all about or on the talk page of Yank Barry, all made today despite the account being made on 23 May. If you've read the above thread, then you should know that there is a serious concern that that article is the centre of a concerted PR campaign, so a new editor coming on and joining the debate pro-Barry should be put under more scrutiny than normal. I suspect Ganberreh is associated with the PR campaign. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a WP:RS reliable source for the bankruptcy.[121] It's an article in ArtNews written by a notable Bloomberg writer, William D. Cohan. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The material on the bankruptcu is sourced, is sourced to a reliable source (the Montreal Gazette), and has been since it was added. The claim that we need court documents rather than newspaper coverage is a call for primary sources over secondary one, which flies right in the face of WP:SECONDARY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Montreal Gazette is not reliable until you can proof it. That is a basic common need for all editors to be comfortable with the accuracy of the information. Unless you can get a copy of it an upload for reading, it is not reliable. If we accept this, there will be no end to editors say, "trust me" I have the backup. the burden is on you to backup your content, not the other way around. That is a basic requirement, you know that. Then ArtNews, if that one passing statement is accepted, then all passing statements on all the other articles written in so many articles I have found on CNN should be admitted. But those have been struck out claiming them to be not well sourced. We cannot have double standards and selective here. The standards of source acceptance need to apply to keep this page neutral. (Ganbarreh (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

from WP:OFFLINE "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. In fact, many great sources are only available offline." If you want to confirm an offline source, then you should be the one that looks through the Montreal Gazette's news archives. To claim that a source is not reliable because it is not online is complete WP:BULLOCKS. —Farix (t | c) 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is the burden of the editor who posted it to back up and confirm the source. (Ganbarreh (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

No it's not, Ganbarreh, please read WP:BURDEN. Per the footnote there, "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)." At this point, you are the one with the obligation, per our verifiability policy. And you have two different sources to dispute now. -- Atama頭 16:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As Atama has stated, Richfife has met his end of WP:BURDEN by providing a reference to a reference to a reliable, third-party source. You, however, are not assuming good faith by claiming that because the source is not online, it must be "fake" without providing any evidence to support your argument. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We are threatening his livelihood and rightly so

That's a quote. Is that what Wikipedia is for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is a partial quote, missing an opening parenthesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a reliable source for Barry's sources of income being somewhat sketchy, a CTV expose from 2002.[122] Excerpt: "Barry then went after the better life with a vengeance. Today as a member of the ultra-exclusive Ocean View Golf Club, Barry claims he makes his money from VitaPro and managing offshore investments. But many people say that's just a cover. They think Yank Barry is just a smooth talker with questionable business practices. Investigative journalist David Marchant is one of the few reporters keeping an eye on the world of offshore banking...". The details follow at the link given. That CTV article is far, far more negative on Barry than the Wikipedia article. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade: It was a wildly inappropriate comment on my part and I admit it. What I wanted was to point out was that this was a situation that was likely to spin out of control and I semi-consciously resorted to overheated language to make my point. I wound up making rather more points that I intended to. That being said, this is not a case where I'm standing on the mountaintop crusading solo against Barry. Many, many people are watching the article from both sides and I hope that we are all watching each other's backs to make sure we don't go over the line when it comes to the article itself. - Richfife (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem with SPAs at that article. Agreed? There's also a problem with SPAs getting riled up to participate there because they think people biased against them are dominating the discussion there.

Did you give them a very good reason to think that? Yes.

Is there a lack of people willing and able to deal with the SPA problem there? No.

Richfife, would it hurt you a great deal to take a break from that article for a month or two?

The same question for the other accounts that have made a very large number of edits there recently.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And you think that the endless stream of pro-Berry SPAs is going to take a break from the article because you ask then to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The semi-protection will help. Since I'm not obsessed with the topic (and really don't care about it at all), I quite frankly have absolutely no objection to it being full protected until the SPAs (and other obsessives) get bored enough to either go away or discuss it properly on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to think about it for a bit, but I'm leaning towards no for a number of reasons. First, whether you want to take it seriously or not, there was an effort to scare both myself and a number of other unnamed editors off the article IRL in the form of a threatening phone call. This brings things perilously close to negotiating with terrorists. Second, given the suspicion of of sockpuppetry, it's not clear who the editors with large numbers of edits actually are. Third, comment on the edits, not the editor. As of late, the majority of my edits to the article proper have been either obviously neutral or positive in nature. Fourth, lets call another spade a spade, I don't think you're particularly objective about me either. "Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy" doesn't exactly line up with the changes I've made to the page. I hadn't even heard of him until a routine run of edits to remove non-notable Nobel peace prize nominations sparked an explosion. - Richfife (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've only made three edits on Yank Barry during May 2014. I'd been looking at business-related COI problems from WP:COIN, such as Banc de Binary, Riak, and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, where, like Yank Barry, there's heavy promotional editing. I've made lots of comments on the Yank Barry talk page after finding sources, and I've been on WP:COIN, WP:ANI, and WP:BLPN due to the COI/SPA/sock problems. I'd never heard of Yank Barry until the article popped up on WP:COIN. There's general consensus from the editors involved who have a track record on Wikipedia outside Yank Barry articles. Disagreements are hammered out on talk. There's no edit warring going on between any non-SPA accounts. All the trouble is coming from editors with very narrow editing interests. It's not clear how those editors are connected, but it's clear that as soon as one is blocked, another pops up. Admins, figure out a way to get us out of whack-a-mole mode. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that Richfife currently faces bullying in the form of legal threats, I support his brave decision to stay with the article. We should stand against such attempts to control who is involved in Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I seem to possibly be among the group mentioned in a post above, I will respond. I only care about the verifiable facts on any article I edit on Wikipedia. I only care about how articles reflect on Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia. Sometimes when I find articles that are not as good as they could be, then I'll try to fix the issues whatever they are - that's what I'm here for...to edit. If other editors misinterpret my efforts to source statements, to keep a dispassionate tone, to maintain a neutral point of view in any Wikipedia article, as being either for or against any issue or person, that has not ever been nor ever will be my intent. I have attempted to discuss my edits on Yank Barry on its associated talk page. I have attempted to place Welcome templates on any new editor's talk page who edits the article. I have done nothing on the Yank Barry article that would necessitate my having to take a break from editing it, I have done nothing there that I need to apologize for. Shearonink (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Progress

There's been a little progress. We have some new editors working on the article, Editingisthegame (talk · contribs) (5 days on Wikipedia, made a few edits on other articles before focusing on Barry-related articles) and Ganbarreh (talk · contribs) (4 days on Wikipedia, Barry-related articles only). These new editors write on talk pages and can be argued with. This is an improvement over the previous long string of rather inept SPAs and socks. The new editors demonstrate some expertise with Wikipedia, so they're probably not really new. We'll see what happens next. It looks like we don't need admin intervention right now, but please keep watching the article. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Ganbarreh reminds me so very, very much of Accurateinfo973, who also argued extensively on the article talk page. In particular, this comment to me smells fishy, with the phrase "malicious campaign" reminding me of this comment from Accurateinfo973 talking about a "smear campaign". The tendentious repetition of the same argument is also similar. I've been debating whether or not to make another entry at the SPI, I'm thinking I will now.

In the case of Editingisthegame, though, I don't feel like this editor is the same. They're new, yes, but they aren't focused on Yank Barry, nor are their edits promotional; to the contrary they've been arguing against Ganberreh too. They've been pretty even-handed both on the discussion page and on the main article, and I welcome their input. -- Atama頭 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I may have written my comment above too soon. Today we have new EditorLouisiana (talk · contribs), editing only the talk page of Yank Barry. The general editing trend of the SPAs is 1) insist that Barry was a member of The Kingsmen, and 2) keep the "Nobel peace prize nomination" in the article. It's going to be a long summer. John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As a relatively new person, I knew I would be open to suspicion the moment I posted something into the Yank Barry page. I read through the history of this page in all of the forms. My goal is to bring in honest, credible information to all the posts I am apart of on this website. These biography pages will be most people's first stop when researching people, so the information should not be full of promotional content and uncheck facts. My intent was not to rock any sort of boat. I do not mean to insist anything out of my discussions on the talk page other than facts that have sources. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Editingisthegame: I appreciate your contributions and I hope you continue your participation at the article, we can use your help. :) -- Atama頭 15:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Posts like this one[123] shows that @Ganbarreh: is not showing any form of good faith relating to editors adding sources mentioning Barry's court case. Not sure what remedy there is for this short of blocking. But he has been told repeatedly in multiple venues by multiple editors now that sources don't have to be online to be reliable. But instead, he goes WP:IDHT.[124][125] —Farix (t | c) 11:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Ganbarreh and sleeper account BlyMyShy (talk · contribs) as  Confirmed socks of Accurateinfo973.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ponyo you are again my hero. :) I was in the middle of doing SPI and gathering up evidence for Ganberrah when I noticed that you'd already blocked them for being a sockpuppet of Accurateinfo973. Thanks again! -- Atama頭 15:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're doing all the heavy-lifting in actually dealing with all of these sock farms and COI editors, I'm just pushing some buttons.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

May want to look at EditorLouisiana (talk · contribs), another SPA that suddenly got involved in the Yank Barry article making the same exact arguments as Ganbarreh. —Farix (t | c) 21:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs) may also be another sock as they are making the same WP:QUACKing sounds as the other two. —Farix (t | c) 21:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo! Can you check for socks one more time as of now? I'm really making an effort to keep my paranoia to a minimum. Honest. - Richfife (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the Yank Berry article is that it is replete with SPAs that are likely being canvassed offline; in other words, more WP:MEAT than WP:SOCK. The two accounts I named above are the only two socks explicitly tied to the Accurateinfo973 account. Remember, you don't need a positive CU results to block accounts for being disruptive SPAs. It may make the determination to block easier, but it's certainly not necessary.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is a case of WP:MEATpuppetry, wouldn't it be better to place the article under semi-protection? —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It is already. The article itself is fairly quiet. The talk page and legal front less so. - Richfife (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sick to death of being called a meat or sock puppet. I have nothing to do with any other account on Wikipedia, this is my first one. I have nothing to do with Yank Barry and have not met him or any other living person who's page I have contributed. I went to school and studied research and writing. I happen to have an opinion that differs from another editor and that means I must be a sock? I have done nothing that hasn't been sourced and cited. I simply do not understand why if an editor supports anything positive about Yank Barry the reaction is to run to admin and try to get that editor blocked. What have I posted anywhere that is disruptive? I have posted nothing but opinions based on factual research and because it is positive I must be a puppet? That is ridiculous! How about having a discussion about why your opinion differs from mine as opposed to running and telling mom the socks are on the loose? I have posted zero fluff. I have not been on any sort of campaign for information that is not factual. This is absurd. I've contributed to several other living person's pages with positive, factual information and had no issues. I've repeatedly stated that I don't know what went on with this page in the past, but in the present I have done nothing to suggest fluff, socks, or meat. Can editors really not have differing thoughts on this topic? Absolutely ridiculous. I'll ask again, please refrain from dragging my username into this nonsense. I have posted nothing that is disruptive or not backed up by sourced, factual information. It was my understanding that editors were to assume good faith and I do not feel I've been given that benefit of the doubt. I've had to respond to my username being thrown around in this matter three times and that is silly on an encyclopedia page when I've posted nothing that is not cited or sourced. I've made zero arguments for any point that is not cited or sourced.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: To my knowledge nobody has directly accused you of anything yet. Here are the facts: we have an ongoing problem at the Yank Barry article where a series of accounts have been pushing a particular positive point of view, with the intention of removing any negative information about Mr. Barry and inserting positive propaganda generated by his public relations people. You should be well aware of this fact, it has been repeated to you more than once. So when a new account appears at that article (yet one more out of what is approaching at least a dozen such accounts) we are going to be suspicious. It would be foolish not to be.

My initial involvement with the article was to make it more positive (after I removed some bogus awards that his PR folks had inserted into the article that don't seem to exist), see here. The article initially had more of an emphasis on his criminal activity which I felt was overly negative. I didn't get any real resistance from my suggestions to change that. I then altered the infobox myself from "criminal" to "musician", and removed the info about his 10 months in prison from the infobox, because it was too negative. On the talk page, I've cautioned people about making the article too negative, and worked to include positive information. You can see here where I support including information about the play he produced in the 70s (and finding another source to support it). I argued that we should not have an entire section of the article devoted to an extortion conviction, and I lamented our lack of basic personal information about him.

My goal, and the goal of most editors at the article, is to make this into a good biography that is solidly sourced with interesting information. That has been repeatedly frustrated by the disruption caused by editors with the clear goal of promoting Mr. Barry. Maybe you aren't a member of that group of editors, but when you support their viewpoints and begin escalating your rhetoric by making some of the same accusations they have about other editors having a "negative agenda", yes, you are going to be poorly received. At this point you've given us reason to begin assuming poor faith on your part, if you want to be viewed differently then give us a reason. Stop lashing out as you have been and start trying to cooperate. Disagreeing is fine, it's how you disagree that matters. -- Atama頭 20:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Atama, let me apologize. The problem is I have sourced and cited everything I've said. I have not argued for anything that is untrue to be added. Anything I add get's deleted. That is very frustrating. What gives one person the overall say over what goes in and what does not? I am a little angry that editors do not assume good faith when I am not saying anything that isn't sourced! I have provided links to support my case. I am not running around posting fluff or absolutely anything that is untrue. It is very frustrating to be ratted out to admin (this is the 3rd time now) just because you happen to have a positive opinion about information that is easily cited. I'm going to keep trying to improve the page with positive, factual information that is cited and let editors keep deleting it. I am doing absolutely nothing wrong. If I say or post anything that is not fact then please, please call me out on it, but to this point I have done no such thing.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal theat, round 2

I have received a letter from Philip D. Dapeer, an attorney in the Los Angeles area. He writes "I write at the request of Mr. Yank Barry who has retained my law firm with respect to the negative and defamatory postings and edits you have made to Mr. Barry's web page on Wikipedia". ... "Mr. Barry is prepared to proceed forthwith with the filing of an appropriate action for defamation ..." Amusingly, Dapeer claims "Mr. Barry is not a public figure". The letter is addressed to three other persons besides myself, but I won't list them here due to Wikipedia's "outing" policy. More later. A copy of the letter has also supposedly been sent to the general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. This is going to be interesting. John Nagle (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also received that letter. The letter does indeed claim he's not a public figure, which is followed by a list of celebrities who might also be harmed, somehow. Kinda a mixed message there. Irritatingly, I have not linked my username with my real name, and I appreciate User:Nagle not outing me. I'm not naive enough to think that's any sort of protection from this silliness, but I'd still rather keep it that way. I've made a whopping 5 edits to the page itself, 2 being minor, none of which seem all that contentious. Most of my contributions have been to the talk page, most of which can be boiled down to "better sources should be found". I don't express a lot of patience for the parade of SPAs, but most of my comments have been part of an ongoing dialog with many other editors, so I'm frustrated that I've been singled out like this. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to imply that the other editors do deserve to be singled out! Sorry, that didn't come out right. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've sent a note off to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, with an image of the threatening letter. This is going to take some coordination, because four editors are named. That makes it important for the Foundation to be involved, because this isn't about one person doing something - it's about the overall operation of Wikipedia when faced by an aggressive PR push. Meanwhile, there's yet another brand-new Barry-only editor, Booknona (talk · contribs), but he's only editing on the talk page so far. I suggest semi-protection on the article while the legal dispute proceeds, as an appropriate interpretation of WP:NLT in the presence of heavy sockpuppeting. Sigh. John Nagle (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's already been semi-protected through August.--v/r - TP 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Should probably be locked completely for editor's protection at this point. Since every time an editor edits the page they are republishing the info, its the individual editors who are liable should the lawyers decide to get more serious. Its one thing denying threats of legal action, its another when they are clearly preparing to take it further. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's up to individual editors to determine if they are going to take that risk. If we lock a page for every legal threat, we're going to create a system where folks can get articles locked at will by paying a $20 court fee in the right district. Besides, Wikipedians don't need admin-type nannys telling them where they can or cannot edit for their own good.--v/r - TP 18:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, so perhaps sticking a disclaimer at the top of the article/talk/edit page 'edit and be warned lawyers are afoot'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As one of the people threatened, I'm not asking that the page be locked. A high visibility warning for "lawsuit threatened" would have a chilling effect. Doing either is a significant policy decision not to be made lightly. The talk page mentions the legal threat, so it's not a secret from editors. I've been in touch with several lawyers. More next week, after the lawyers report back. Meanwhile, don't panic. John Nagle (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Nagle. There really isn't anything that can be done until we have more info about the legal issues. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that those individuals threatened who are consulting with attorneys seek their attorney's clearance before posting any statement; nothing sucks more than getting hamstrung by your own client, especially on accident, because they said the wrong thing in a context not protected by attorney-client privilege. I think generally we may want to just call for a statement from the Foundation. (p.s., I am not a lawyer, etc.) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm cautious about that, but if you're too cautious, the people making legal threats win. Anyway, over at the article, there remain some editors that edit like SPAs, but for now they're being reasonably polite and not making big changes against consensus. The article still needs lots of experienced eyes on it, but no immediate admin actions seem necessary. (On an unrelated note, COI problems are building at Banc de Binary. If you have time, look over there.) John Nagle (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ghana

An editor Masssly (talk · contribs) has come on the Ghana page because he does not like the fact that it contains information about the Akan the countries largest ethnic group. They make of most of the population most of the nations history and culture is influenced by them, but this user is making agenda based edits. I am guilty of losing my temper and warring with him. ..I have been editing this article for a while and have encountered my share of issues. Most of them have been fighting but in the end we "kiss and make" but this editor has an ethnic agenda. I have never encountered like this. His whole agenda is to prevent the article from mentioning the Akan people. It doesn't make sense because article on mention them in sections that implies to them only. My guess is he he from another one of Ghana tribes and he does not like the Akan that's why he automatically began with disruptive behavior and removal of sources and well sourced content. He is hindering people from making contributions to the page.Looking at this past edits it seems to be a pattern so, I am requesting of administrative intervention Thesunshinesate (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have notified editor Masssly (talk · contribs) about this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesunshinesate (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Normally, I would say this is just a content dispute, but at a glance it does look like he is trying to remove many of the Akan mentions, sources and all. I noted that the number of mentions of the word "Akan" had doubled recently, so he may have a point on some of this as it might be WP:UNDUE. His tone in dealing with a variety of issues is very problematic, however, and you both seem to be in an edit war (along with others), and template bombing each other a bit. Regardless, I've fully protected the article for 4 days. The main problem is still content, and admin don't decide content, editors do. You both (and others) need to user the article talk page and hammer this out before someone gets blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Very true, also the places they are mentioned are mostly in demographics and culture. I don't think it a surprise that largest group in the nation will in these places they have influenced. It's impossible to talk about the languages of Ghana and leave out Akan languages which 80% of the people speak. This editor has started a pointless war..this is an encyclopedic article not a personal blog. It would be a different issue if they weren't facts. All the information is articulately sourced and it's the same information you will find in books and academic journals about the country. So this editor his hatred or agenda based edits against that particular ethnic group needed to stopThesunshinesate (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I linked WP:DUE for a reason. Just because something is able to be sourced doesn't mean you can include it. It is all about balance. Mentions of "Akan" are up over 50% in the last 2 or 3 months, so it is entirely possible it is overused. Again, for editors to decide, not admin. Go to the talk page of the article (after reading WP:DUE) and work it out, and if you can't, go to WP:DRN. If edit warring starts back, there will likely be blocks issued. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Got it, thanks. Thesunshinesate (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

69.118.194.22

User 69.118.194.22 has been editing disruptively, primarily at List of programs broadcast by Toonami. Some examples: In these edits the user adds unsourced content about Dragon Ball Z Kai, which they assert will air in Fall 2014 uncut. Per WP:CRYSTAL, future dates must be sourced. These sorts of "scoop" edits are a regular nuisance for WikiProject Television. Similar bits of information have been submitted numerously by other IPs, without proper sourcing. As a work-around, some of the pieces of information were left in the article markup, but were commented out so that they wouldn't appear in the article as unsourced content.

This suppression was reverted a few times by other IPs, and later they were reversed by this IP, but I'll get back to that in a second.

Unrelated to this editor's edits, I'd raised an objection about the column of Parental Ratings that were in the article (for example in this revision). I proposed they be removed because they don't seem verifiable per WP:V, most of the information came from the primary source, and MOS:TV explicitly discourages such lists. There was some discussion on the talk page, and I also invited WikiProject Television to contribute. The Parental Ratings were removed by 23W with a clear explanation, "removed ratings (regex: "\n\| ?TV-.*"→"") per WT:TV#Parental TV ratings at various kids' TV articles."

IP 69.118.194.22 reverted that edit without explanation here, then here. That was clearly disruptive.

They then removed the aforementioned suppressed, unsourced content here, then here, and then they juggled a reference around and apparently tried to sneak the information past in this edit by using a June 5th reference to support June 14th content. This editor appears to be asserting their own will, they haven't participated in any discussions and their edits are disruptive, overall. Since they are so adamant about what content is slated to be broadcast at Toonami on June 14, I'm requesting a block until June 15 to discourage this "gotta get the scoop" behavior. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi protecting the page till June 15 should do the trick in case they try IP hopping. Unless of course the IP is fairly static. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspect the user also made these edits from 24.0.102.136 as both IPs geolocate to New Jersey. I've requested page protection. The Toonami page isn't the only page they've been disruptive[126], though it is the main one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe I am being trolled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please read the entire discussion at Talk:Charlene,_Princess_of_Monaco#Statement. First, Blitztall ignores my attempts to discuss for five days. Then she or he refuses to address any argument I presented. I list eleven examples to back me up, but she or he dismisses them all as irrelevant and insists that I am pushing my "own personal subjective opinion" (pleonasm alert!). I ask why the examples are irrelevant three or four times, and each time she or he refuses to answer. "At the end of the day, it is still my opinion versus your opinion." I get that after citing 11 examples going back to 2007, clearly having proven what is an established practice; but no, she or he dismisses it as "my opinion". On top of that, her or his opinion is somehow superior to mine.

It feels like I am being trolled here. This is not a discussion of any sort. This is me rummaging through Wikipedia and official websites, only to be told: "I do not see the relevance in any of your examples or arguments [...] Let it be and waste your time on something else..." Just like that. "I am not going to discuss this further and I conclude therefore that no consensus has been reached." I am not really concerned about mild personal attacks; I am merely baffled by what can only be described as blatant trolling. I have no idea how to proceed. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and what you need in cases like these are more editors participating in the discussion and it looks like that is happening here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:DR. Liz is correct, wait for outside opinion. Posting this on ANI is likely to resolve nothing. —Dark 22:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that two editors have chipped in since I posted here. (Perhaps because I posted here?) I did request a third opinion two days ago, and got it, but Blitztall ignored it as much as he ignored me. I take it that you do not think this is a case of trolling? Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you assume good faith. Accusing someone of trolling when you are involved in a dispute with them is not helpful. Considering the outside opinion was given an hour ago, it is not unreasonable to think that Blitztall may not have seen it. Saying that he is ignoring the opinion is extremely misleading. —Dark 22:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting block for 172.3.208.11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

172.3.208.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP constantly adds unreferenced material to various articles on Wikipedia and has ignored multiple warnings on their talk page. After the last revert, which can be seen here, the editor proceeded to quickly revert changes without using "undo" as seen here. Warnings from Level 1 through 4 have been given. I feel temporarily blocking the user might be what it takes to get their attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, GoneIn60. I might have given a short attention-getting block if I'd seen your report sooner, but it looks like they haven't edited for several days now. I wouldn't be comfortable blocking them at this point. Perhaps you could alert somebody, for instance me on my page, if you should see them returning to these practices later? Bishonen | talk 23:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jazzerino's tedious editing of articles I've written and promoted to GA and FA

• Jazzerino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After Jazzerino's series of unexplained, tedious grammatical changes and unexplained removal in the articles Confusion (album) (like this on 19:43, 6 June 2014) and Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album) (and this on 17:50), I reverted them and posted a welcome and unexplained content removal warning, advising them to use an edit summary and the article talk page to discuss their changes, which incited them to start the first in a series of antagonistic responses calling me a bully and accusing me of ownership. They have not been civil or responsive at their talk page and proceeded to make more tedious changes exclusively to other articles they apparently noticed were listed at my user page, including:

• Coltrane for Lovers (20:55, 6 June 2014)
• Election Special (20:57, 6 June 2014)
• Let's Get It On (22:39, 6 June 2014)
• Sons of Soul (22:29, 6 June 2014)
• Brown Sugar (D'Angelo album) (22:27, 6 June 2014)
• Aaliyah (album) (22:28, 6 June 2014)
• Ocean of Sound (22:22, 6 June 2014)
• Marquee Moon (22:12, 6 June 2014)
• Agharta (album) (20:48, 6 June 2014)
• Dark Magus (22:21, 6 June 2014) *Rearrangement and revision of a section against what was cited.

Apart from a few jazz articles, Jazzerino's edits in the past 24 hours have been tedious unnecessary changes and to articles I rewrote to get them promoted. I have no idea who this user is going after articles listed at my user page, possibly a new account of someone I may have rubbed the wrong way in the past. I made an effort explaining to them they should discuss reverted changes at the talk page, but they've done nothing but edit war and make accusations. Dan56 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Without having an opinion (yet) on the actual behavior, I must disagree with the qualification of these edits as "tedious". This is an improvement, and so is this (the latter clearly indicates a difference between recording and producing, and in the case of Teo Macero the combination of the two was part of the process). Now, it may be that they're going through your edits, or it may be that they're going through jazz albums, or through FAs and GAs, or whatever. I'll look at the comments in a minute. BTW, that's a nice list of albums, though I still don't know what to think of Marquee Moon--maybe it's just not for me. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Well, as happens so often, action invites reaction. Their cries of "bullying" are silly--I hate that passive aggressive "I'm being repressed" whining, but you left them templates, so I'm not surprised they think (or pretend to think) that you're waving some official stick over their head. Now, this is not fun to hear, no doubt, but I think you are wrong in your assessment of their edits. The three or four I looked at were actual improvements. I think you two should try to get along since that will improve the project. Stop templating and Jazzerino, stop whining. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This is just a drive by comment having given zero look into the actual diffs so it deserves about as much attention as I've given in making it, however, despite whether the edits are improvements, is the behavior harassment, hounding, and antagonizing? Is Jazzerino trying to get a reaction out of Dan56 intentionally?--v/r - TP 18:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I've looked a dab more into this. 52 of Jazzerino's 82 edits, or 63.4% (57 edits and 69.5% to articles Dan56 has edited but aren't all listed on his userpage), have been to articles Dan56 has listed on his user page. That's a significant statistic that can't be explained simply by cross-interests in Jazz. Dan56's edits span multiple decades so there cannot be a specific sub-interest there. There are 25,115 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. Dan has edited a total of 12,802 articles total in his Wiki-career. Given the assumption that this is Dan's first time editing any page that wasn't a Jazz article (so, basically minus this post on ANI), we would be able to conclude that Dan56 has edited no more than 50.9% of all Jazz articles. Now, the reality is that the number is much smaller because I don't know how many unique non-article pages non-Jazz pages that Dan has edited, but we know for a fact that it cannot be more than 50.9%. So then, how could Jazzerino's 63.4% interaction be explained other than that he is following Dan56? As Dan56 is a very consisted contributor of some of our best content and has never been blocked for copyright violations or other behaviors that would be listed as an exemption under WP:HOUNDING, I think we can determine that Jazzerino's behavior is very inappropriately focused on Dan56 and I think that even if we can determine that Jazzerino is making helpful edits, their behavior is antagonizing and then should find somewhere else to be helpful.--v/r - TP 19:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you TParis: you're earned your slice of admin pie for the day. Jazzerino, you really need to drop by here for some comment lest you leave the impression that you're following Dan around. The numbers provided by TParis are pretty suggestive, and if you want us to accept your good faith, you'd do well to confirm that you are not attempting to harass Dan, which is what hounding is all about. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Would have to agree with Drmies. I see the changes as improvements, albeit minor ones. Just because the article is an FA, does not mean that it cannot be improved or changed for the better. Please remember it is a collaborative project, repeatedly templating good faith editors is just not good practice and often invites a hostile response. However I also do understand the concerns regarding a lack of communication over making changes, perhaps Jazzerino could do better in that respect by talking over the changes on the talk page. But Dan, you have to ask yourself whether pursuing this on ANI is really worth the effort - seems like an unnecessary escalation over very minor changes to me. As for concerns over hounding or harassment, maybe he just has similar musical interests and thought that working with higher quality articles that you have contributed to were a great starting place to pursue these interests? Maybe he is more comfortable improving existing content rather than cresting new content? I see nothing wrong with that, indeed I would take it as a compliment. Let's assume good faith here, I don't see any disruptive behaviour to suggest otherwise —Dark 19:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, only two of the albums I listed are jazz albums, so most of the articles he's been picking out of my user page appear to be outside the scope of someone's interest in jazz. This at Misterioso is hardly an improvement--I don't know how "choppy" (?) is being used properly in their edit summary, but what guideline is there against having a short sentence? Of the diffs I listed, how are any of them improvements? At their talk page, I made more personal messages than templated messages, which I thought are what we use for new users; to be clear, I only gave them a templated welcome and this one for deleting content without explaining why, which was completely warranted, before writing actual messages trying to reach them. Anyway, they've continued their tedious edits, including shifting a paragraph and rearranging a few phrases in an opening sentence, and this one to Agharta (album) which dramatically shortens a longer sentence, making me doubt their explanation or reasoning behind the "choppy" edit at Misterioso. Their pattern and type of editing, DarkFalls, makes it difficult to call them a good faith editor. And to respond to your concluding questions, maybe he should have said any of that himself when I asked him rather than writing me off as a bully, although his edit history shows that apart from the majority of articles associated with me, he's edited jazz articles I never have, so I don't think he's using my user page as a beginner's guide or w.e.. I've said "please" and "reconsider" and repeatedly asked nicely that he explain his questionable changes at the talk page. Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan, of course this is an improvement. "Choppy" is an accurate description of what they saw, but the rest of their edit summary is of course of the assholish kind. So, first of all, I haven't seen a single edit of theirs that was not an improvement. You spent a million words arguing something that you can't win and I understand why, but it's useless. What you needed to argue was hounding, and TParis had to do what work for you. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of the edits I listed Drmies were just superfluous diction and word rearrangements; the first edit listed was an arbitrary change from 200px to 185px of an image; the edit to Sons of Soul was placing a semicolon in front of a comma; the edit to Brown Sugar replaced the word "deal" with "contract", as with Aaliyah where they just replaced "finished recording" with "completed" (which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing that the source verifies). The edit to Ocean of Sound took "The" out of the linked The Village Voice ("the" is part of the newspaper's name). The changes to Marquee Moon were clearly not an improvement, and the edit to Dark Magus rearranged and misattributed what the sources cited actually said, including Jazzerino's erroneous change of what label actually released the album. Not improvements, but then again it is difficult to improve an article when an editor's cares more about using them to spite another editor. Dan56 (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Account blocked for 48 hours. Just today, Jazzerino has ignored this thread and made an additional 9 edits out of his 12 edits today to articles that Dan56 only just contributed to yesterday. That tells me this editor is clearly hounding Dan. I've given them a 48 hour block. If they return to editing nearly exclusively to articles Dan56 is editing, I'm just going to indef the account. Any objections?--v/r - TP 04:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That sounds about right. No objections here. De728631 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • His failure to communicate is a definite problem. But could we have warned him better of the consequences of his edits and poor communication? Probably. But it is your judgement call and I'll respect that. —Dark 04:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Some editors are simply too stubborn and appear to ask for a block, which was mentioned in the edit warring message I made to them, that they unsurprisingly removed. Dan56 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• • The block is fine. Attempts to discuss have been made. The edits were fine by themselves but the behavior was not: one wonders whether this editor has been here before. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that Dan56 edits 50% of all jazz articles but if anyone edits too many that he has they get blocked. I though Wikipedia articles were open for all to edit. I was not following Dan56, but when he reverted almost all the work that I had done I did edit a few of his GAs, to show that I can be of help with some of his poor syntax. I am confused here, so can this please be explained. Do I need to ask Dan's permission to edit pages he has worked on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.200.23.75 (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't evade your block by editing using your IP address. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that Drmies should be congratulating TParis. A closer look at the editor interactions cited as evidence of hounding reveal a 20-hour gap between Dan56's edits and Jazzerio's. Dan followed Jazzerino within two hours to revert their work, which I also question. Is it valid to revert helpful edits on the suspicion that the account might be following your edits? Also, are we saying that 30% of Jazzerino's edits are to pages that Dan has never edited, but that 70% is too high for coincidence? Dan has edited not just 50% of all jazz pages, he's edited every one of major consequence, so the chances that an editor who is interested in jazz articles will only edit 50% of the same ones Dan has edited is an embarrassing logic fail, and not something that should be applauded. On the other hand, Dan's wholesale reversion of all of Jazzerino's edits made to pages he "edited first" could be seen as disruptive and boomerang worthy. Compounding this is the issue that Jazzerino was never warned by an admin, he was just template by Dan56, which seems to have confused and frustrated Jazzerino, fanning the flames that led to this questionable block. Really though, a block of 48 hours without warning for a new account that has never been in trouble before is extreme in the least, and if this account is good-faith its disruptive to the project, as they will likely never edit again with this harassment charge. This ostensibly indeffs the account, if not from editing from credibility, which is at times the only currency of value here. In closing, doesn't "articles I've written and promoted to GA and FA" smack of WP:OWN? Annie Onymous (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING by JoeSperrazza

Move along, nothing to see
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey, now! Isn't this effectively WP:OUTING? Then this connect this account to Jazzerino and an IP – which are not actually connected, but still. Hasn't JoeSperrazza attempted to out two accounts? Annie Onymous (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC) No, the IP user has identified himself as Jazzerino by writing "I was not following Dan56, but when he reverted almost all the work that I had done I did edit a few of his GAs...". And as to your sockpuppetry, see this comment by Bishonen. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC) You are assuming that Jazzerino knows about all that stuff, but point taken. Still, the CU will show no connection between me and Jazzerino, and JoeSperrazza did attempt to connect the IP to this account, did he not and is that not frowned upon here? Annie Onymous (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Enough users know how to obfuscate technical CU data (see the IP for example) such that behavioral evidence alone was sufficient to indef you. Move along, please. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, credibility is the only currency of value here. Don't be ridiculous, Jazzerino. I have raised the block to 2 weeks for blatant sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK (first the IP and then the Annie Onymous account) and indeffed the sock account. CheckUser doesn't get asked in such blatant cases, since it wouldn't make any difference if you got a friend on the other side of the world to make these posts. Read all about it in WP:SOCK. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

Another disruptive and abusive editor in ARBPIA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin please put a stop to Wayne22222's disruptive editorializing and soapboxing at Israeli settlement, as well as their abusive edit summaries ? They have made the same terrible edit[127] 5 times so far (see Special:Contributions/Wayne22222). The article is covered by the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and 1RR. I'm guessing that there is no point trying to reason with them. Perhaps it's another JarlaxleArtemis account (see [128] on this noticeboard). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I can think of three reasons why Wayne22222 should be blocked. 1) Edit-warring, 2) personal attacks, and 3) obvious socking. Take your pick. Doc talk 06:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: MosesM1017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I thought I would share this with you as it doesn't look like an administrator has seen this yet. User:MosesM1017 created a bias short article called [[Mo$e$]. It looks like this is bias because it is a short article with the phrases "wanting to become" and "is trying to". It also violates the policy of living people without references and is also un-notable. The Newspaper (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Newspaper Article appears to have been deleted by the honorable Dennis Brown. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You flatter me. In the future, Newspaper, you can just tag the article for speedy delete and it will be automatically put in a queue for an admin to look at. Twinkle (in Preferences/Gadgets) has automated scripts that make this two click easy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor Neutralhomer - Purge deletion and protection abuse.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pauley Perrette article is being sanitized her her publicity agents. Though the article cites a Fox News Article, an apparently negative article from Newscorp's other entity The New York Post is not a "reliable" source.

Any reference to the cigarette advertising campaign Pauly Perrete did for Virginia Slims is removed and purged.

Is this proper behaviour for a Wiki editor?

I'm not even saying add the info to the article, just putting it up on the talk page to discuss it being added to the article. Neutralhomer has acted as gatekeeper only allowing positive material to make it onto this page. 50.12.11.152 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have informed Neutralhomer of this thread. Reyk _YO! 05:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 50.12. et. al. is an IP hopper who has long been vandalizing the Pauley Perrette article among others. The user has been warned by everyone from myself to Jimbo himself. The anon's actions have caused the Pauley Perrette page to be semi-protected, as well as the talk page. Jimbo himself has done this in the past because of the same edits by the same anon using the same ISP. Now, because the anon's favorite article has been locked down, he has come here to whine. I suggest we dismiss this thread and the anon, and put down some rangeblocks to prevent further annoyance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

- Obviously Publicists are using Wikipedia as their preferred forum to only disseminate certain information for their clients. "Pauly P, It's a Women's thing" Virginia Slims Advert, is relevant info. Furthermore only Parette's side of a contentious divorce is being heard. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, and not used for personal press releases.

50.12.11.152 (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User 50.79.182.145 Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I discovered a case of blanking by this user and when I checked their contribution history it was full of blanking and inappropriate vandalism. Since this is an IP, I am not aware of how to leave a notice for them.

here

here

here

full contributionsScoobydunk (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong venue. WP:AIV is what you're looking for. Doc talk 09:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bonkers The Clown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) has had quite a turbulent history on Wikipedia, culminating in being blocked twice last year. [129] After carrying on socking as Nelson Mandela was not Batman (and others), he eventually stopped just before new year. He requested an unblock per the standard offer last week, which was accepted by The Bushranger. [130] However, he immediately fell into controversial areas and was swiftly reblocked by Floquenbeam. [131] I don't see any evidence he is entertaining serious unblock requests on his talk page now, and would like to ask the floor what we do next. This could be anything from a sixth (or seventh?) chance, turning talk page access off, or a full blown community ban to drill home the message that our patience is generally worn out. What would people suggest? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - I suggest we remove talk page access and initiate a formal community ban. GiantSnowman 12:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a site ban here. The editor is quite hopelessly incompetent and too big for his britches; but he can simply just remain indeffed. I do not see the need for a site ban, and would oppose one unless some major socking/bad faith evidence were put forth. Doc talk 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Doc. A ban seems way premature. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly suggesting any sort of ban (indeed, if you read what I've written on Bonkers' talk page and elsewhere, you should come away with the impression I've been quite defensive and supportive of him), rather thinking that we need more admin eyes on this right now. He's got a pattern of repeatedly being disruptive and subsequently showing remorse again and again. He only apologised for the sockpuppetry after I bought it up, which does suggest he was hoping the unblocking admin wouldn't pick up on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then we should just be ready to remove talk page access in case he spams unblocks. The Depressed Loser (I am not here) 13:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just unwatch his talk page, in case we're tempted to read spam unblocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's much need to do anything at this point. The user was just indef'ed, he's not going to be unblocked anytime soon but a site ban seems of no real use here. Talk page access can be removed by any administrators if the talk page access is abused. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a formal community ban for a period of no less than 1 year (with an appeal option after six months). He was unblocked on the basis he was topic banned from the DYK project, but has already submitted and successfully obtained a DYK credit, he was topic banned from creating articles in mainspace but thought it acceptable to work with the AfC project, which requires him to assess and then move new articles created by other editors into the mainspace. That breaches the spirit if not the precise letter of the topic ban, he cannot be trusted to add new material to the mainspace, it should be obvious that applies not just to his own work but that of others. The damage he has done at the AfC project is impossible to estimate but it could well have discouraged new editors. The behaviour he now shows on his talk page is again unacceptable (misogynistic in nature - see [132]) and in combination with the breaches of the DYK topic ban and disaster at AfC, I think he needs to spend a great deal of time away from the community, given time to mature and reflect on his behaviour now, prior to his previous ban and the socking that occurred after it. The enforcement of a community ban will also require Bonkers to think about how the community will have perceived his behaviour, and has the benefit of preventing any administrator thinking of unblocking to do so without input from the community, be it in six months or a year. Nick (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Nick, he got too many second chances already and has a history of socking. Endorse ban Secret ^account 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Not entirely sure it will help much, as I don't think any admin should go and unblock this person without community consensus anyway, given the result of the latest unblock attempt, but I see no reason not to endorse this ban proposal if others feel it can have some positive effect. It surely cannot be of harm. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Given the contempt Bonkers showed for WP:BLP policy in the incident that led to the previous ban, [133], his continuing reluctance to admit to doing anything wrong, and his immediate return to disruptive behaviour as soon as he was unblocked, it seems self-evident that he cannot be trusted, and is an ongoing liability to the project. We will manage fine without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - Bonkers' immediate return to his previous behavior and attempts to hide his past behind supposed ignorance and sweet words clearly shows that the interests of Wikipedia are not what is in his mind when he is editing. Ansh666 15:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Guess people just can't see a troll when he's done any bit of good. Anyways, I'd support an AfC ban for Bonkers if he comes back. Ansh666 07:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No, per WP:OWN. The community as a whole decides. If regulars at AFC wanted an unblocked editor to NOT be at AFC, they could go to WP:AN and likely get a topic ban rather easily. The ONLY public area of Wikipedia (that I'm aware of) where "membership" is decided by a closed panel is in clerking, just as SPI or at Arb, as there are privacy and other issues at stake. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I would tend to agree with Dennis Brown here: the community as a general principle abhors processes and procedures that are decided by some "sekrit klub"/cabal/walled garden, and AfC does not qualify as an exception. While I don't personally have a problem with a ban discussion taking place in a less-prominent (read: less edit conflict-prone) zone, but there would need to be a very prominent announcement on AN/ANI. And even then, I suspect some editors would object, arguing that holding the discussion in a different place removes the benefit of blowing up people's watchlists with every comment, and thus (hopefully) attract more attention, and thus involvement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - after his latest endeavors I think it's time we close the door on second chances. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I don't see anything misogynistic in that diff, and don't think 'misogynistic' is a word we should toss around lightly without very strong proof. That said, this is a user who came back from a long block with promises of reform and got himself reblocked almost immediately, so I endorse ban to prevent further waste of the community's time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as the target of the diff, I didn't interpret it as misogyny either—simply his habitual sarcastic obfuscation when he has been caught out being economical with the truth. And where did this idea come from that he is a simply a very young editor who needs to mature? To those here who assume he's a naive teenager, I have a bridge to sell you. Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• support indef block, with WP:OFFER available in time. I had only a vague knowledge of Bonkers until this week. I saw one positive article and DYK (Eat Frozen Pork), although I then discovered these were strictly against their topic ban. Then I saw the past history, then I saw the issues leading to the latest block. Let's just say that I wouldn't be so positive to him if I'd known this beforehand. Give it time, maybe he'll grow up. Maybe he won't, hence the block. I don't care in the slightest, it's all up to him. Certainly a block today is entirely justified as preventative. Too much dramah otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Eight years ago, Wikipedia welcomed another Singaporean editor around the same age as Bonkers. Although he could contribute quality content, he could not handle stressful situations and eventually developed a very effective method of vandalism. He was almost community-banned, but an admin decided to block him for a week instead and since then, he has written thirteen Singapore-related GAs. In case you have not already realised, that editor was myself and Bonkers reminds me of what I was like back then. Of course, I do not condone his actions, but are they so severe that they warrant a community ban? I doubt so. What Wikipedia needs is more contributors of quality articles about poorly represented topics. With over a hundred (mostly Singapore-related) DYKs to his name and potential GAs (such as Ah Boys to Men), Bonkers is certainly among them. If he simply focuses on article writing and is given sufficient guidance (from me, for example), he could be one of our most valuable editors. Perhaps the community could allow Bonkers to develop articles offwiki and email them to another editor (such as me), who would check the articles and post them to mainspace (if they are of high quality). --Hildanknight (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree your goals and also oppose such a ban. However take a look at what has happened this week. We don't want to re-run that, so how can we avoid it? Bonkers just doesn't seem to see that his behaviour is a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the AfC disruption? Then we can ban him from AfC. We don't need to siteban at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The AfC disruption, the breach of the DYK topic ban, the breach of article creation and claiming that he had conveniently forgotten being topic banned. That's just the stuff I saw. Clearly topic bans are simply ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In the unblock, I didn't see any mention of a DYK ban - it looked unconditional to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose siteban, consider AfC ban if the conduct that led to the most recent block is really that troublesome. There are some indecorous comments at the Bonkers' user talk that did lead to revocation of talk page access, but I think some leniency is in order given the circumstances. As another editor has pointed out, Bonkers has a good history of content creation on Singapore topics. Given Wikipedia is starting to operate a bit leaner in terms of good content creators, we should trim the rotten parts rather than pitch the entire roast in the garbage. Perhaps it's a sign of the economy getting better that people have less spare time to spend editing Wikipedia. This of course should not serve to abrogate the prior standard offer that resulted in the last unblock. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support indefinite ban with option to appeal in either one or two years and every six months thereafter. Bonkers has caused a months-long trail of disruption and proven himself incompetent, immature, and uncivil. --Jakob (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite ban – Seriously? Why should we go around banning editors like Bonkers, when such editors consistently expand the quality of articles? However, Bonkers may be a little naive and misguided to be editing Wikipedia at this time, so I suggest leaving the indefinite block, with an WP:OFFER applicable in one year this time. I'll also choose Support one-year ban. (On further thought, I won't support any ban. Bonkers might be a clown, as implied by his username, but he isn't a long-term disruptive user; he is only misguided. Modified 17:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)) Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite Block extended to talk page with no appeal for at least a year. I intensely dislike outright bans except as a truly last resort. That said, this is clearly a hardcore recidivist. I like Snowolf's point that little will be gained by an outright ban that cannot be accomplished by an indefinite block. I would add a strongly worded warning that if/when the block is ever lifted (or if there is any further attempt at evasion) that any further trouble from him and the next stop is the full blown ban/excommunication/anathema. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban if we must do this exercise. This has yet to reach the level one would normally associate with banning. I have no issue with the indef block, but he hasn't been shown to be so problematic that we need the formal act of banishing him out to the wilderness yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Eric Cartman amuses but doesn't convince. "Formal communitah ban!" "Too big for his britches!" "Repeatedlah disruptive!" "Needs time away from teh communitah!" "Too manah second chances!" "Liabilitah to teh project!" Puh-lease. Just block Bonkers (excellent user name btw, Bonkers) when he's naughty, unblock when he promises to be good, proceed with blocks and unblocks as required. Playing with their little blockhammers is what sysops become sysops for. Maybe give the Bonkers job to the diligent Beebelbrox, whose tally currently stands well north of 2500. Bonkers could help him to the magic 3000. All this Down With The Clown! dramah is totallah unnecessarah! Writegeist (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, and any block that might be seen as punitive. When Bonkers work is good, it is very, very good. When it is "bad" it is always reversible even when it may raise the hackles of his detractors. Send him to counseling. Encourage his adoption. Perhaps limit him to 1RR. Ask him to self-limit actions that may cause angst to his many watchers. We have many far better solutions that build the encyclopedia and this editor's skills that do not require a ban. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• What evidence do you have that this person is a "young Singaporean?" I strongly suspect he's lying to you. Adopting a persona designed to appeal to the weak-minded and naive is a popular tactic of online trolls. Have fun playing encyclopedia folks.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Why would young Singaporeans especially appeal to the weak-minded and naive? Anyway, I reviewed his fish soup bee hoon and found it quite plausible as the work of a native Singaporean. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Andrew (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Dan Murphy is probably right. The "young Singaporean" schtick does not ring true. I looked at the article you linked to and see nothing "plausible" about his claim. The entire account reeks of role playing and trolling. Why this editor isn't banned speaks volumes about the poor judgement of the community. The editor is taking advantage of the known weakness of the members of the community, and he's doing it in such a deliberate way that it has the feel of professionalism about it. Very odd. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. The actual unblock appeared to be unconditional, and there was no obvious DYK prohibition at the time it was made. The AfC mess was problematic, but stopped when the warning was given. I'd support some way back, possibly with clear and specific restrictions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose long-term ban of people who are here with a genuine desire to contribute to the encyclopedia (e.g. vandals, trolls, and advertisers be gone!). Endorse 5-year (see below for why not "indef") block with a custom-tailored version of WP:STANDARD OFFER or similar available any time after 7 months (his last block was 6 1/2 months, obviously not long enough). Strongly endorse post-block heavy editing restrictions including continued an additional 6-month ban on any WikiProjects in which he was disruptive since his first unblock on 10:37, 26 September 2013 and, if he has been disruptive in any particular article or that article's talk page since 10:37, 26 September 2013, an additional 6-month ban on that article and talk page and any "successor" article or talk page (e.g. if an article split, both articles would be covered, if it was merged or redirected, the target would be covered, if it was deleted and re-created under a different but obviously-the-same-topic title, the new article would be covered). I qualify all of the above by saying the long-term block and bans mentioned above should all expire 5 years after the most recent block. Any violation or evasion (e.g. WP:SOCK) of these blocks or bans would result in, at a minimum, a reset of all clocks. After 5 years, we can assume that if he comes back, he will have changed at least a little (I can't think of anyone who is the same person now as they were 5 years ago). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban The article which is currently showing on the main page seems fine and that is our main business here. This editor seems to have an abundance of youthful high spirits but short blocks and warnings will suffice to keep these in check. A ban seems too draconian. Wikipedia is not the government of Singapore and so should not demand placid conformity from every foreign visitor. Andrew (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In an international project, a contributor from Singapore is no more 'foreign' than anyone else, and as for 'youthful high spirits', I see no reason to accept that Bonkers is the youth he claims to be - though it makes no difference, since policy applies regardless of age. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I think you misunderstood Andrew; in my eyes, he's talking about the Singaporean government's position toward non-Singaporeans in Singapore and saying that we should be different. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Meh, support, for lack of a better label, I guess, ish. Community bans are generally brought down on people who have a severe, long-term history of disruption. Bonkers' disruption has been annoying, yes, even "very annoying". But it doesn't quite rise, at least as of now, to the level of malice and determined hellraising that would typically cause me to support a flat-out, "don't come back until we say you can" ban. All that said, however, it's clear that Bonkers, at least at this point, can't or won't edit in a non-disruptive manner. So while a "ban" seems like overkill, I also see no reason why he should be editing this project unless and until he can make a persuasive, coherent statement about how his behavior will change, and I would prefer that his eventual return be decided by community discussion and not by whatever admin, who may or may not know the history, happens along to an unblock request. And, well, that ends up sounding a whole lot like a ban in function, despite my reluctance to call it that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block with first appeal not allowed until one year has passed, and any unblock must specify the areas that remains off-limits from the original block: discussing or editing any race-related content (and no racial epithets allowed), creating mainspace articles directly (or moving articles there), DYK, and recommend that AfC be added to this list. Could appeal these limitations six months after editing resumes if all goes well. If the above restrictions aren't possible with a block, then support a ban with a one-year first appeal. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to DYK andAfC to decide as communities respectively? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant. He was just indefinitely reblocked. Now he could easily be unblocked but I can't see that happening in the present climate. As for those of you who criticize him for making excessive drama, look no further than the supporters of this ban, repeatedly beating the proverbial horse. KonveyorBelt 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• The supporters of this ban are trying to prevent any future drama, so your statement makes no sense. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are they really? Because it seems after countless AN and ANI threads they are creating more drama than they are "preventing". KonveyorBelt 04:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban or indef, but support topic ban for race-related topics. Bonkers is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia. He created hundreds of new articles, including almost 200 that appeared on DYK, in merely two years. He has an irreverent attitude which rubs the wrong way with some people, but nothing truly disruptive. This whole drama is basically continued punishment for his "original sin" of creating and bringing this article to the main page, after which he has been indef'ed repeatedly for relatively minor offences. -Zanhe (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban or indef. Basically agreeing to what Zanhe said. You pick on somebody enough, and it takes a very strong, confident and disciplined individual not to crack under the strain. Let's be clear Bonkers didn't write "that article", which merely timestamps the racist attitudes then within the USA. Are things much improved these days? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a consensus at this point to community site ban Bonkers, and my prediction is that a consensus isn't going to be achieved in this thread even if we leave it open for an unusually long time. We shouldn't be speculating or commenting on the motivations of his supporters or detractors here, as it's just not relevant. We can't keep this open forever. The editor is indeffed and isn't going to be unblocked easily. This is supposed to be about a community ban, and overturning the indef isn't really on the table. Doc talk 05:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. How much time do we collectively have to waste on a drama generator before we decide enough is enough? How much race trolling has to end up on the front page before we decide we don't want to take that chance anymore? Gamaliel (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You've apparently got some diffs of "race trolling" on the "front page" from this particular editor? Please put them here for analysis. Doc talk 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you unaware of the article linked above or are you just challenging my assessment of it? That's just the beginning of the drama he's caused at DYK. Gamaliel (talk)

We follow consensus, as a policy, when determining a site ban. There is no consensus to site ban this editor. It's not going to form. Let's just stop wasting time on this. Doc talk 07:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers used to have a swastika in his signature. It is an important symbol in Indian religions. When he was informed that Westerners find it offensive, he removed it from his signature. Then he wrote an article about a racial slur and used that racial slur on its talk page. In Singapore, such words are not as offensive and are often used jokingly. To clarify, Singaporeans do care about racial harmony and have little tolerance for racism, However, what we deem racist (such as criticism of cultural traditions) is very different from what Westerners deem racist. For example, I do not understand why Westerners would defend the Muhammad cartoons as free speech. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty convenient excuse to have, isn't it? I'm not buying any of it. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You aren't from Singapore, and Hildanknight is. Wikipedia's systemic bias has spiralled way out of control on this one. Seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Whatever decision is reached here, Bonkers is not welcome at AFC. The damage he did there is the type that chases potential new editors away. So he's written a few acceptable article about Singapore related topics - but don't forget that he isn't the only Singaporean with access to the interwebz. "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Bonkers..." (Apologies to W.S.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, you would really stoop so low? I am very disappointed in you, Roger, seriously. The clown has a huge number of problems with how he expresses himself, and how he behaves on Wikipedia, but those of us still interested in supporting an inclusive Wikipedia have noted that the other Singaporeans do not see his banter as hopelessly disruptive, even if there are problems. It is very sad that the English Wikipedia community is so low in the gutter now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reply It is indeed my sincere opinion that the damage Bonkers has done to WP (not only during the last few days) far outweighs any good he might have done. I am entitled to express this opinion without being attacked for it. (BTW I'm really surprised that you describe his disruptive behavior as mere "banter", it seems to me you are genuinely unaware of the full extent of what Bonkers has done here.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am very well aware of the clown's disruptive behaviour over the last year, quite frankly I consider your behaviour to be far more disruptive in targeting people of a particular nationality - "he isn't the only Singaporean with access to the interwebz", what on earth? The only thing I don't understand is why you are not ashamed of yourself and your behaviour. Perhaps that will come with time? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Some people have motivated unblocking him because he has written acceptable articles about Singaporean topics - I was simply pointing out that he is not the only person capable of writing about the place - your attempt to twist that into me attacking an entire nationality is you descending into personal attacks against me - you should be ashamed of yourself. That Bonkers is from Singapore isn't even relevant at all - there is no requirement that editor need to be citizens of the country they write about on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, except if they're "not welcome", right? Ever seen a teenager banned from making any edits or writing any article about any town or village in the local place where they live? I have. Do you think that is a good idea? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - we do not site ban people for having "had a turbulent history", nor for being from Singapore and writing like someone from there, nor even for being a damn nuisance in a minor way. Please grow up and spend your "proposal" time on better things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban based on the evidence collected by Anthonyhcole offline, including the following 1) Listed "Barack Magic Nigga Obama" as one of his "Top ten favourite people" on his user page[134] 2) Wore a swastika in his signature while greeting newbies at the tea house. When confronted, he said, "The truth is, the swastika is an innocuous symbol. It is a symbol of peace and harmony. It is one of the main symbols used in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. It is just that this dictator called Hitler perverted this symbol of peace and harmony. I advocate peace, not fascism. But in any case, I have removed it, lest ignorant ones blatantly criticize me for being a fan of the Nazis."[135] 3) Wrote Niggers in the White House[136] and nominated it for a "Did you know?" slot on Wikipedia's main page with the tag line, "Did you know that "Niggers in the White House" (1902) was written after the President invited a nigger to the White House?"[137] 4) Wrote Bigger Hair and proposed the DYK, "that Nigger Hair is sold at auctions?" which was changed to "that the smoking tobacco brand Bigger Hair was originally named Nigger Hair?"[138] 5) Wrote No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs.[139] 6) Unblocked 2 days later after apologising and agreeing to avoid race topics and racist language.[140] 7) Next month created We should kill everyone in China with stuff scraped from the Jimmy Kimmel Live article.[141] Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that the location that all those things were posted, was the exact same location where everyone was encouraged to "search Demiurge1000 pedophile" on Google, with the obvious intention that it should become the searched-for string? Are you really incapable of imagining that your "Barack Magic Nigga Obama" arrangement wasn't the same deal? It becomes hard to assume good faith sometimes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Fallacies are a dime a dozen. The site of origin is irrelevant. Are these seven points false? It really does appear that Wikipedia is being deliberately trolled by Bonkers. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Or rather, it seems so to you. How it looks to me is something I won't say right now for fear of WP:NPA... but I do think Wikipedia and ANI in particular is now fast headed into the "Western World and its way of doing things OK, outsiders not welcome" territory. That is a really bad place to be. Maybe you don't see it the same way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of who came up with the evidence or where it was posted, it exists. Again, are the seven points false? And, is there any evidence that the user is from Singapore? Someone said an SPI was done, did it trace to that country? I don't get why this person is continually having their bad behavior excused because of where they claim to come from. It's ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll provide public proof of his place of residence just as soon as you provide public proof of yours. Actually, no, get lost, I will do no such thing. You don't get to demand people are checkusered just because you don't like them or their edits or where they claim to be from. You are a disgrace. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The disgrace here, is that you and others are using a purported place of origin as an excuse for the bad behavior of the user. That's the disgrace. Many of us simply don't believe what the user has said, and there's good reason for that. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, so after you just finished edit-warring for the umpteenth time to remove my responses to your points above, which apparently I'm not allowed to make (so much for "free speech"), please could you tell us what the "good reasons" are? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, please provide a justification for the "top google search result" bullshit while you're at it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In September 2013, Bonkers' user page was the 2nd result for "Barack Magic Nigga Obama" because he had it listed on his talk page as one of his "Top ten favourite people"[142] He has since removed the "Magic Nigga" part. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Frankly, for all those diffs and various gripes with Bonkers, everything seems to have taken place prior to the last unblock. I don't think it's quite right to go hammering on stuff that happened in the past—though pretty clearly stuff meriting some sanction—without explaining why that last chance has to be revoked. I think it's kind of presumed at this point that Bonkers has a history that includes disruption, but the fact that he was unblocked in the past is a clear indication that he's been seen as producing enough useful content to retain in the past, and the community has not apparently objected (or at least not loudly enough). In short, what you post is all well and good... but what does that have to do with the conduct since the last unblock? Bonkers got another chance: are you suggesting we siteban him and ignore that chance? Or do you have something to say about the current episode? If you want to get into "What Bonkers Did Wrong", you might be better off doing a WP:RfC/U than rehashing stuff on ANI that has little to nothing to do with the present incident. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've endorsed the ban based on the concerns raised by the OP, including the past history, the blocks, the sockpuppetry, and the recent unblock and disruption of AfC. There's no need for an RfC/U here at all, just a community ban. I find it highly unlikely that a young kid from Singapore would know all the esoteric catchphrases such as "Magical Negro", an old American term that only received recent currency on the fringes of the conservative American right back in 2008-2009. This is clearly a returning user who is not a young kid and is very familiar with the complex intricacies of racism in America and knows just how to push the right buttons. He has apparently fooled quite a number of Wikipedians. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Anybody who's visited /b/, /pol/ or [s4s] more than a couple times should know that and far worse; and even if that's not the case, I think it's downright offensive to declare someone a liar because they might be well read in an esoteric topic. I see no reason to doubt this person's claims to be who he is, and respectfully advise you to redact your accusations unless you have some real evidence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If BTC is blocked, any passing admin can unblock at any time, as happened recently. If BTC is banned, a community discussion would be required for an unblock. Therefore it is reasonable to discuss whether any past behavior merits the extra protection provided by a ban. Who cares whether Viriditas is correct (and BTC is a troll), or whether Viriditas is wrong (and BTC is merely indistinguishable from a troll)? Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the very recent behaviour of one of the editors you mention, those do not seem to be all of the alternatives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Then do a RfC/U and organize your thoughts, allow other to respond, and keep ridiculous things at bay (like the revert war earlier this morning over something so trifling as how responses to an argument should be formatted). This is the wrong place to hash out this kind of discussion. It's already abundantly clear that a community ban will not achieve consensus based on the discussion that's happened here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) I'd first like to say in regards to whether or not Bonker's should be banned from contributing at AfC, shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. I'll go on to say, that determination of whether or not he is welcome to contribute to DYK should be up to that project and any participation in any project should be up to the project and whatever rules they decide to set in place for him (for example, he very well may decide to try his hand at NPP or CVU next for all we know). As to what my thoughts on his unblock and what kinds of hoops he'll have to jump through to accomplish that; I firstly don't think it is fair to indefinitely block anyone for infinity, and this discussion reads as though some here think that is the only course of action here. Others are say five+ years, and for someone that is 15-20, that is 25-33% of the life they have already lived. I don't think that is entirely fair and I think it is discouraging to other new editors trying to do right. I agree, life isn't always fair, but this is only Wikipedia for heaven's sake.

What I would personally like to see offered is in three months, an administrator offer to unblock Bonkers, preferably an administrator in Bonker's timezone that has some free availability during the day. Someone that can watch Bonker's contributions and check, at their discretion, that Bonker's isn't making mistakes that he shouldn't be making. The reason I say administrator, is they are the only ones that would be able to set a short term block "until the issue can be discussed" if needed for Bonkers preventing too much damage. Once Bonker's has done this for 3-6 months and proven some ability to be a constructive editor that is here to build an encyclopedia, then things like his interest to contribute to wikiprojects such as AfC, DYK, NPP, CVU, or whatever can be addressed. I don't think this is unfair at all, and I think it is the best solution to have the highest net gain for the encyclopedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

He was already blocked for six months, extended WP:ROPE, and promptly hung himself. He has been offered the chance to prove that he could be a productive member of the community - and blew it, grandly. AGF is not a suicide pact. He is already topic-banned from DYK, after a discussion here (and I confess it was my error not to note this at the time of unblock, but was corrected later); we don't have topic bans (such as from DYK, or AfC) decided by local consensus, but by the community as a whole, and we certainly do not let bans decided by the community as a whole be lifted by a local consensus. We do not "indefinitely block anyone for infinity"; indefinite is not infinite, as the saying goes. However when an editor has repeatedly proven themselves incapable of editing within Wikipedia's framework - which Bonkers, sadly, has - then they must be shown the door. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• (non-Admin 2 cents) I concur with the point made by Mendaliv. It is fairly clearly that no consensus exists in favor of a site ban. So perhaps the conversation should move forward with that in mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support continued indef. As the unblocking admin, I was happy to extend both WP:AGF and WP:ROPE in hopes of the editor returning per the WP:STANDARDOFFER. However, as I mentioned above, the WP:ROPE was promptly used. There is no evidence provided that Bonkers is a teen, and none that he is really from Singapore - and as noted, these are irrelevant, as there is plenty of evidence that he is either a troll or indistinguishable from one. He was indef'd for six months, offered a return, and blew it - in spades; speaking frankly, the belief that he can reform in any set period of time has to be regarded as wishful thinking. I am neutral on the subject of a ban, however I will note that I find "he's indefed so we don't need a ban" arguments dissapointing, as if nothing else they keep other well-meaning admins from falling into the trap like I did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• I would support a ban from any and all contests (broadly construed) and any other activities that lead to promised "shiny". He has proven he is willing to be dishonest and even destructive in the name of collecting awards/points. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support continued indef (Non-administrator comment) for the reasons I stated, what, Thursday? at WP:AN. Assuming good faith & intentions by nominator here but the previous discussions already smelled of forum shopping. The editing restrictions imposed were an appropriate sanction for this user's conduct, and they broke them within a day or two (as I recall) from being unblocked, having not been told the restrictions were lifted. Also evaded the block by engaging in sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban. He'll just edit under another name. But this will send a message - not just to Bonkers but to anyone reading - that racist jokes, misogyny and hoovering up AFC reviews for faux prestige aren't tolerated here. Or are they? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban per Zanhe; no opinion regarding indef blocks or lesser bans. I knew what the "this article" link was, even before looking at the URL, because it's so often brought up; he's not been the best-behaved (I note the failure to heed the don't-edit-DYK requirement), but this seems ultimately to be persecution for perceived racism, rather than a proper response to a genuinely disruptive person. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Support fast close I don't participate here often, but the username was too intriguing. If drama is what Bonkers seek, then stop paying him any attention. Kill the oxygen, snuff the fire.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban - Long-term content contributors deserve respect. If there is problematic behavior, specific sanctions should be targeted to that behavior. This is an editor coming off a 6-month ban being immediately dealt with by use of a metaphorical 12 gauge shotgun... Carrite (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I put a great deal of weight that was done by this editor at AfC, I personally rolled back the better part of 100 reviews, my spot checks of those reviews revealed quite a number of acceptable articles that were declined with implausible reasoning to new editors. We have almost certainly lost new editors to this editor's "work", and whatever is done, if anything, should honor the principle of protecting the encyclopedia first. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support total indef ban - no more drama, please. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• For now, support continuing indefinite block. In all honesty, I find the relatively thin block log and the one sockpuppetry episode insufficient to warrant banning. A full six months to a year without sockpuppetry and I may be tempted to support unblocking, subject to strict, indefinite topic bans for WP:AfC and WP:DYK. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 13:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Personal attack

Can someone please review [143], i am unsure if this post constitutes a personal attack but it reads like one to me. Amortias (T)(C) 16:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like one to me, too Kosh Vorlon    16:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Racist comments are violations of WP:NPA. if you spot any in the future, feel free to revert, warn and report to WP:AIV. —Dark 16:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And a second identical themed post [144], I've blanked one section and another editor has blanked this one. Amortias (T)(C) 16:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

After his third (which was after his second warning), I gave him 31h. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Said IP is a very obvious sock of User:Obelixobelix, who was blocked a couple of days ago for being a vandal-only account. Has since popped up here, here, here, and here. At least, those are the ones I am aware of. Some of them have been blocked, the others are only a matter of time. Rather obvious ducks; they are all making the same edits as the master to multiple paegs, and using identical abusive language. Unfortunately they seem to have access to very many IPs, and a range block will not sort them out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks on an article about personal attacks is a definite WP:SHOT Amortias (T)(C) 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And after reading abuot the WP:SOCK issue I smell a duck Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Shashini12311 redux

Shashini12311 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First reported here. Given final warning for blatantly violating WP:BLPPRIMARY here by me. Re-inserted same material today [145]. Seems to be here for only one thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for a host of violations. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Gbold1

Gbold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He is obviously continuing to vandalize articles, but in a lesser extent, removing or changing content of articles without providing reliable sources. This one is an example. The Ranoclue (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC) -- last edited by The Ranoclue (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC) (reason: capitalization)

Genre warring & disruptive editing by User:Lukejordan02

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Lukejordan02 has been genre warring on over twenty albums on Wikipedia. When I reverted his edits and urged him to discuss his actions [146], he started reverting me on every single page by using insults and profanity. For example, he said it's "pathetic and annoying" to revert the vandalism he has made. When warned him at his talk page about his unconstructive actions, he removed them by claiming "to remove shit" and that I should "go fuck myself". Furthermore, he spents 99% of his time deleting content at band's discographies (by looking at his user contributions) and edit warring with everyone that disagrees with him.--Retrohead (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This user is spending all his time to try and get me blocked, we were blocked due to edit warring we are now bon been unblocked but this editor thinks it is ok to carry on edit warring and reverted multiple changes, furthermore he falsified a claim against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring claiming an edit war when it was removing vandalism this is about the 3rd or 4th attempt to get me blocked this user is using all for the same cases and if they weren't excepted before what makes them ok now, there must be a limit to all these claims this user is doing, I asked for him to be invicta gated on the other page but nothing has been done. He spends nearly all his time on wiki simply reverted my edits no matter what and is now trying to rally people against me such as his message at mrmoustache, further more he has called me names before such as troll and an uneducated person, this needs to stop now. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The "editor" spends all his time changing genres, reverting users who disagree with him, calling them names, and deleting content. I coincidentally saw him when he tried to ruin a list I brought to FA, and then I saw what he has been doing since April.--Retrohead (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Blackhawks88wwe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blackhawks88wwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, after multiple reverts, continues to vandalize articles. For instance, here (which has been made a couple of times) and here. APerson (talk!) 03:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

These may in fact be inept but good faith edits, especially the second one, since according to this, "Follow the Buzzards" is a song associated with the Wyatt family. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User also made this edit, which was clearly not blatant vandalism. It was reverted by ClueBot NG for some reason, though. I'm not sure if the PPV has a tagline, but if that was not correct, it still looks like it was made in somewhat good-faith. These cases are tricky sometimes. Try to work with the editor, and if he/she doesn't cooperate, then you have your answer about the type of user he/she is and further action can be taken on the matter. United States Man (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It actually seems he was a vandal; I failed to look at the contribs page the first time. He even vandalized this section before Anne Delong's comment. User was blocked indefintely by Discospinster. United States Man (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ChrisP2K5

Repeated addition of WP:COPYVIO links to Youtube (22 May 2014, 6 June 2014) and unsourced, WP:EDITORIAL content (22 May 2014, 22 May 2014). Level 3 warning added to user page 18 May and final warning added 27 May. AldezD (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There's an issue at hand here, certainly, but I think that it has more to do with the user's overreaction to an edit he doesn't like. While I understand his point, the reason why I added the information is because it contradicts information that had already been there. It claimed that champions were never retired during that period and for the most part, that was true. This, however, proved an exception to the rule and because of that, I felt it necessary to include it because it was important to note it and that it was the only time after the show left CBS that a contestant was forced into retirement. It is not my intent to vandalize the page and because AldezD didn't appreciate the edit, he accused me of vandalizing the page (which, as you can plainly see by looking at the edits, it isn't). While I know that using Youtube as a source is generally frowned upon, I cannot track down the episode's actual airdate or the production number or code and was left with having to provide an external link to show that, in fact, my edit was based on legitimate data. It may not follow guidelines to the T but it certainly doesn't fully disqualify the entry as nonverifiable because it proves that A (Dunn's end) happened because of B (unnamed network practice) and thus C (the aftermath of the decision). In this case I feel an exception needs to be made and that by choosing not to allow the info to stand the information in the article doesn't seem complete because the policy of the production company was not to limit contestants' potential winnings and that this flew in the face of that idea and must therefore be mentioned- if not in the form I put it in then in some addendum to the prior material. We note rule changes on pages like these when necessary, and this is one of those instances. While I'll admit perhaps I got a little heavyhanded in commenting and apologize, I don't feel it takes away from the fact that the info presented is notable and needs to be considered when discussing the whole subject. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The allegation (which I haven't investigated) is that you repeatedly added links to videos whose hosting by Youtube violated copyright. Your longish comment ignores this allegation. What's your response to it? -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's one link (not multiple links). The reason why it appears I'm ignoring the allegation is because the dispute is over the inclusion of the information in general- although certainly if it was a violation of any copyright I didn't intend to do so. The point is that as the article is written, it doesn't include every complete detail and if you strip away any perceived violations on my part (I'll freely admit I could've handled things differently), that still remains. If there's an instance where someone/something had to do something because of a rule and evidence exists of the rule's application, I don't see why it can't be included. To me special circumstances are applicable. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So, now that you're not going to add the copyvio link again, just go discuss the content issue on the article talk page and seek consensus - how does that sound? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Mild threat left by ChrisP2K5 at Talk:The Joker's Wild following suggestions in discussion above. [147] User was previously blocked indefinitely and before being unblocked, was denied an unblock multiple times for WP:BATTLE mentality. AldezD (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't threaten anything. What I said was that I was considering exercising discretion and putting the information in some form back into the article. I've been trying to explain to you that even if you discount any editorializing, perceived or otherwise, the facts are still the facts: there was an exception to the rule in place regarding there being no limit to contestants' winnings or length of time on the show and it has to be noted somehow. I still contend there needs to be some leeway given considering that even though the source I have isn't considered the most reliable by Wiki standards, short of eyewitness accounts or the actual airdate of the episode being catalogued somewhere, this is the only format in which an account of the disputed fact known to exist. I also submit that I'm not the one guilty of the WP:Battle mentality here. I also suggested a compromise which AldezD wasn't interested in, which is making me believe he isn't acting in good faith. I understand his position and in 99% of cases I wouldn't argue it. But this is an issue of having every possible bit of accurate information on the page. Mentioning prior actions isn't fair because it detracts from the argument. Since AldezD and I are the only people concerned and consensus seems impossible, I would move that the admins rule on the inclusion of the info one way or another and that whatever the decision is, both parties agree to be bound by it with no further dispute. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: although it might be very difficult to prove CBS was the network in dispute, various pages on the Wiki have noted that only they and ABC had imposed limits at the time and ABC's was significantly lower than CBS' at the time ($20K, $5k less). Don't know if that relieves anything but still. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"I'm starting to notice an alarming lack of good faith on your part and am considering acting as such" are your words. Additionally, you've made multiple statements on the talk page for which citations or evidence has been requested in order to include them in the article. Instead, you simply re-state your argument that this information should be included rather than addressing WP:V and providing an acceptable source for your statements. You did not suggest a compromise; you again made unsourced editorial comments based upon your own unverified assumptions, re-linking copyvio video that does not provide the requested proof. Mentioning prior actions is wholly fair in that you're continuing an evidenced pattern of disruptive behavior. AldezD (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

But I'm not. I'm trying to include a piece of information in the article that directly contradicts a key piece of information already included in it. I've mentioned several times that a secondary source has been difficult to find, and I have tried. I don't like the fact that I can only come up with a video clip, but that's the way it is. Mentioning my prior actions takes away from the whole basis of the discussion, which I continue to stress is based on the information and the consideration by the admins than an exception be made based on the fact that even though YouTube isn't considered an RS, in this case there isn't much other evidence (if any) that exists to verify that this happened. I keep restating the argument because I don't feel you're understanding it. I also restate that if you strip away any perceived editorializing, you're still left with the fact at hand: not every Joker's Wild champion's reign came to an end by defeat, and that Jack Barry's on air statement about it is, as of this moment, the only record of it and has to be considered. If I had something else, I would show it, but I don't. But I wouldn't be arguing special circumstances if they didn't exist, and here they do. And because I don't feel you're seeing this, I feel you aren't showing me any good faith. I understand your concern and respect for guidelines and if it was any other case I wouldn't argue. But as I have said, there's something else at work here. Something that needs to be noted in some way. Again I move for a decision as a stalemate is evident. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5 has also just instigated a WP:Move war of the Bernie Robbins Stadium article. After being politely informed that the user's undiscussed move of the article was against the consensus established in two recent WP:RMs recorded at Talk:Bernie Robbins Stadium and given the instructions for submitting a formal WP:Requested move, the user just repeated the undiscussed move again while insisting that their point of view should prevail. This is contrary to appropriate behavior. If the user wants to propose a move of the article, there is a process for that (although I do not personally detect any change of the facts of the situation since the last two RMs for that article were closed). Before moving an article, people should check for prior recent RM records. Whether that occurs or not, if an undiscussed move is reverted and contested, discussion should take place using the WP:RM process to determine consensus – before repeating a move attempt again – regardless of what they think are the merits of the article naming situation. Before the user's second move, they were clearly told "Please do not repeat this action without submitting a formal move request to determine whether there is a consensus to make those changes" and given instructions about how to submit a formal move request. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The stadium's name changed. That's why I moved it, and told BarrelProof that I wasn't moving it without merit as an article in the Atlantic City Press concerning the change is cited within the opening paragraph. As far as I saw, once he re-reverted the move the matter ceased to be an issue. I'll leave it be. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I consider that matter closed. You are still welcome to submit a formal move request for community consideration, of course. It is certainly possible that the consensus has changed about that topic. I am only saying that unilateral undiscussed moves, in the absence of any new developments reflected by reliable sources (especially after highly explicit notification), are not appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

After this morning, after yet another attempt to try and convince AldezD to see things my way, I've decided that any further attempts to discuss this with him are futile. I don't know what else I can do to convince him that there's an inaccurate piece of information in the article that needs correcting. He simply won't consider my position no matter how many times I explain it. I'm not sure what else can be done here. I apologize for wasting the wiki's time. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"...To see things my way"—yet another example of WP:BATTLE. You provided additional comments at Talk:The Joker's Wild, to which I provided a reply, again requesting proof to your repetition of unsourced claims. You claim there is inaccurate information, yet after multiple requests for evidence that meets WP:V, you simply restate your original argument without providing a source, then accuse others of being difficult or lacking good faith. AldezD (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we agree on a few basic principles here and try to move on:

1. We should be careful about linking to a potential copyvio video.
2. A (widely rerun) nationally syndicated U.S. broadcast television show is an adequately reliable source for information about what happened on the television show itself (whether we have a direct link to the content of the show or not – just as an article or book that is not published on the internet can also be an adequately reliable source of information – especially about the content of the book or article itself).
3. We should sort out the details by discussions on the article's Talk page, and try to be polite while doing so. (I haven't really noticed any terrible problem in regard to the politeness issue thus far.)
4. Complete removal of all information about what happened to Joe Dunn, the most exceptionally successful contestant in the history of the show (aside from "tournament of champions" contests), who was forcibly "retired" as a result of being too successful (with the television show itself as evidence of those facts), is unlikely to be the appropriate end result.

—BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We have apparently resolved this situation...if the admins could close this, it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisP2K5 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Problem with User:AHLM13

Hi. I believe we have a problem with User:AHLM13, who appears to have decided to persistently remove contributions from unregistered/IP editors without regard for their content or usefulness. I first noticed this earlier this morning with one article, and on checking the user's contributions realised that this was a consistent pattern of behaviour. I therefore left this comment on the user's talk page: label. At this stage I had some concerns, but noticed that this editor has only recently registered, so felt that expressing a concern would probably be enough to address the problem, and decided not to take the issue any further at that time.

Having left a message for this user, I was surprised to discover that a couple of hours later the user had (a) immediately deleted my comment from their talk page without trying to contact anyone to address the concerns raised, and (b) continued to delete useful content from articles where this content has been contributed by unregistered/anonymous IP editors. For example, the editor has recently removed useful content from Uhuru Kenyatta, Sand goanna, and Naracoorte, South Australia, and about 50 others. This seems to me to be disruptive behaviour. I've brought the matter to this noticeboard, rather than go through a slower discussion process with the editor in question, because the editor seems to be following a strategy of making a large number of unhelpful edits very quickly. It seemed sensible to escalate this promptly.

I notice that this editor signed up on 27 May 2014. I was struck by how quickly the editor started making edits to a large number of pages, and how they had set up a nicely laid out user page within 45 minutes, and started using Twinkle with great efficiency within a couple of weeks of signing up. (For comparison, it took me years to discover that Twinkle existed, and my user page has yet to reach tidiness!) I suspect that this editor is therefore an experienced editor under another name. A particular concern is that this indiscriminate removal of contributions from unregistered/anonymous editors may be due to some particular stance, and that this user has unilaterally decided to implement an "all editors must be registered" policy, or some variant thereof. Whatever the reason, though, this editor seems to be running a one-person crusade.

I'd be very grateful if an administrator or two could take a look into this, and take whatever action is deemed appropriate. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not my problem if you took years to discover this Twinkle. I do not know what you want to do. AHLM13 ✉ 11:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Clear abuse of Twinkle and disruptive editing, reverting clearly good-faith edits without a proper edit summary [148], [149] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily an issue with you having discovered Twinkle (though it being an automated tool works in as a way to quickly do many edits). The concern expressed is that you are wholesale reverting several IP edits which have been made in good faith without explaining why. This is a misuse of an automated tool—it's just as bad as using WP:Rollback for the same thing. - Purplewowies (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• There is a serious problem. In addition to the three "removed useful content" diffs above, I did a quick check of some recent activity:
  • diff revert a September 2012 comment claiming there is a problem with an image
  • diff revert August 2013 edit which simplified a link
  • diff revert September 2013 edit which simplified a link and added some valid italics
  • diff revert two December 2013 unexplained edits—perhaps ok, hard to know
  • diff revert two good March 2014 edits
  • diff revert removal of [...] around bare URLs in refs—revert is not an improvement
• None of the above are big content problems, but biting IPs is a big problem, and the pointless nature of some of the above reverts is a concern. I think mentoring would be a minimum requirement. It is unacceptable to rapidly revert any edits with no explanation unless the edits are clear vandalism. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. IP-biting is not remotely acceptable, and the user has been impervious to warnings and advice. As John and Neil have showed, they're reverting edits that are not merely good-faith but good. And just see how lightning fast they're editing, obviously not allowing any time to apply any consideration to the edits themselves before reverting them. That does look like a crusade, and it needs to be stopped now. Mentoring can be considered at more leisure, if the user shows any interest in that. Thank you for sounding the alarm, RomanSpa. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

You're welcome, and thank you all for your swift response. RomanSpa (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because they know what WP:TW was within days of signing up, and just because they are able to make a good user page, doesn't necessarily mean that the user assumes bad faith. Their edits, however, are indicative of this assumption of bad faith, and I agree that their IP-biting was unacceptable. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm working my way through their edits from the most recent backwards, reverting the unproductive ones. If someone wants to work backwards, it would be appreciated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to start with this editor's earliest stuff, and work forward. For the first week or two I think things were broadly unproblematic, so this should be manageable. RomanSpa (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many edits reverting in content like this. Opinions from editors please? Leave in or remove again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In the diff shown, the IP removed unreferenced text, but with no edit summary. If I ha that page watchlisted, I would have reverted the deletion with an edit summary of "undo unexplained deletion". If I had time, I would have left the level-1 deletion template on the IP's talk page. I'd leave the text in. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Freaking mess. Some reverts enforce WP:MOS, others break the same rule. Some edits revert vandalism, others put it back in. I've gotten to Walther Stampfli. Weirdest article so far: 10-minute haircut. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Intelligent design Talk page

There is an IP user who has lingered on the Talk:Intelligent design page for years now, contributing only long, POV posts that claim a cabal of editors WP:OWN that article ([150], [151]). I've generally ignored this user, but he has recently taken to trolling my User page, as evidenced by his edit to that page and his mention of the content I have there (notice his questioning of the term physicalism). I also can't help thinking that this user is hiding behind an IP to avoid sanctions, and therefore conclude that a block of this user's IP addresses would probably be the most appropriate course of action, given the above. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually see anything very recent on your pages, but I don't doubt that this is a returning banned user. 71.169.180.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for a whole year by User:KillerChihuahua just over a year ago, as being banned editor Rbj.[152] Unfortunately, the individual is not hiding behind one IP but a whole flock of them: I see 71.169.179.28, 71.161.192.138, and 70.109.182.148 in there. Several of them are dynamic, and it's an unblockably huge range. Blocking dynamic IPs as they pop up is a mug's game, so I don't quite know if there's anything that can be done. Anybody? Ping, all techies? Bishonen | talk 21:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Page protection until he appears to give up? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen, I am a DBA myself and can't think of a viable way for WP admins to block this user's multiple IPs. Also, I fear protecting the page will only annoy other editors who are participating in good faith. If there is no effective means to accomplish this, I will withdraw my request for a block and put up with the recurring, but not overly frequent, behavior. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Buneary Show

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I've already nominated the obvious hoax article The Buneary Show for speedy deletion (A11), but user Toothy7942 has removed the speedy delete template once via their account, then a second and third time via obvious sock/meatpuppetry from 70.50.211.67. Since I'm not interested in edit-warring, may I please request an admin please delete, then salt the account and consider blocking the user to prevent future disruptions? The bulk of their contributions have involved this article about a non-notable YouTube show, which they have clearly identified as "fanon" (fan canon). They've been at this since December 2013 and I think it's clear they are not here to contribute constructively. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: Admin Sasquatch seems to have taken care of much of this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wigmore, Herefordshire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I came across an edit war on this page regarding a school in this district, between an editor who identified as an employee of the school (I think, wasn't clear from comments on my talk page and didn't confirm when asked) and an IP editor who it seems may be affiliated with a selfpub'd site posting disparaging information about the school. The IP is adding info to the page suggesting that test scores at the school have declined (based on WP:OR from government data) and posting allegations about management misconduct sourced to the attack site. It appears they may also be using some kind of software to automatically revert the page, based on always reverting within minutes and adding an accurate timestamp with every revert.

I had posted this to WP:RFPP after warning both editors failed to stop the war (a third editor has got in on it now, not counting myself) and I would just request that the IP be blocked, but I've become involved by reverting some edits myself and am therefore requesting admin assistance. I think the RFPP is moot at this point anyway, this is obviously an SPA issue. Ivanvector (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've notified all three users: Seades (talk · contribs), 87.113.177.226 (talk · contribs), and Wigmore7 (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, I forgot that step. I'm also notifying StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  

My apologies I was not using any automated update software, I was just adding the line at the bottom every time he updated in the hope he'd get bored if he thought it was a bot auto-reverting the page...I was just trying to stop the edit war by dissuading Mr Shaw/SEADES from the continual unreasonable reversions. I've posted full details openly at Ivanvector's talk page (talk), but have just noticed he's on a wikibreak, apologies for any errors in approaching the matter, but please be assured wigmoreschool.com is NOT a attack site. I have made the school aware of the site and asked for any comment regarding the content.StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk · contribs).

Edit war, help?! and apologies

My name is Nick Covill. I believe I have by ignorance become involved in an editing war. I have now set up a wiki account and happily give my name as I am happy to be held responsible for the content I am creating as this schools failings need exposing.
[REDACTED]. Apart from being libellous, this section contained a BLP violation against a specified identifiable living person. Black Kite kite (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I have combined this section with the above section, Wigmore, Herefordshire, since they are obviously on the same topic. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• @StopTheRot-Wigmore: don't worry about it: they've already been notified. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• @G S Palmer: Many thanks. Let me know if there is anything else I can do and once again apologies for my newbie wiki skills StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• You should probably read WP:OUTING, because your speculation as to the identity of Seades is almost certainly in violation of that policy. It would probably be a good idead to strike or remove those parts of your comments. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Read and understood. Outing rules make total sense when viewed from a systems perspective - Man I feel like I'm wandering around a minefield in a blindfold. Creating and maintaining a fair forum for disseminating information is not as simple a thing as I'd naively thought. The simplest of ideals spawns the the most complex of questions and responsibilities. All I wanted was to provide information to prospective and current parents to share our families very real concerns about what has transpired at the school as there is very little real ability to hold an Academy School to account in the UK sadly...Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, "Stop the rot", Wikipedia is not a forum for activism, and you're linking to a website containing some serious allegations of named individuals. This website is not a reliable source (see WP:RS), your pointing at numbers constitutes original research (loosely) based on primary data (see WP:OR), but, and this is the biggest problem (besides the edit warring), on that website individuals are named and accused. So whatever problems there are, Wikipedia is not the solution. You may not be pleased with that, but consider what would happen if we did allow what I'll conveniently call "activism"--there would be no reason to not let the school edit the article as well. And then we'd all be up shit creek, as an American might put it.

  GB fan has reverted; please don't reinstate it. All the best to you and your family. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Czechia dispute

(Non-administrator comment) This was 2 seperate threads originally. I've unified them under a larger dispute so that editors see both sides Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Askave

User:Askave has been making protracted controversial POV-pushing WP:SOAP statements regarding the name Czechia for a number of months against consensus and peppering this behaviour with personal attacks against other editors, particularly User:Yopie, e.g. [153] [154] and making threats [155]. Askave has a real problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and seems to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but rather to promote Czechia over the Czech Republic as the main means of referring to the country. Previous requests to adhere to WP:A [156] [157]have been unsuccessful. I haven't had the time to see whether his latest edits [158] are in accordance with policy, but fear not, considering the above. C679 08:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, the user has accused me of sockpuppetry and resorted to name-calling on my talk page. C679 09:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have to categorically reject all accusations, incl.personal attacks. I am constantly accused of sockpuppetry by User:Yopie, all of my edits and articles, regarding or simply only containing informal (geographic name) of the Czech Republic have been deleting without any discussion (also User:Mewulwe), with any counterargument (it is comprehensible, because some rational reason does not exist at all - only subjective "I don't like it: and it is really very little argument). So, it is not personal attack of those people? From those reasons, that kind of behaviour can be understood from my side only as vandalic and rude. My reactions to such a kind of acting was emmotional, but directly proportional to the ostentative hostility, suspections and accusations from POV, however e.g. in the article "Czechia - the name dispute" I compared reasons for and against using the word and the dispute cannot be (from the natural character of the sense of the word) other, than controversial. In addition, I was absurdly accused from violation of copyright, however I was the founder of the article. User:Yopie focuses attention on my personal attacks, but they are nothing more than only way how to openly defend myself against coward and hypocritic behaviour of him. I have not met at least one argument from his side, I meet only quiet deletion of all I create with some general and nothing saying announcing of POV, if there was mentioned the name "Czechia". He obviously does not read the text, only searches for the name. In that case, he erases all the text. He is "active" in deletion of informal name also in other languages Wikipedia, where is one-word name commonly used. As is mentioned below, his POV direction is obvious in his Czech Wikipedia personal page (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Yopie) declaring his biased beliefs by his own charakteristic of himself, writing: Tento uživatel nežije v Česku ale v České republice. ("This user does not live in Czechia, but in the Czech Republic"). After all quiet counteractions, he usually complains about my "not polite" behaviour. I would never know about some Yopie, if that guy has not proved his self-inflicted attitude to my edits.

I refuse to be persecuted here as a renegade or invader ! I am a researcher and in science is totally impossible and absurd to accept a rejection of personally uncomfortable opinion without serious discussion or more, to make apparent the reason of adversary is obviously subjective, without sufficient education in the issue. Many non-Czech admins do not realize it, but this is the fight between Czechs about aged burning issue and the dispute (however the article was deleted) has been existed for more than 20 years of existence of modern Czech state.

I am foprced to announce I proceed in accordance with official recommendations of Czech foreign ministry and Ministry of Education and Sports from 1993 and 1997 to use the name Czechia in all cases, except official documents, which are in force; they have not been ever cancelled. Esentially, I respect official recommendation and acting of Yopie and comp.is in conflict with them. In addition, the statement of English speaking countries representatives (e.g.UK ambasador in the Czech Republic) was always unambiguous, proclaiming willingness of English speaking countries to accept the name Czechia as a direct, an English language equivalent to Czech one-word name of the country "Česko", if the initiative will come from Czechs. It was done by above mentioned official documents of Czech govermenment. There are also another - essential, logical and practical - reasons for using informal name in Wikipedia instead of conventional political name:

(1) the translation of "Česká republika" into English is "the Czech Republic", the claim that translation of "Česko" is "the Czech Republic" too is simply false and absurd.
(2) if an informal name of the country in Czech (Česko) has its equivelents in all other languages (which was mentioned in the survey of my articles), there is not any rational reason for some stubborn resistance and rejection of using it in only language - in English.
(3) one of the main reason for using an informal name is basic need to assign the country by politically neutral name, which can serve for denomination of the country without any limitations and in time and space consequence, as is usual in every country with longer history with changes of political formations in the area. The country with more than 1100 years long history cannot be assigned by transient political name with limited action radius, containing only last 20 years of the existence of the Czech state. One of the main reasons is to prevent nonsenses, malignantly rampant here, where also Czech Kingdom is assigned as Czech Republic etc., etc., but the absolutely main reason is to unify and make clear and transparent view of our country for common reader of encyclopedy (as is usual worldwide), who cannot logically be oriented in the issue and his knowledge ends in ruins in that mess (categories as "...... of the Czech lands" and "..... of the Czech Republic") - Kingdom of Bohemia, Czech lands or Czech Republic, this is simply Czechia.A lot of examples, one close to us: Upper Hungary, western part of Czechoslovak republic or Slovak republic - simply Slovakia or Swedish Estonia, Livonian War Duchy of Estonia, Polish Estonia, Swedish Livonia, Estonian Republic - simply Estonia,etc., etc...... I promote common sense, nothing more.
(4) The rejection of informal name arises from strictly personal, subjective and predominatly emmotionally conditioned "reasons".

That sneak character of behaviour of some users seems to me really infantile. It is sad, I am forced to participate this childish rule here. [User:Askave] Askave (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Yopie

User:Yopie has been deleting all references to the informal name of the Czech Republic - Czechia for years. He has not used any arguments and together with User:Mewulwe deletes without reasons or with wildcard reasons destroys all articles and mentions about that name, however they are complex and supported by many references. It already has happened to several contributors many times. He also initiates blocking and reporting of persons, contributing to the issue. The articles were always deleted, one of them also after suspect voting process, though voting ended with the victory of his opponents. Those articles (remain on personla pages of contributors and also there was was even recorded his activity towards their elimination. The last example is the page Civic initiative Czechia. I ask Wikipedia for stopping that behaviour. He is "active" in deletion of informal name also in other languages Wikipedia, where is one-word name commonly used. This can be considered almost psychotic obsession. To show POV interests of User:Yopie see his Czech Wikipedia page https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Yopie where he obviously shows his biased beliefs by his own charakteristic of himself, writing: Tento uživatel nežije v Česku ale v České republice. ( "This user does not live in Czechia, but in the Czech Republic"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askave (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I can only confirm this, it takes few minutes and word Czechia is deleted. The dispute about the logical geographic name Czechia is ongoing since 1993 and has been discussed in the public hearing of Senate, Yopie's opinion is that this can be deleted because it is of no importance! So I can not imagine a public hearing of Senate for an issue of no importance! Yopie claims to be a monarchist, his thinking is totaly communist, he supresses any opinion which is not in line with his own belief.He is neglecting established facts, like Cesko, short name of The Czech Republic, which is the offical registered short name in the UNO UNGEGN list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helveticus96 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Askave and Heleticus96, please desist from making personal attacks - talking about "almost psychotic obsession" (Askave) or stating that a user's thinking is "totally communist" (Helvitcus96) is definitely in personal attack territory and doesn't aid resolution of the dispute (and in fact makes it less likely that your views will be taken seriously). Please provide diffs of any alleged wrongdoing, noting that ANI is not for resolution of content disputes.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I presume, that behaviour of Askave/ Helveticus is self- explaning. Namecalling and personal attacks of others, even here. --Yopie (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban

After having a few unpleasant exchanges with user:Askave about Czechia, I think that the only solution is a topic ban that covers the naming of the Czech Republic and predecessors, including naming people of being from Czechia. The Banner talk 11:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, Yopie, you do not have one single argument, you just do not like it! Czechia will make it, even if you keep deleting as it is a logical and correct short name of our country! Czechia will make it in the same way, as the so hated Česko has made it. We have a long breath and even if it takes another twenty years! If Tschechien works in German, Czechia will work in English! Helveticus96 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A ban for sockpuppetry might have an even longer breath... The Banner talk 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations ! This is really response to my long and detailed explanation ?! This is really democratic conclusion ! Instead of thinking about the problem, the best way is to prohibit it ! User:The Banner - Nomen omen. User:Askave No more comments Askave (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your "long and detailed explanation" was hardly more than a statement that you are right and the world is wrong. And could you please stop the personal attacks? The Banner talk 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that there is off-Wiki canvassing going on regarding the whole matter [159]. C679 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see Parliament of the Czech Republic in Collection in laws: http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s444/Helveticus1/Czechia_Sbzaacutekon16F01998_zps167be47b.jpgHelveticus96 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, a topic ban against Askave is now moot, after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blanicky that got him banned as sockpuppet. I hope this will bring this wildfire to a standstill. The Banner talk 15:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil editor needs to be told to back off

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reacted to a disagreement over two ways of interpreting policies and guidelines (essentially boiling down to m:Inclusionism and m:Exclusionism) by chiding me like a childish vandal, reacting to other's policy based reasonings with insulting dismissal or even outright ignoring it while hypocritically and baselessly claiming that others are ignoring policy based reasonings (the implication being that it's only policy based if he agrees with it). He has gone so far as to assert that adding content doesn't count as a bold edit. When it was explained to him how his conduct and attitude were inappropriate for a cooperative discussion (note the heated but civil discussion among everyone else), and that his claims regarding bold edits were against the letter and the spirit of WP:BRD, he responded by just calling me incompetent.

Is there anyone who can explain how his behavior is not in complete violation of m:Dick, if not WP:CIVIL, here? Heck, he doesn't try to defend his behavior.

He's behaving this way toward editors who doesn't give him exactly what he wants when it comes to the issue behind the contested edits. He does not have a cool head in this.

This is a clear indication that he needs to back off either from the article or from me (and probably Kevin Gorman), at a minimum, until he learns to behave WP:CIVILy. I'll leave it to everyone else to determine how this is to be accomplished. There are plenty of other people to make the inclusionist arguments at that, so there's no way this can be seen as a content dispute. Heck, as a good faith measure, if he's pulled away from that article, I'll stay away as well to even out the numbers. And if anyone wants to try to boomerang m:Dick at me, please explain how I addressed him instead of his behavior, and note that I know that an IBAN goes both ways. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ian, I'm not sure but I think you were the first one to wave your manhood around on that talk page. Either way, of course citing WP:DICK can be DICKISH. It seems to me that there is a pretty heated argument here, but I haven't seen anything blockable yet. Yet. Now, disclaimer: I have worked with Alf in the past and find them to be knowledgeable and reasonable, and usually when they have something to say I try to listen. But that's just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Do not understand this report but those massive long opinionated comments used as links are a great way to add weight to comments, makes them really stand out Mosfetfaser (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• I would suggest closing this section, protecting the page for a week to make people work out appropriate inclusion criteria on talk since the page has seen more editwarring since I went to freaking dinner, and not bothering to block anyone unless they do something momentously stupid. It's one line in one article sourced to one line in one source. Whichever way it ends up falling, it can wait a while to fall. (At least people are engaging on the talk page now, which is different than how it started.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are edit-warring, Kevin. Don't talk about page protection when *you* are the main problem (see [160]). And your nonsense about people "now" engaging on the talk page is also disingenuous. You engaged on the talk page briefly but now that you've got your preferred version edit-warred into place you want to lock it down with page protection? You're the one who went right to 3 reversions and then stopped like every other POV warrior with barely sufficient impulse control around here. You set the tone, Kevin. You're the administrator. Act like one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Alf, if you keep posting like this, the section started to discuss civility issues with you might end up remaining open, lol. I engaged on the talk page from my very first revert, which I performed after the content was added. I then reverted two Wikipediocracy mods whose sole argument as to why the inclusion of the content in question was necessary was to do not do so would be censorship. I have a book that tells me what color suit Truman was ordering three days after he ordered the US drop an atomic bomb; nothing anyone could do would convince me that that was encyclopedic information. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information; removing information isn't censorship. When I put in an RFPP request, I had no idea what version of the article was going to end up protected (it flipflopped between me making the request and the request being fulfilled,) and frankly, I don't care what version got protected. Something that involves one line of content in one article sourced to one line in one source can take a week to figure out whether to leave in or take out, and nothing is going to be damaged by leaving it out or leaving it in for that week. Second off, as a minor point, if I have such exceedingly poor impulse control as to be worth attacking about it, certainly I would've been blocked for that impulse control snapping and exceeding 3rr at least once in my time here? I'd invite you to take a look at my block log and see if that's the case. 3rr says that reverting more than three times is always a problem and that reverting less than three times can be but is not always a problem. I do not consider one initial revert and then two further reverts of a Wikipediocracy mod as a problem. I also have no idea why it would be disingenuous to point out that there is meaningful engagement on the talk page currently, when there wasn't to begin with (except by me and Wllm.) To paraphrase yourself, you're supposed to be a contributor to a collaborative encyclopedia that assumes good faith and works out issues on talk pages without attacking anyone. Remember that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your explicit defense for edit-warring is that you were reverting "Wikipediocracy mods"? You "do not consider one initial revert and then two further reverts of a Wikipediocracy mod as a problem"? You need to review the policies on edit-warring. Furthermore, you should read what I wrote before you accuse me of attacking you. I said that you stopped at 3 reverts, just like POV warriors with "barely sufficient impulse control" do. Obviously I didn't say you have " have such exceedingly poor impulse control as to be worth attacking about it." And don't defend yourself by saying you engaged on the talk page from the beginning. You were still edit-warring and you stopped engaging on the talk page around the time you filed your RfPP which, to the everlasting shame of Wikipedia, you got, hours after anyone had made an edit to the article. Ridiculous.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"you stopped engaging on the talk page around the time you filed your RfPP which" - this is a blatantly false statement, please retract it. I engaged after I filed the RfPP, and have continually engaged on the page as I have had internet access. And yes, I do not consider one initial revert followed by two reverts of a particular Wikipediocracy mod whose only defense was that removing any sourced information amounted to censorship to be terribly inapprpriate behavior. The number of edit requests you made on that page just to make a WP:POINT was ridiculous, and though stale now, does suggest that the originator of this section had a point... I'd also love an explanation of how a page being protected to stop an ongoing editwar *many hours after I filed the RfPP* is something that shame Wikipedia everlastingly. I had no idea what state the page would be protected in when I filed the RFPP, and you're quite aware of that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

← For the record, I fully protected the page as per the request at a very backlogged RFPP, as there was an ongoing edit war. This is not an endorsement of any version of the page, I just protected whatever version was current. I have no horse in the race, so if someone feels the need to reverse my protection or whatever, it's all good by me. I know there was a delay between the last reversions and the protection. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit-war was long over. You ought to reverse your own protection.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Alf, there was plenty of warring still, and a potential of it continuing, so I think protection was fair. BTW, I agree with your note on the talk page about the "Easter egg pipe linking" or whatever you called it--Ian, this strikes me as a bit patronizing. There is no need for all that linkage. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The request was made by one of the edit warriors and the protection locked down his favored version of the page. Interesting how that works. It's all just a game to some people... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I have found the editor raising this complaint to be very quick to turn combative and argumentative. He accused me of not providing links for an argument I was making, but I did and he just hadn't read carefully. He quietly changed the subject after that. Conversely the editor being accused was polite when I dealt with them once. Useitorloseit (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that experience has anything to do with this situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would request both the participation of more uninvolved editors on the page, and the eyes of a few uninvolved admins. Alf's behavior has made me think that the original post in this section may have actually held some merit, and for reasons I can't quite fathom, Alf has launched an "informal RfC" that seems to me to bypass one of the major intended purposes of RfC's to begin with - attracting uninvolved editors for. I can't entirely fathom why he did so, and suspect the page will devolve in to an incomprehensible wall as it is currently set up. He's also made half a dozen protected edit requests with no apparent point but to demonstrate that he doesn't think the page should be protected in a pretty damn WP:POINTy way that has also spammed the page a respectable amount. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• To provide a direct example of Alf's disruptive behavior: they have now started 26 of the sections on the entire page, including 6 meaningless edit requests that split up meaningful discussion of the issue at hand. By starting such a ridiculous number of sections, they are severely limiting the ability for useful discussion to easily occur on the page. If Alf starts another bunch of sections, I would request an uninvolved admin step in and either block Alf or simply delete the sections. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's shut this specious complaint down here and then maybe one of the POV warriors can run to ArbCom and see if they want to deal with the bad behavior of some interested parties in this content dispute. Hint: boomerangs can inflict nasty damage. Best to just hat the mess and move along. P.S. There should be no protection on that article. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Citation bot - mass creation of sub-templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Citation bot (talk · contribs) is creating a massive number of sub-templates which store citation data within the Template namespace. I have read thru the various past approval requests listed at User:Citation bot#Bot approval, but I can't find an explicit request where they ask for approval for the mass creation of pages (request #6 mentions creation of subtemplates, refering to request #2, but that request doesn't ask for that ability). This bot has been operating in this manner apparently for many years, and the result is about 49k of these templates within Category:Cite doi templates, as well as some other types of citations. There are over 67 million DOIs in existence, so this could continue to grow indefinitely if left unchecked.

I'd like to ask that this bot be blocked temporarily until the operator can explain where and when he got community approval for mass creation of pages, and until this function of his bot has had a proper discussion (and moreso, the general problem of external data being stored in the template namespace). -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with this. This is a very useful function that CitationBot's author clearly doesn't receive enough kudos for. It's not indiscriminately sucking up the entire DOI database, but just the information that is required to put properly formatted citations into articles. The exact same information would have needed to be put in the articles directly by hand, if CitationBot wasn't doing this. -- The Anome (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bullying editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Retrohead, is edit warring, bullying and article owning, not assuming good faith, I don't no if I have filled this out right but I need help. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This user has been in disagreement over Megadeth discography page I tried a discussion at first he was having none of it, in the end we were both blocked, after the block he continue until Ritchie333 came along and tried to start a reasonable conversation it kind of worked and we talked over all the things all of which ended up with Retrohead getting his own way but I am not going to do that on this he is trying to make out I have been vandalising pages which Rich agrees I haven't and has taken the piss out of my speech along with loads of other things. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see neither of you appears to be looking aprticually good on this one. youve reported USER:Retrohead here, hes reported you to WP:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Prehaps you could both leave it well alone for a day or two and see if a break from what appears to just be an escalating argument.

Theres evidence of both of you being WP:Uncivil in the edit summaries shortly after being unblocked which isnt really helping either of your cases.Amortias (T)(C) 18:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Edgar181 has blocked the OP and after reading the diffs, I concur. Luke Jordan is the cause of his own mess.--v/r - TP 18:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Good block. Current unblock request ought to be declined for not addressing the reason behind the block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see this report before acting on a WP:AIV report for Lukejordan02. Lukejordan02 has been clearly disruptive and I blocked him for inappropriate and disruptive behavior similar to what led to his two other recent blocks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I had informed MrMoustacheMM, Bretonbanquet, Discographer, and Piriczki, who had also clashes with this user about the discography pages. I left a list of the pages he has been editing at his talk page, demanding answer what he has been doing there.--Retrohead (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame it had to come to this. I was hoping that dragging the pair of you onto talk and thrashing your issues out there would avoid any blocks for anyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I also regret for taking this to here, but it seems that the editor needs to read the policies and act according to them. I remember when I started editing, I was on the brink on getting blocked for life after a dispute with Dan56 at ...And Justice for All. Since then, I learnt to think twice before getting into an argument. However, here we had "it is either my way or nothing" behavior, and what I hate the most, behavior like "who the f... do you think you are?" from his side, which I can not tolerate.--Retrohead (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet another spurious unblock request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I really don't see why both editors weren't blocked. Both edit warred. Both used problematic edit summaries. The editor not blocked also attempted to get others to intervene on his behalf. (See this for example.) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 20:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have informed all four editors to weigh in because they had similar problem with that user. The only inappropriate summary used by me was when a called that user an "immature fool" because he was pretending that certain edits weren't conducted by him. Given value what he had called me before and since, that seems like a mild qualification. 1, 2, 3, 4--Retrohead (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly inappropriate in that diff, Calidum. I have seen some similar inappropriate actions from other editors, but in those cases I think you have to take it with the totality of the circumstances. Anyway, I think the blocking in this case is more administrative discretion. Unless Retrohead was still editwarring, we're at the maximum level of prevention right now; to go and block Retrohead would be approaching punitive. While I have seen cases where blocking both editors is fine, I don't think this is one of those cases. So long as Retrohead understands why his/her reverts were not exempted from 3RR/etc., there's no purpose in blocking now. Lukejordan02, on the other hand... In short, I'm fine with Retrohead not being blocked, while Lukejordan02 is blocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think this editor, Lukejordan, is more trouble than he's worth. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The real problem here is "expert vs randy", where two editors bang heads over content, but no-one else seems to care. It is frustrating to have to deal with the latest sword-wielding skeleton theory du jour on talk, DRV, ANI etc, all of which is time that could be spent on something else. Although the actual content under dispute by yesterday evening was pretty trivial stuff IMHO and this sums up my thoughts well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP: 109.127.224.148 Vandalism and Potential sockpuppet

The IP possibly related blocked user User:Epoxyorlyx. He/she always vandalising and POV pushing specific articles. another related IP:93.103.68.73

such as: Chuvash people Volga Tatars Finnish Tatars

Seems, he/she is trying to break up the block. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Yagmurlukorfez. Epoxyorlyx was recently checkuserblocked by Salvio giuliano, so I'm pinging him in case he wants to take a look at these IPs as well. Hello there, Salvio. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

That would be good. Thank you too.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

However, I see Salvio isn't editing very frequently right now. Might another checkuser please step up? Jpgordon? Materialscientist? Bishonen | talk 23:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Range block applied. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Canback and Company spamming.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Coretheapple suggested this notice might be better suited to this noticeboard. It regards the additions of User:Zanabelles. I don't know where discussion should be centralized, but the suggestion that it requires admin involvement is not a bad one.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The user is persistently spamming, and edit-warred on multiple articles after being asked by two editors to desist. Coretheapple (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Account blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.