Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861

Toxic Editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChamithN

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.

---

If you look at the talks of this editor... I would suggest that he will be disbanded from his role as an editor. He is unreceptive, proud, and he seems to be so busy to ask a talk but delete the talk and could not get a reply from him... He is immature and toxic and loves to design his user page as if to show his abilities but he is toxic and James don't like that (a part of his speech in London's wikimania- I read it). Better remove him from the administrative board, - it's not worth paying him from the people's donation because of his character and let him sulk in his pride in his own country where he can vent out his anger unconstructively not in wikipedia.124.104.182.35 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1. You need to notify editors when you bring them up here or at ANI.
2. You need to give specific links to specific comments made by the editor, and also show that you've made any sort of effort to solve your problem yourself.
3. He's not an admin.
4. I don't exactly see the problem. What policies is he breaking? What is he doing that warrants a block at all, let alone an indefinite one? Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi, few points need clarifying,

1. What exactly is the problem this editor has caused I can't see anything actionable here.
2. You need to provide diffs to back up your claims.
3. Their not an administrator.
4. Administrators arent paid.

Amortias (T)(C) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note [1] this report at WP:AN is very close to being a personal attack. Theres a risk of a self-returning block stick coming into play here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) This report is baseless. The IP made an unconstructive edit which the "toxic editor" reverted on vandalism patrol. ChamithN's page is already semiprotected because of IP vandalism, which continues on the user's talk page, and which this IP is no doubt involved in. I suggest our anonymous user should find something better to do. Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So what this IP user trying to say is this edit is constructive?. He hasn't even realized that his edits won't be display even if I didn't revert it.--Chamith (talk) 22:18, 29 October 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:Bgwhite refuses to acknowledge issue, is uncommunicative

On Sunday, I attempted twice to add paragraph (<p>) tags inside a list item per Help:List#Paragraphs inside list items 'cause the text was too long. I was reverted both times by Bgwhite, for doing it 'incorrectly', apparently. I've tried again and again to explain what was wrong with his fix, only to be brushed off and accused of trying to own the article on his talk page (which I think is very silly -- I did not even revert him a third time). A little while ago he said he'd stop answering to me. Would someone perhaps be able to mediate? Thank you. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, you were reverted because the <p> tag works differently in Wikipedia (it is tantamount to pressing the Enter key twice, which is a paragraph break, and besides, it's unnecessary even if they worked as expected). You also did not break up the paragraphs; instead you put them ahead of each list entry. <p> tags are only to be used if it's the same entry with multiple parapraphs, not multiple one-paragraph entries as is the case here. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Epicgenius, but I think you should take a closer look. Firstly, I added p tags inside a list item; we can't have blank lines inside a list item. Secondly, the 2nd list item did have multiple paragraphs. I've explained why I added p tags to all of them on Bgwhite's talk page. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the problem. You do not need <p> tags on all the list entries, just those that need breaking. Epicgenius (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, technically, I don't. I wouldn't have protested if they hadn't been also removed from the item that needed them. (But for the reason that there's no margin between list items, I think they should've been kept....which is one reason why I ultimately suggested we create a template.) 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

<br> could also be used, if <p> is too big. – Diverse genius (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To be frank, what bothered me the most was that he basically refused to listen to anything I said. It's not the end of the world if it's not semantic or if the margins aren't quite right. Granted, I was a little blunt the first couple of times, but I don't see what it is I did to deserve to be treated this way. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Next time, if you need opinions, you can ask for help at village pump (assistance) or reference desk. – Infinite genius (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

These types don't have time to listen because they're too busy making sure everything project-wide has semantic pushdown context-free cleanliness depth or whatever it is they care about. If you use {{paragraph break}} instead of < p>, they'll leave you alone. EEng (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: WP:VPA was closed 6 years ago... though I can't quite bring to mind what the alternative would be for opinion-asking... *is also a tad confused because refdesk is supposed to reject opinion questions...* (Is this a joke I'm not getting?) - Purplewowies (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's now been reverted a 3rd time (after Epicgenius put it back), for "breaking accessibly guidelines". [2] Where are these guidelines? Why does the Help page suggest we do something that's not accessible? I also like his spin on it: "You were told at ANI not to do this". Where was that? 31.153.72.171 (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

<p> are not allowed in "ul" elements per w3c recommendations. See [3] for informal explanation. If you run a test page with "p" in the "ul" through w3c validator it will tell you it's an error. NE Ent 09:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph tags are allowed inside li's and the validator won't complain about it. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And for proof: [4]. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Weird, my very similar test page appeared to fail the first time I tested -- I blame a cache somewhere. Anyway, Talk:Larnaca_International_Airport, not Bgwhite's talk page, is the place to discuss the content of Larnaca_International_Airport. NE Ent 10:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, but there isn't a disagreement over any of the content of the page. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just in case it muddles the discussion, in regard with this edit, I wanna make clear that that wasn't my doing. There weren't blank lines there on Sunday, and I'd have taken them out if I noticed they'd been added. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did these. If they are not correct, I apologize. <br> should be used instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the {{paragraph break}} suggestion above was actually probably the best, as it takes both appearance and accessibility into account. (Unless I've confused the issue at hand here and/or the the template's purpose.) - Purplewowies (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper talk page reversions

I followed-up on a request at Editor Assistance/Requests [5], and found that user:Charlesdrakew had deleted three talk page posts by user:Astbam. See [6] [7] [8]. I asked Charlesdrakew about this, and he claimed that the posts he deleted were WP:soapboxing, and stood by his reverts.[9]

Astbam's talkpage posts were clearly a legitimate attempt to resolve an article content dispute.(See the editor assistance request at [10].) WP has a well developed set of dispute resolution processes, but they do not include deleting other editor's talk page comments when you disagree with them (claims of soapboxing notwithstanding.) (See WP:TPO.)

Per ArbCom, "Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable."[11]

Charlesdrakew is a prolific and well-known WP editor, whose contributions appear to be very valuable to the project. This does not let him off the hook for hostile conduct.

As a matter of background, the only involvement I have in this matter is discussing it with Charlesdrakew, and bringing it here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The posts he removed don't meet Wikipedia's definition of soapboxing, and the OP is not violating any other guideline or rule that would allow his posts to be removed, so Charelsdrakew is violating TPO guidelines by removing the post. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that soapboxing should ever be removed. While a careful reading of the talk page guidelines mentions that some things can be removed such as personal attacks, and soap boxing arguably falls into the category of items allowed to be removed, I do not think this is a good idea primarily because the borderline between soap boxing and legitimate discussion is gray.

I accept that personal attacks should be removed even though there can be some question of definition. However if someone is soap boxing I think it would be best to simply have to discussion. If someone doesn't persistently they should be warned and eventually blocked or band but I see no value in attempting to remove any soapboxing from the talk page as opposed to simply hatting it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Along the lines of what I said on Charles's talk page: Odd that Charles should supposedly be in trouble for reverting edits that other editors have completely agreed do not belong on the site. Strange also that arbitration on the highly politicized topic of gun control is being applied to a rather non-political topic of housekeeping. If both the letter and the spirit of that arbcom ruling (derived from WP:NOTBATTLE) was being followed there, it's not about winning arguments so much as keeping the site working. The site is not helped by talk pages cluttered by people reposting paragraphs from policy pages without no real discussion of relevance, with little to nothing to do with article improvement. It is helped by focusing the talk pages to article improvement only.

Multiple editors had explained to Astbam why his changes were not needed. Instead, he tried a disruptive wikilawyering equivalent of filibustering and went forum shopping when he didn't get his way. There is a disruptive editor here, and it's not Charles. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I fully stand behind Charles's removal - IMHO Astbam warred and warred on the article and when he didn't get what he wanted he simply went to cause disruption on the talkpage instead. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) From what I can see, this is a long-term edit war between new user Astbam wanting to add innocuous information about bus route connections to an article and two established users Charlesdrakew and Davey2010 who want to maintain the existing version. Per the edit summaries and talk pages, Charles and Davey have made little effort to explain their position to Astbam, instead simply reverting and throwing guideline wikilinks at the user, expecting compliance, and refusing to elaborate when asked (see Fearofreprisal's diffs above). That's not consensus-building, that's being unnecessarily hostile to a newcomer, as Fearofreprisal said above. I agree with Astbam that there is no foundation in our guidelines for removing this information, and the two experienced users' explanation that we don't add easily-dated information is flimsy and a bit silly. Also, apparently because of this edit war, Charles has hammered Astbam's talk page with level 4 warnings, which is extremely inappropriate.

Astbam's request for an explanation should not have been waved off, however that doesn't justify the new user's repeatedly adding the information back to the article without discussion, and that in turn does not justify the experienced users' hostility. All of this could likely have been avoided with proper discussion.

Charles and Davey should read the "arguments to avoid" essays, particularly WP:UNENCYC, WP:BELONG and WP:VAGUEWAVE, as well as WP:BITE. All three users should read and be sure to clearly understand WP:BRD. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore with respect to Ian.thomson's comments, the "multiple other editors" were just Charles and Davey. With respect to Davey's comment and the Fearofreprisal's reason for opening the thread, it was probably unnecessary for Astbam to cut-and-paste the guidelines onto the talk page but we give new users a pretty wide latitude to make mistakes, but it was not soapboxing and calling it that was hostile. Even if it was soapboxing, that doesn't justify refactoring another user's talk page comments. Hatting with an explanation would have been better. Actually discussing with the new user would have been best. Ivanvector (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There is something strange going on when an editor I never heard of comes trawling through my old edits looking for something, anything, to attack me over. Strange too that only three reverts are being complained of here when the original complaint at my talkpage was of six reverts; [12] [13] [14], [15] [16], [17]

I suspect the motivation behind this has more to do with the latter three in the area of evolution. The creation, by creationists of course, of walls of text and circular arguments designed to drive out bonafide editors is an ongoing problem there and has to be controlled to maintain any sanity. It was mainly those posts I was referring to as soapboxing. They were.

Astbam is just one of a never-ending supply of transport obsessives who want to turn Wikipedia into a travel directory. The information he kept adding is not innocuous. It is original research compiled from ever changing primary sources, contrary to WP:NOT. It is not stable or of encyclopedic interest to anyone outside an immediate area. A policy titled WP:NOTTRAVEL surely speaks for itself. Trying to claim immunity from it on the grounds that something is not speciffically mentioned by the policy is just wikilayering.Charles (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adding my support, for what it's worth, to Ivanvector's observations. I'm sure it wouldn't have been that hard for one of the more experienced editors to explain to the newbie exactly how the information being added violated WP:NOTTRAVEL, rather than blowing the newbie off with "add the info to another site IE Wikia." Also, I'm fairly certain neither "Give it a rest" nor "Rv unencyclopedic" is a valid reason to remove a talk page comment, especially a fairly innocuous (if overly long and copy-pasted) comment from a newcomer. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing: If listing bus routes is verboten because it violates WP:OR and WP:NOTTRAVEL then we have a LOT of pages to get rid of. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do.Charles (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

ArbCom's statement of principles on standards of editor behavior:

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.[18] (Emphasis added)

ArbCom's statement of principles on consistent standards:

All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.[19] (Emphasis added)

The clear community consensus here is that Charlesdrakew's reversions of Astbam's talk page comments were inappropriate conduct. Charlesdrakew has not denied this, nor has he shown remorse or recognition that what he did was inappropriate. All he has done is attempt to blame other editors for the situation - Astbam for being "just one of a never-ending supply of transport obsessives who want to turn Wikipedia into a travel directory," and me, for raising this ANI.

My suggestion is that the minimum remedy appropriate to prevent further disruption is for Charlesdrakew to be indefinitely restricted from reverting talk pages. Alternatively, if he's willing to accept that his behavior has been inappropriately hostile, and agree to lighten the fuck up, possibly a better solution would be to make him an administrator. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

More WP:OR immediately following a block

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.

---

Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following this discussion only two weeks ago, Kkm was blocked for edit-warring and for unapologetically adding his own original research and "analysis" to various corporate articles. Even while the discussion was ongoing, Kkm continued to make the same sort of edits. He was blocked for that and for edit-warring to keep his original research in various articles.

Immediately following his return to editing, he added exactly the same type of original research (raw financial data, disingenuously cited with his own interpretations) to two different articles. I reverted both edits and warned him for those. My reverts were reverted, but with the addition of slightly better sources. But Kkm is at it again, adding the same Google Finance data, calling it an "annual report" and using the raw data to extrapolate year-on-year financial results.

There was a commitment from Kkm during the last ANI discussion that he would discontinue his OR spree. That commitment was obviously as disingenuous as his sourcing. I really don't know what else to do - I've tried warning, discussing, reverting, discussing again, discussing here (for which he was blocked) and more warning. What is it going to take for this disruptive behaviour to be stopped? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that adding (or subtracting ) numbers together isn't OR. He can show where he got the numbers from, and unless the contention is that google's unreliable, he's doing nothing more that basic addition or subtraction. This doesn't appear to be OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me. It was established that what he was adding was original research in the last ANI discussion and he agreed to stop doing it. The block was for original research. But he's back at it. It's not simply a matter of "adding (or subtracting) numbers". He's posting raw financial data, extrapolating results and claiming the data is in fact an annual report from the company in question. Completely false. The reliability of Google isn't in question - it's not a source published by Google at all; it's the raw search results Kkm got when he plugged the stock exchange code into Google. The issue here is not the acceptability of the edits themselves (it was established they were completely unacceptable and even Kkm agreed as much while at the same time pleading ignorance). The issue is that the IDHT attitude has continued beyond the original block. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111, looking at the page he linked to shows the numbers he says are there, and where he says increase or decrease, it's obvious that that indeed is what it is. He's not making up numbers, nor is he comparing source a to source b and coming up with C. He's reporting the numbers on the website (which is google finance) and stating if it's an increase or a decrease. That portion is not OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps this shouldn't be qualifies as the "Annual Report" which is an actual document likely produced by the company and Google Finance does not (as far as I saw) claim to be directly reproducing that report. There may be an issue of if Google Finance is an RS for this type of thing, but assuming it is, the increase/decrease stuff clearly falls within WP:CALC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As Gaijin42 said, it is also disingenuous to call the Google finance search an Annual Report. Anyone who is familiar with financial parlance would know that an Annual Report is released by the company and includes far more than just the numerical data for cash flow, etc. As it is now, the labeling is misleading to the reader as to the true provenance of that source. Blackmane (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I said on Kosh's talk page - I have no real interest in re-prosecuting the case against Kkm. That was well established in the last thread about exactly the same behaviour. There is no "annual report" - that's an invention of Kkm's who is trying to pass his interpretation (or calculation) of financial results off as the work of the company itself or Google Finance. The sources in question are not either of those things. The issue here is an editor returning after a block and thumbing his nose at the community by immediately re-starting the same sort of editing that got him blocked in the first place. If consensus has changed in the last two weeks and Kkm's actions are no longer a blockable offence (which seems strange without considerable community discussion) then I'll move on and stop putting effort into stopping what is obviously disruptive behaviour. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Err, "There is no annual report...." What's the link he's referring to ? The link shows a report on google finance for that company. It's not an invention by Kkm , unless you want to claim that he put together an OR report, then somehow got google finance to carry it ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What? Where is the report? Annual report means something specific - something a long way away from that which Kkm calls, "2014 Annual Report". ZTE. Retrieved 2014-03-19. Besides the obviously wrong date and wrong attribution, the link isn't to an "Annual Report" at all - it's to a set of google search results - a raw Google Finance data sheet for the company that you get by plugging the relevant stock exchange code into google and hitting "search". It's not an "Annual Report" by any stretch of the imagination (it's not even a published "report" in any sense of the word) and includes specific disclaimers (from Google) that it's not what Kkm claims it to be. You'd get the same data by walking into a stock exchange and copying down the numbers from the board. There is not a single part of that citation which is honest and genuine - every part of it is false. Kkm knows this, has been warned about this and has edit-warred to keep this sort of thing in article to the point where he was blocked. And he's at it again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That link actually has the quarterly and annual data for that particular company, and he's accurately reporting what the numbers say in that annual report without any calculations. Time to drop it Stalwart, there's no OR here. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source". As on your talk page, I genuinely can't work out whether you're just trolling to get a rise out of people or whether you don't understand what's going on. Right now, your are the ONLY person suggesting these are acceptable sources and edits (even Kkm has given up on that ridiculous line). Do you actually think Kkm's conduct (which even he has vowed to discontinue) and editing (which even he has reverted) is acceptable? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source" ' Stalwart, I'm hardly trolling. On the page in question I see a link to google finance, which is not some fringe blog, nor is it a forum, nor is it a user-supplied reference, it appears to be reliable as well. I also see KKM reporting what the page says, without attempting to combine source and with source b to create c, nor do I see him attempting to analyze data, he accurately reports what the annual numbers are (they're actually there on google finance ) , whether it's advancing or declining is obvious, so no, there is no OR. You've offered no evidence of such, so , once again, time to drop it and move on, it's not OR KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just. Plain. Wrong. Nobody suggested it was a "blog" or a "forum" and that's a pointless straw-man. Calling it a "link to Google Finance" is disingenuous - they are just raw search results. Of course its user-generated - you get the same by plugging any stock exchange code into Google or any other word into Google and copy-pasting the URL after hitting "search". It's not even a "source", let alone a reliable one. Google didn't "publish" the content - a search engine tool automatically extracts the data and presents it in that format. If I type "Harry Potter" into Amazon's search engine, the results wouldn't constitute a "report" or a "source, published by Amazon". And again, you're the only person here who thinks its a legitimate source - you're still digging; alone in your hole. Even Google warns against using the results in the way you're advocating. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart, that corpse is beginning to stink, please back away from it. |google finance is not user-contributed data, it's the financial data available in any 8K report (I work in the fiance industry ). It's not a search engine, it's a report. Yes it's reliable , if you believe otherwise prove it otherwise stop beating the horse, it died a long time ago. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not even... you just don't... Facepalm . Your capacity and willingness to argue in the face of overwhelming (like... 0% support for your position) consensus is astonishing. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here but I'm starting to gain an understanding of how the extensive note on the top of your talk page came about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• As with the last thread, Kkm has refused to explain himself either here or on his talk page (last time we got broken English contributions demanding we explain what he had done wrong, even while he undid his own edits). Nothing here at all. But again, Kkm has quietly acknowledged the issue, reverting himself and replacing the "source". Surely fortnightly ANI reports is an inefficient way of preventing disruption? Can we get some admin action here? Dare I ping DP whose warnings Kkm is ignoring? St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I said earlier I will use original company source it could be either annual report or fourth quarter results where financial results are mentioned.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you made that commitment "earlier" and then you were blocked. And you've done it 3 times since your block. We obviously shouldn't have believed you last time. Why should we believe you now? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That is why I need your help. Just remind me where I have failed to put original source I will immediately replace it. Don't worry to much about it, just relax take it easy brother.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, nobody should need to remind you. You've been blocked for it before, isn't that reminder enough? (I don't have firsthand experience, though, so maybe not...) ansh666 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart, you appear to be the only person arguing that his postings are OR. You further claim (up a bit higher in this same area) that Google finance is somehow unreliable and is user-generated. You mentioned the disclaimer - and you're right to do so, google doesn't verify the numbers. However, did you see the first part Data is provided by financial exchanges . It's not user generated, and thus reliable. You claim it isn't, I am stating that it is reliable and that no OR is being done on this , he's posting what the numbers say and the "increase " and "decrease" is obvious, and not OR per WP:CALC. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Financial data and analysis for annual reports most definitely do not fall under WP:CALC. Google results are not reliable sources, annual reports are either from the company or from a 3rd party financial reliable source. Perhaps there should be a discussion on the article Talk pages on how best to update corporate financial numbers. Dave Dial (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• KoshVorlon, his block was for original research so your claim is patently false. He returned after his block to do the same thing. You're free to call it something else (believing that it falls within the confined of CALC, though it clearly doesn't) but that doesn't make it any less disruptive, unrepentant, and blatant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, what is being overlooked here, amidst Kosh's rather strange and insistent assertions, is that it was already established this was unacceptable, and that's why kkm was blocked for it. The instant recidivism is the issue, not some odd relitigation.

Let's leave that to one side, however, and consider something else: Read this diff, from Ponyo: "Religion" and "ethnicity" in infoboxes. Here, on his talkpage, at the time of the block, it was made clear that according to BLP, "religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".

Here are some examples of ignoring this, after the block, and after the extensive advice: [20],[21],[22],[23],[24]. Every one unsourced. Every one unexplained. There are more.

This is not a user here to edit collaboratively, or abide by our policies. I'm pretty much gone from here these days, but I couldn't leave this without comment. This, along with the above, is blatant flouting of rules in favour of POV unsourced trash, even after good faith warnings and a block. It's a user who wants to edit as they alone see fit, and damn the rules and everyone else. I said that in the last ANI. Do with it as you will. Begoon ^talk 13:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've left a final warning with regard to the infobox issue on Kkm010's talk page. The instances of this editor's "forgetfulness" wherein they agree to address concerns and then continue on as they were are problematic and will only lead to additional blocks under the "fool me once" clause.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know about all the diffs but I believe that Google Finance is a reliable source of date and calculating from the information distributed is perfectly logical and should never fall under WP:OR. Google Finance pulls its data from HKG. I am referring to the ZTE article. The edits are sensible and factually correct. He's not under a TBAN or anything such, so I believe what you call recidivism might just be constructive edits. However, please note. I am yet to see the other differences. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I scanned through the diffs ([25],[26],[27],[28],[29]) and trust me, they are fine. I mean by that - factually correct. For example, Malala Yousafzai - is marked as a follower of Islam. Is it sourced? No. Why do we accept it? Common sense. Come on, you don't need citations for this kind of basic infobox information. Do we question Michael Jackson's religion, do we question Assad's religion? Does Farooq Abdullah sound in anyway Christian or such? The surname Abdullah clearly specifies the fact that's he's a follower of Islam. -Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Here, on his talkpage, at the time of the block, it was made clear that according to BLP, "religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".
— User:Begoon

I don't know why I am saying this. But don't tell me that common sense and logic qualify under WP:OR too. And Kkm010 could have sourced all of them but he/she preferred not to. -_- -Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• That has to be among the most ridiculous rubbish I've ever seen posted to ANI. Someone should "logically" have particular religious beliefs attributed to them because their name "sounds" Muslim? Are you kidding me? That's the worst kind of original research. And by the way, the claim that Malala Yousafzai was, "born into a Sunni Muslim family" is most definitely sourced. It just doesn't need to be sourced again when included in the infobox. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ankit Maity, you are very much on the wrong side of policy. If you want to include a BLP subject's religion in an article it needs to be supported by reliable sources, there needs to be evidence of self-identification, and it needs to be relevant. I'm sorry, I don't "trust you" that the information "is fine". You may be a wonderful person, but I don't know you from a hole in the ground and Wikipedia readers need to be able to verify the information included in articles. I'm not sure how you can say that "you don't need citations for this kind of basic infobox information" when every single permutation of BLP policy states that you indeed do. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• After edit-warring and OR, a block, some disingenuous apologies, more edit-warring and OR, more disingenuous apologies, more pleading ignorance, final warnings, some off-topic and non-policy blather and some final, final warnings, Kkm has spent the time this thread was open edit-warring in a new area and again feigning ignorance. The lack of administrator attention and action has allowed this thread to degenerate into a string of contributions like the one above from editors seemingly keen to defend Kkm's nonsense on entirely non-policy grounds. Do we need to formally put this to a vote to get some action? I hate having to watch another editor's contributions and I'm sure the other 3-4 people watching Kkm's feel the same. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:15, 30 October 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.

False accusations of vandalism

These are, I hope you would agree, a grievous personal attack, and are highly damaging to the encyclopaedia. You are probably not aware that anonymous editors will always be accused of vandalism, and the time it will take for someone to slander them in this way is usually very short. For this IP address, it's taken less than two days.

• Edits with very clear summaries: [30], [31]
• Reverts with false accusations: [32], [33]
• Threatening message left: [34]
• Further spread of false allegations: [35]

Is anyone bothered by this, and if so, what are you prepared to do about it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that this user is the so-called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP user, as has been noted by a statement on this user's talk page by someone else. I would suggest having a look at the edit history of BBC Canada and CBC News Network, which both show a history of edit-warring on this particular point by this user. I would argue that the vandalism designation is now appropriate given that vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, which is exactly what I would argue this user has now been doing. I would suggest a lengthy block of this IP address (definitely for the edit warring regardless of the validity of the vandalism designation), given that this user has previously been blocked for 3 months after doing exactly the same thing (see User:187.17.57.15). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the IP is operating whilst his block under another IP [36] is still in force. Not entirely unusual for this individual. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It is obvious that my edits were an attempt to improve the articles. Even if you considered making necessary edits with clear summaries to be disruptive, that is specifically described as not being vandalism. Your ignorance of the policy is troubling. False accusations of vandalism are highly damaging to the project, and in my opinion they should be met with a block if made and not retracted. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean a block that one can ignore, and just pop up immediately under a different IP? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you think false accusations of vandalism are not a problem then. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They are a problem, and admins will decide how to call this, bearing in mind both sides of the story. Is it a "grievous personal attack"? Biggest laugh I've had all day, considering what you've called me in the past, let alone others. Do I think you're in a good position to decide what's "damaging to the project", "troubling" or "slander"? No. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you like to see a particular person attacked, that's up to you. It doesn't mean that the attack is not an attack. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like to see anyone attacked, which is why I find your behaviour over the years so obnoxious. Do I feel this is an "attack"? No. He's criticising your editing, as far as I can see, and it's up to the admins whether or not he's accurately doing so or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, "criticising"? No. He's making an obviously untrue claim. One could, conceivably, use the word "vandalism" as criticism. Journalistic reviews of works of architecture and such have certainly done that. But that would not be accompanied by a "final warning" and the reporting of the architect to the authorities, would it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP apparently wants the "offending" editor to stop using their user name an edit as an ever-changing IP. Brilliant. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no idea what you mean by this. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The primary remedy here is blocking editors. In your world, that means the editor is supposed to continue editing, changing their IP every time they are blocked for evading their block. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not making any sense.186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. The IP is editing in direct defiance of a block. Again. Repeated claims of being the victim based on wikilawyering ("It's not socking because I've never had an account", "How dare you undo my edits made in defiance of a block", "No, I'm not 'banned', I'm merely ignoring every block ever placed on me", "It's not 'vandalism', it's just more of the edit-warring that I've been blocked for", "Calling my edit-warring 'vandalism' is a 'grievous personal attack', which I won't stand for"). I'd suggest a nice boomerang, but I'm just a "fucking retarded little cunt", so what do I know?

Let's try this: Start with the earliest block evasion we can find for this editor. For each evasion after that, make the next block longer and extend the previous block. Then, if the editor waits out the block, we can let them try again in 2020 or so. Or let them continue to edit war, make personal attacks and ignore all blocks and edit all of our policies and guidelines to reflect their special status. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of sock puppetry again? It does amuse me how a complaint about false claims just leads to more false claims. And indeed, I've been blocked several times in the past for no reason other than having complained about false claims being made. Sock puppetry is the act of pretending to be more than one person. A puppet has to be animated by a puppeteer. Perhaps you can point out where I ever pretended to be more than one person. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am accusing you of block evasion. You have been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, personal attacks and block evasion. Hell, you were blocked yesterday for a personal attack. You have also falsely claimed to not be the same editor.[37]

And obviously, you have to trot out yet more false claims. Nowhere in the diff you provide did I claim to be or not to be anyone. I never attempted in any way to conceal my identity. The diff you post is an interesting case, in which you undid a swathe of my edits for no good reason, with no explanation, and clearly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia (for example, restoring peacock words and undefined acronyms). I complained, obviously. I got blocked because of who I am. here. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You claimed you were not evading a block: "...the block log it claims block evasion. Neither of these are true." As you were blocked at the time, the only reasonable way to read that is as a claim that you are not who you are. You might wikilawyer this into some other explanation, but the obvious intended meaning is as I read it. It is also the reading the declining admin had.[38][39] I did not undo a swathe of your edits "for no good reason". WP:EVADE, as has been repeatedly explained to you, allows any editor to undo any or all of your edits, without giving any further reason. You were blocked because of who you are: a disruptive, edit-warring, block evading editor who is unable and/or unwilling to control their tendency to make vile personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not blocked at the time. You posted a diff showing that the administrator said on 5 September that I was "obviously the same user as 190.162.219.249". That IP address had indeed been blocked, and the block had expired on 2 August. You did indeed undo a swathe of my edits for no good reason. There is no policy that allows you to undo any or all of someone's edits simply because you've developed a grudge against them. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Poor you. You've been blocked so many times that you can't even keep track of the blocks. You were still blocked at the time.[40] I undid your edits because you were evading a block. Boo hoo. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• We can always let positive edits stand, and not revert them for no good reason besides either desire for righteousness or bureaucratic adherence to a guideline that does not itself require we follow it. Or, we can go ahead and indef-block their current IP address, and feel much better about ourselves. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In effect, you are saying the editor in question is untouchable. They can make personal attacks, edit war and ignore any blocks, so long as they are willing to restart their modem. (They have repeatedly stated that they have repeatedly done so to avoid the numerous blocks.) Thus, they were blocked for 3 hours yesterday for calling me an idiot, but only because they chose to ride it out. They were not blocked for any of their other repeated personal attacks (including "fucking retarded little cunt"), edit warring and block evasion. Would you care to clarify Wikipedia:Blocking policy? It seems it should read, "Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages or if they are willing to restart their modem and make edits Drmies feels are an improvement. In that case, do whatever the fuck you want at all times." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to find out if the IP's sockmaster is a banned user. If so, all edits by that user are revertible on-sight, regardless of their alleged quality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah great, another ridiculous false accusation of sock puppetry. You think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, you could give us a list of other IP's and/or registered users you've edited under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're calling for the revert of all my edits, based on a claim you've decided to make on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. And this despite us never, to the best of my knowledge, having ever interacted in any way. Again I'll ask: you think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I unequivocally call for your edits to be revoked? Or did you just confess to being a banned user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) IP has been blocked for 6 months for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done OhNoitsJamie. I don't know why we waste so much hot air on trolls, vandals etc. Just nail them down and move on. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Jamie, Jim, for reasons noted above this is not going to achieve anything (and we are not dealing with a "troll, vandal, etc."). Note that the editor is not banned--a discussion on AN did not deliver the result some were hoping for. Note also that "LTA" is not some admin- or community-approved page: that they "have" an LTA file does not mean they are a longterm abuser, it means that someone wrote it up. The choice term the IP slung at SummerPhD, that was in March. That doesn't mean it's nothing, of course, but I am not the first one to notice that their abuse follows being reverted time and time and time again. (This does not mean I think it's OK for them to have said that--note that I blocked them for saying "idiot".) The way I see it, we have two options.
  • We block every IP we run into, and revert every one of their edits we run into. The effect of that is that we block a lot of IPs, and revert a lot of good edits in main space; the other effect is that this just keeps going on and on. (I don't see how it can escalate much further; it's pretty much out of control already.)
  • We do not revert their mainspace edits on sight, just because an IP made them, just because this IP editor made them. The effect of that is that many articles will improve; another effect is that a lot of editors will have to swallow their pride and not revert. I don't know if this can be done, but not reverting edits on sight, not reverting their edits with "rv banned ip" (incorrect since they're not banned) or "rvv" (incorrect since not vandalism), well, that would stave off many an edit war, wouldn't it, and many an insult back and forth ("vandal" is an insult, if the person addressed is not a vandal).
  • There is a third option: if the IP got an account, I doubt they'd be reverted as often and as quickly as they are. Of course they're riding hard on this point of principle, which is both admirable and foolish. If they could swallow their pride, though, on this point, well, we could make progress.
• But option two and three can't happen now, and Jamie, I assume you knew that that would be the effect of a six-month block: every time they edit they're block evading in the next six months, and every single time they do simply adds to the notion that the IP editor is a longterm abuser and block evader. I do not believe this is a good thing to do, and if you look into the history here you may realize this too. Basically, the IP keeps getting blocked and reverted because they've been getting blocked and reverted. It's a crazy situation, exacerbated by both sides' increasing antagonism, with a schmuck like me in the middle. What to do? We have chosen the easiest and worst solution: an LTA file, a series of blocks and now a really long one, and an adherence to procedure. And yes, the recurring problem of IP editing where, in this case, an IP editor has too frequently gotten reverted because they didn't have an account. And don't tell me "I reverted them because they're the abusive IP"--the way I see it, they became the abusive IP because they kept getting reverted. But I rest my case: it's hopeless given the intransigence on both sides. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest this to the IP: find an IP address that you haven't used before; create a named account, and resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags. Continue making constructive edits, and avoid incivility and edit-warring. If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Wikipedia without incident. The "avoiding incivility and edit-warring" is going to be the biggest challenge for this user, given their history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jamie, I certainly appreciate the spirit with which you are making this suggestion, but of course a. it remains block evasion for the next six months (unless you lower the block) and b. they're going to have to...what's the word...pretend they're not them, so to speak. I don't know if they're willing to do that. It would be the easiest way out of this mess, no doubt--and yeah, of course they're going to have to keep the cussing down. But I don't know if you've ever been slumming as an IP: the speed with which one gets reverted (and blocked!) sometimes is very disheartening. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that IPs (and redlink named accounts) are sometimes wrongly "profiled"; that's why I suggested that the user create a named account from a non-blocked IP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So the solution to being falsely accused of disruption, vandalism and sock puppetry is to start sock puppeting. Hilarious.

• find an IP address that you haven't used before - easy enough
• create a named account - no
• resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags - if reinstating edits that have been reverted for absolutely no reason raises "red flags" for you or anyone else, you should consider what your intentions are here. It does not appear that improving the encyclopaedia is among them if reverting for no reason is fine, but re-reverting raises "red flags" for you.
• Continue making constructive edits - as if I ever did anything else.
• avoid incivility and edit-warring - impossible to avoid them - people who love them both are too numerous. I edited for a matter of a couple of hours on the previous IP address before someone reverted an edit of mine for no reason, and it wasn't much longer before someone falsely accused me of vandalism. Just up above here someone entirely unrelated to the conversation blundered in and described me as a vandal and a troll. These are vile personal attacks. If I could be bothered, I could very easily find you 50 editors who've falsely accused me of vandalism. Not one of them was ever blocked. I don't need all the fingers on one hand to count the number who were even warned. Many of them have been explicitly praised by other editors.
• If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Wikipedia without incident - you have been enthusiastically blocking me for months, whenever anyone runs to you requesting that you do so. You've blocked leaving dishonest messages every single time, and you've improperly judged my unblock requests for your own blocks. When pressed to give a reason other than the false one you always begin with, you link to the attack page that was created some months ago, the existence of which obviously does not justify a block. You've almost invariably followed that up by removing my talk page access. You've made edits whose only possible intentions could be either or both of a) provoking me, and b) harming the encyclopaedia. And after all this you have the gall to come up with this, having just blocked me for no less than six months. Try to be less ridiculous with your next suggestion.

Here's a simpler way of avoiding problems. Don't revert for no reason. Don't lie about me. And don't ever, ever accuse me of vandalism. Pretty simple, isn't it? But people, including you, prefer harassing and attacking anonymous editors, and they have the explicit encouragement of the community. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that calling someone a liar for making a false accusation of vandalism is considered worth blocking for, but making a false accusation of vandalism isn't. Until people take serious steps to counteract the poisonously discriminatory culture that's developed, you'll continue to see hard working contributors getting angry when repeatedly, endlessly provoked. You yourself have enjoyed taking part in the provocation. I'm sure you got just the result you were looking for. 186.37.203.15 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are evading a block right now. Until you take that fact seriously, nothing you say here will have any merit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you and your helpful comments. Where would we be without you? And with this, you demonstrate that you have no real idea what vandalism is. My new empirical rule of Wikipedia which you have amply confirmed here is that any complaint about a false accusation of vandalism will trigger at least three further false claims of vandalism. 186.37.203.120 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's called "Administrator intervention against vandalism". However, it is routinely used to enforce blocks in cases of block evasion, such as yours. It is also used in cases of clear personal attacks, such as ones you have made. It is sometimes used in cases of edit-warring, such as yours, but that normally goes to 3RR. Hope this clears up the ambiguity. Do you dispute that you have made numerous personal attacks against numerous editors? Do you dispute that you have edit warred? Do you dispute that you have edited in direct defiance of several blocks? If you can answer yes to all three of these, you are deluding yourself. Otherwise, you have been given the instructions for requesting an unblock. Failing that, you will need to ride out six months or deal with occasionally being uncovered, having your block extended and, boo hoo, having edits reverted without need for explanation by anyone who cares to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no "ambiguity" to clear up. The page itself is extremely clear: "This page is intended for reports about obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". There's even a guide to using the page, which says "Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting users currently engaging in persistent, clear vandalism". User:Baseball Bugs's report was a clear and unambiguous accusation of "obvious and persistent" vandalism. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The ambiguity here is that you seem to think there is a meaningful difference between your repeated vile personal attacks, edit warring, and block evasion and "vandalism". Your behavior is not acceptable. Blocking you and reverting your edits without giving any further reason while you are evading the blocks that you can't keep track of is perfectly acceptable. It is soooooooooo sad that a gentle soul such as yourself can't get their way every time and has someone hurt their feelings by not labeling your edit warring, personal attacks and block evasion with exactly the right terms. I realize you find that more offensive than being called a "cunt".[41] Too bad. I'd suggest you take a break, curl up with your blankie and cry about it for a bit. After a good 6 months of crying, maybe we'll see the error of our ways and my signature will read "fucking retarded little cunt", "idiot", "retard", "twat", "fucking idiot", etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. KonveyorBelt 16:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the solution suggested by Drmies, making a regular account is the best one. WP is not a bureaucracy, and if our circular process of blocking and ip editing give a poor result, it should not be continued. The easiest way to avoid it without relying on the knowledge of any admin who may happen to come across the account without knowing the history or the discussion here, it is to remove the existing block(s), and I am prepared to do so if Drmies will help identify them. if the editor will commit themselves to making and using one single named account, and not continue editing as an ip. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to create an account. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm also prepared to unblock, but I have a different condition in mind. The editor is right: we don't forbid IP editing, and nor should we. We need to remain open to people who may wish to try editing here before they register, or may have their own personal reasons for not registering. Rather, I propose the IP undertake to remain civil. (Which includes recognising that even the best editor occasionally makes a mistake, or runs into something on which reasonable people can disagree.) This is the standard we're all supposed to at least aspire to, and his uncivil remarks have contributed greatly to putting him in this mess. I see improvement in that respect but this is the second time I've seen SummerPhD refer on one of these noticeboards to a really nasty epithet that he flung at her. I'd like to help cut this Gordian knot, but that's my requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I always undertake to remain civil. I never set out to initiate or exacerbate any unpleasant situation. I am, however, under constant attack. The reason I started this discussion was that I was falsely accused of vandalism, but of course that got quickly forgotten, a single comment from the accuser failed to explain why he made false claims, and the discussion degenerated into snide attacks on me and several further accusations of vandalism. If you expect me to remain friendly at all times in the face of this kind of behaviour, you expect too much.

If someone repeatedly pokes me in the eye, and I eventually stab them in the chest, then a reasonable person would surely say I overreacted. They would also surely say that the person shouldn't have poked me in the eye. People like User:SummerPhD and a number of others (User:Wee Curry Monster and User:AlanS spring to mind) specifically set out to poke me in the eye, stalking my edits and reverting them for no reason. If that kind of behaviour were to be actually frowned upon, actually dealt with and actually considered harmful, we would never have had any problems at all. But it's been repeatedly established that their actions are condoned and encouraged by the community. If deliberate and constant provocations are permitted and encouraged, you have to expect that people will either a) leave or b) react. I am certain that most people simply leave. I've been contributing for more than ten years and I have no plans to stop. Every time I randomly browse a few articles I find very basic problems that need correcting. If User:SummerPhD wishes to continue stalking and reverting my edits to the obvious detriment of the encyclopaedia, while leaving immature taunting comments as above, then what is a tireless contributor who isn't going to leave expected to do? 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the latest series of destructive and provocative edits by User:SummerPhD: [42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55]; and two other unexplained reverts: [56], [57]. 186.37.203.204 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the latest IP to inexplicably pop up after the first hundred were blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, I'm aware of why you opened this section, but this is AN/I, where things often boomerang, and we have an intractable problem here. I do think you need to realise that occasionally your edit may not be 100% obviously an improvement - the "best known for" thing, for example, clearly evokes differing responses partly depending on whether there are sources actually saying that. However, I do agree that this situation needs to end. Unfortunately your incivility has given you a bad reputation. DGG and Drmies have proposed one solution. If you are willing to take that one, splendid, and I will watchlist your talk page. I'm proposing an alternative and if you will make a declaration here that rather than strike back with incivility, you will do your utmost instead to (a) step back and consider whether part of your edit was indeed based on a misunderstanding or is a matter of taste and (b) if you still believe you are being reverted unjustly, instead of being rude right back, leave a message at my talk page, I will see about unblocking your various IPs so long as you keep your promise to stay civil. That would have to include trying your best not to refer to people or their messages as immature and taunting. I can't promise to be online and editing 24/7 (I have not yet joined the great mobile revolution), but I have talk page stalkers some of whom would also probably be willing to help out. And you could vent on my talk page a bit. It's a bit more private than AN/I, but of course one of the disadvantages to not registering a user name is that you can't use the e-mail function. Perhaps you or someone else can suggest a third way of fixing this? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Poking chests in response to having eyes poked is understandable, maybe, but not helpful. Tit for tat never solves anything--I should know; I'm only slowly learning this. IP, you have seen that your opponents (it's fair to say we're on a battlefield) are not really willing to budge, in part because you're not giving them much reason to. I've stuck my neck out for you more than once, as you know, and now one of my long-time collaborators is no doubt incredibly pissed at me for trying to work with you and, yes, arguing here and elsewhere that you have a point. I understand you're not willing to create an account--well, "understand", no, not really, but OK.

Yngvadottir, for whom I have the utmost respect, has offered you another way, and I offer my talk page as well. You've used that talk page before so you know the way, and you know also that I have reinstated a great many of your positive edits, using my personal judgment about whether it improves the article or not--as we should all do, it bears repeating. Doing that gives you a kind of high ground, or at least equal status. It may not be all that you want, but I don't see how the present situation is much fun for you. It's certainly no fun for me, and I don't enjoy these periodical flare-ups; there comes a time when I will no longer care who's right and who's wrong and I'll just walk away--I can't go on infinitely arguing that your edits are good so those insults should be forgotten. This may well be the time to give up on arguing the morality and righteousness of the various positions and figure out a way forward; I had not realized, until Yngvadottir (and DGG) came along, that there were other options besides the ones I laid out. Really, pragmatism, not idealism. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I must say that, while I'm astonished this IP still has any support at all, it's to the credit of Drmies and Yngvadottir that they are still willing to look for a compromise. It's an insult to them that the IP clearly has, and has always had, no intention of compromising even slightly – even to the point of accepting that sometimes their edits really aren't all that great. I've never seen such peacockery about such run-of-the-mill gnome edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting decidedly dull and tedious. In October 2011, I reverted this edit [58] in which the IP editor managed to strangle a sentence so badly he stated that Prince Andrew travelled to the Falklands War as part of the press rather than as a serving officer in the Royal Navy. I gave an informative edit summary but he simply reverted [59] to once again strangle that sentence's meaning. This is fundamentally the problem, he'll revert every single edit to impose his version on an article whether it improves it or not, whether its a matter of editor choice and in most cases fundamentally its down to the fact he just doesn't like it. I have never stalked his edits, systematically reverting them, I have gone to extra lengths to explain myself to him and I am getting heartily sick of him coming to these boards claiming I stalked him; it never happened. I reverted one edit of his with the edit summary "rv IP edits" in 2011 and over 3 years later he is still whining about it. Really does this guy improve the encyclopedia? His content contributions are not going to set the world alight, he tweaks a bit of poor grammar here and there. So what, the heat and light he generates isn't worth the hassle. Drmies do you think we could at least put an end to the persecution complex, its really a broken record and one that more and more people are tiring of. WCM_email 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is dull and tedious, with intransigence on both sides. That sentence doesn't say what you say it says: the IP's comma usage is quite correct. And if they're still complaining about that edit--well, pot, meet kettle. That an LTA was started (to which you contributed--and yes, I did too) simply means that this is still ongoing. It was never over. Yngvadottir, DGG, and I are trying to find a way out. Unsuccessfully, it seems. You've been upset with me for quite some time over this, as was Bretonbanquet, and my good friend Ritchie333 is on the opposite side, and so is Summer--all editors with whom I'd much rather collaborate than argue. But I am still unwilling to put it all down on one side. I guess that makes me intransigent as well. Still, I hope you know that I never held the IP editor blameless. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, if I've given the impression I'm upset with you, let me be the first to apologise and let you know that isn't the case. You're actually one of the few admins I have any respect for, which sadly does your street cred no good whatsoever. I happen to disagree with you whether this guy is worth the hassle and life would be dull if we all agreed, all the time. But seriously, this guy's persecution complex is getting beyond a joke. WCM_email 22:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and right back at you. We both have been short with each other over this, though that's a while ago now. Let's agree to disagree, and let's hope that in the long run I'm right, that this is not (another) waste of time. :) Drmies (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Update) The user is leaving personal attacks, trolling, and now edit warring even though he is already blocked. Can we revoke TP access for this user now? He is doing at least 3 things now that would lead to a blockable offense, if he wasn't already blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD, Wee Curry Monster, AlanS, and Lippolop: The IP also mentioned you guys in their tirade, FYI. Epicgenius (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping but I intend to ignore him. I set out my response to his false claims here 2 years ago and see no need to add to it further. I would suggest leaving him to rant away to himelf, its simply not worth getting stressed about. WCM_email 09:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP can rant on all they like. Me an others appear to be on the right side of history in regards to this debate. Likely they will rant about us again in the future and we will still of been on the right side of history. AlanS^talk 12:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye

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.

---

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and talk page consensus. He has been notified of the Syrian Civil War/ISIL sanctions. I warned him on the article talk page the he should not continue to revert, then warned him level on his talk page of 3 for disruptive editing, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what he has "repeatedly" inserted? I can only see one large insertion. Also, a link to the talk page discussion re the material in question is needed. Thanks, Number 57 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated warnings have been placed on my talk page as at User talk:Gregkaye#October 2014. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor has ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist" in this thread then continued the same to the point of disruption on this more recent thread. The editor has also reinserted previously reverted criticism section which he original inserted here in the lead. I'll continue to look for more diffs. Keep in mind that this article has a strict 1RR policy.~Technophant (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Summary:

1. [60] 16:13, 19 October 2014 - inserted paragraph into lead
2. [61] 22:49, 19 October 2014 - reverted by User:Felino123
3. [62] 08:19, 20 October 2014 - User warned on talk page and on user page of disruptive behavior level-3
4. [63] 16:15, 20 October 2014 - material reinserted without edit summary (2 minutes! after 24-hour limit)
5. [64] 16:21, 20 October 2014 - reverted by myself, user warned level-4

The editor also won't "drop the stick" and has continued to argue on the talk page despite being warned to drop it. I think this is enough to warrant some action.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I actually like this editor and he has made some important contributions (see Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Animated_GIF_showing_territorial_evolution). I don't want this editor topic banned, we just need to see this POV pushing and edit warring to stop.~Technophant (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Like me? I suddenly have a host of "Technophant mentioned you" messages in my notifications. Maybe so. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) sorry to have placed this out of sequence.

Gregkaye I do value and respect your contributions. If you can just agree to stop the discussed behaviors perhaps this whole thing can be closed without any further unpleasantries.~Technophant (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine. You made very very blunt interventions on my talk page and when I raised query you could not be bothered to reply. I have not found you to be too consistent with your pleasantries. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it, this editor seems to be doing exactly what editors are supposed to do. You and he are both very active on both the article page and the talk page, making countless positive contributions to the article and discussions. You appear to have an issue over two things he has done: a single 1RR >24+ hours of a summary of some article material in the lede, and his strong argumentation on the talk page that "jihadist" is an inappropriate label for this group. His reversion without an edit summary is indeed not optimal, but it was after discussion on the talk page. If he is engaging in a non-technical violation of 1RR then so are you by jumping into a revert. It appears that you and some other editors considered the original insertion (which would seem to be simple BRD editing) to be a problem. Am I missing something? The material appears harmless and appropriately sourced, although if consensus is to keep it out of the lead then so be it. As for arguing that "jihadist" is an inappropriate term, again, on the face of that it looks like a reasonable and perhaps correct opinion — I certainly hope the Arabic Wikipedia doesn't use a similarly loaded word, "crusaders", to label every religiously-tinged issue coming from the West. Consensus and sources may fall otherwise, but unless you can show that this has gotten to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disrupting the orderly flow of discussion I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter on the talk page. If you think that simply continuing the discussion of the point has gotten disruptive, how is that so? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear it's more like 1RR=24 hours with a +0.14% margin. Also, Felino123 (an editor whom I've no previous interaction) made the first revert and I made the second so I'm not in violation of the 1RR rule. Also the second insertion (#4) was done after he was given a warning not to reinsert both on tha article talk page and user talk page (#3). It show a certain degree of stubborness an unwillingness to respect consensus. Also, it's BRD, not "BRDRD". ~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, technically neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that it's not really clear what the problem is. BR-DDDDDD-RD is probably an acceptable editing pattern even if BRDRR is not: if the intervening discussion establishes either that the revert is for an unexplained or clearly bad reason, or there's consensus for inclusion, then it's fine to re-insert. In this case Felino123 had a well-explained and appropriate reason for rejecting this material in the lede, but I just don't see why Gregkaye was warned against reinserting it, or why any warning not to re-insert it would have any force. Reverting again with the summary "repeted insertion of controversial material" isn't really a good reason, that's saying that BRDRR is preferable BRDR; a second removal based on it being weak content, or against consensus, seems more reasonable. But back to the issue, is Gregkaye really being disruptive here? If so would they agree to take it easy, or is administrative counsel or intervention necessary? I'm not an admin, just passing by. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The material inserted into the in the lead isn't controversial as I stated. It's a summary of information in the Critism section. The reason for removal (clean precise lead) I agree with. This is more of an issue with "technical" 1RR (presumed intent to keep reinserting every 24 hours despite objections). Another user recently received a 3 month topic ban from an univolved admin for just DDDD with no R's without much (if any) warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another clear hypocrisy in this AN/I is shown in that nothing was done in response to the following noted and flagrant violation of 1RR [65][66] Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) this edit was moved: Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see a problem of a WP:DEADHORSE. Amongst the dead are numbered Iraqis, Syrians, Sunnis, Shias and a whole host of other people who have either lost life, loved ones or liberty. Horses however aren't among the dead. Problems with jihadist terminologies have also been independently raised by other Wikipedians. See: Category talk:Jihadist organizations Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have actually not been involved in the "jihadist debate" at all. I'm on the top contributors on this page however I am mostly involved with gnomish technical issues and participating in discussions. I was just informed of a user problem and did my best to try to deal with it.~Technophant (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have recently been the primary mover in the pushing of the use of "Islamic State" terminology which flies in the face of the example set by great swathes of the Islamic community and world governments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a completely different topic and isn't relevant to this discussion.~Technophant (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither was there any relevance in your preceding comment nor the surprising gush of the self justifying pleasantries above. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: That was uncalled for. You are just making yourself look bad.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In trying to understand your active campaign here mention of "Islamic State" becomes relevant. Jihadism was never your issue. This was.

All of my comments are justified. Here is a link to the talk page at the time of the AN/I. I am more than happy for editors to take any look they like. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking more like a dispute resolution issue. Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with a content dispute. Still, the edit warring must stop.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have been a regular and active editor on the ISIS page since June this year and have become so concerned about this editor who joined the page recently that I even went to the WP:HD about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_14#Editing_problem. This outlines my concerns. You will see another request on the Help Desk two above mine from another editor on the ISIS page about this editor and one other, expressing the same concerns. Before I say anything else, let me stress that the specific problems I raise there aside, this is a good editor who has contributed much of value to the page. I haven't had time to sort out any diffs yet, and will confine myself to one issue for the time being, which has caused more grief than any other on the Talk page. The debate over the word "jihadist" has been going on for what seems like weeks, getting nowhere, it has taken up an enormous amount of editorial time, and there are at least four editors who consistently do not agree with the editor that "jihadist" should be kept out of the Lead. The editor rejects WP:RS completely, which WP is supposed to reflect. He disputes the use of the word by Reliable Sources to describe ISIL and sets his own views above theirs, which sounds like WP:OR to me. I have lost count of the number of times he has removed the word from the Lead, against consensus, and warnings lately about editing against consensus have been ignored. My basic objection is that the editor ignores WP:NPOV, which I will give some diffs for tomorrow. I am not very happy about this ANI, but something had to be done to stop the edit-warring and editing against consensus. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only edit warring, disruption, and ganging up is by Technophant and his (very) small local consensus, including P123ct1, most likely via secret e-mails against Gregkaye. Gregkaye is extremely knowledgeable, is doing what is supposed to do, and has tolerated them more than he should. To be fair, this should have a Boomerang effect on them. I no longer edit the article because of the same (very) small consensus that act as if they own the article and drive away editors, but I could not remain silent in the face of this injustice. I will also not get sucked in into this again. All I had to say, I already said it!. Worldedixor (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Worldedixor has an open (stale) RFC/U with a strong consensus for topic ban on Syrian Civil War/ISIL and a strong dislike for P123ct1 and myself for opening it. It has not yet been formally put in place however.~Technophant (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the link - I fail to see a "strong consensus for a topic ban" - which goes to the OPs credibility in this action. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot let that biased comment from Worldedixor go unanswered. Please refer to RFC/U and the Talk page in particular. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The RfC/U has been closed because of inactivity (although I think everything that could have been said had been said, so I'm not sure why that was the reason). Worldedixor has been trying to get several editors sanctions/blocked for some time without IMHO grounds. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks like a thorny question. I see some pages of discussion (which to be honest I didn't read carefully) but I don't see any clear vote where consensus was firmly established. Stronger enforcement is not a good substitute for a better consensus. Put ANI away for at least a week or two and get some third opinions; my thought though is you just say sources X Y Z call them jihadist and I J K disagree, and move on. Sometimes it really is better not to peek at the pig in the poke (not to argue the underlying philosophical point) when making this sort of decision. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I essentially agree with P123ct1's description above regarding POV and OR. Gregkaye has removed jihadist calling it "terminology as bastardised by western media" in his edit summary. Many of us have shown that reliable sources in all newspapers use this word in a particular sense. He insists that Western sources are wrong and his particular Islamic sources should veto our usage. Stats show that jihadist and extremist are the most used terms. He rejects the former and says he can not "morally" allow its usage. As he has just said above "You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine" when it is a question of applying our common standards and not our personal values. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am more than satisfied with that description: http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/12708/Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Tahir-ul-Qadri-speaks-at-Global-PeaceUnity-Event-gpu-2010-Jihad-The-perception-and-the-reality.html Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc What else is it? You mention a few sound bites and bypass any of the reasoning behind it. Jihad, according to Islamic sources, is a struggle for the ideals of Islam which may cover a has a wide range of meanings but not wide enough to cover many of the activities of a wide range of Islamic extremist groups. The word has deep religious connotations and yet many political and other commentators from around the world have taken up usage of the word to apply it largely to more extreme situations of abuse and violence. One of my comments was: "A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death. Its unqualified and needless use of this westernised wording is not something that I can support. I will not have blood on my hands." One of your comments was, "Jihadists do not follow Wikipedia" which completely misses the point and what "stats show" regarding the reach of this encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be a soapbox for a the misrepresentative western interpretation of jihad. The "personal values" that I am presenting in reference to this murderous group are seemingly shared by the majority of the Islamic world. They want nothing to do with it. It's also worth comment that Worldedixor is one of the few Arabic users that we have. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning is (a) theological and (b) activist. You have an agenda to change the usage of the word jihadist as in jihadism when used in the English language in a restricted sense of armed struggle. We discussed this over and over: words have many meanings, jihad is not jihadism as Islam is not Islamism, etc. After long discussions you remind us of what you just said above, that in your opinion the common usage in English of jihadism leads to the ISIL's violence and it is your "jihad" to fight this usage even if you lose your editing rights.[67] Jason from nyc (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have an agenda for the requirement of qualification for an unjustified justification of unjustified death. My arguments are valid and the cause is just. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal - I propose to drop my complaint here if Gregkaye takes his issues to Dispute resolution noticeboard and agrees not to make potentially controversial edits (including furthering talk page disputes) until the DRN is closed.~Technophant (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How in the world did this become "your complaint"? You were never involved in the discussion. At most there is a technical 1RR and that wasn't intended. Discussions took place in the context of the talk page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Jason from nyc's comment. He nails it. RS dictate what we write, not a particular POV favored in some region of the world. We use the terms used in RS, mostly English ones (because this is the English Wikipedia), and English language sources use "jihadist" all the time, and document that these groups use the term themselves, when they encourage jihad. They identify with the term as their prime motive. Gregkaye may need a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In deciding the relevance of the use of Islamic wording in relation to an Islam related topic then Islamic sources may be considered to have some level of reliability - or would you prefer journalists etc. known as they are for the use of a wide variety of sensationalist spins to help them achieve their goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If Gregkaye is to be banned from editing then I would prefer it be a ban on editing the article directly; limited to making suggested edits on the Talk page. This may not stop his POV pushing (which is problematic), however it will prevent disruptive editing of the article.~Technophant (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for editing back from "he".[68]

Very politic. Technophant's edit came not long after this constructive edit which somehow wasn't mentioned. Despite misrepresentation above I have not rejected the use of reference to "jihadism" but have stated that it needs qualification and that we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice to sanction them in this way. I am honestly trying to find routes to resolution and, at any stage, would appreciate help. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the battleground tactics and consider my proposal above.~Technophant (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you dispute anything I have said then feel free to say what. For my part I dispute your claim of "edits that violate NPOV". All I am saying is that the questionable terminology "jihadist" should be given qualification. Above you claimed that a statement with basis was uncalled for and then added "You are just making yourself look bad". Meanwhile this thread is based on weak evidence with regard to which Wikidemon commented, "neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things." Despite this my notifications indicator began blinking with rapid and prolonged regularity with "Technophant mentioned you" messages. You failed to mention my last edit. Absolutely I think by now I have every right to be wary but no, I don't bear a grudge. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no grudge against you. Have you read the comments from other editors here? There's a problem with your approach to editing and resolving disputes and unless you offer up a solution (and quickly) you will most likely face sanctions. I don't want to see you topic banned but that's what may need to happen.~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case I really have to question your motivation: when your last claim talks of need of a topic ban despite the context, as presented just three edits up the page in my 07:46, 21 October entry, you saw a link to a constructive and extremely unobtrusive edit for the page; when you have gone into a mass canvassing mode so as to promote this AN/I; when you have refused to answer my personal questions; when you placed content on my talk page that another editor independently highlighted as badgering which, despite repeated opportunities, you failed to remove; when you have placed prejudging links in connection to this page and when this isn't even your issue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am editing this article since two weeks ago approximately, and I don't know the editors, but I have seen what is happening. It is very clear that Gregkaye is disrupting this article removing the words he doesn't like to read, and messing it up by puting criticism on the Lead, just because of his subjective personal opinion (Jason from nyc nailed it). This is an encyclopedic article and should not be an opinion piece, as Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. Gregkaye has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. So I think something should be done to prevent disruptions. Felino123 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Gregkaye has made positive contributions to the article, which makes it unfortunate that it has come to this, however we have discussed the Jihadist issue at great length and the consensus of other editors is clearly against his stance. Ideally we could all WP:MOVEON, however Gregkaye seems to be taking a very strong POV stance on this word usage which is not appropriate. Gazkthul (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Gazkthul, Its difficult to "get over" the blatant fact that a supposedly "jihadist" group is actively slaughtering Muslims. This is NOT jihad. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Gregkaye, I don't know how many times we can go around in circles, it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide what Jihad is or isn't, we simply reflect what WP:RS use. Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram and the Taliban overwhelmingly kill Muslims too, as did Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's predecessor al-Zarqawi a decade ago. BTW, have you heard of Usman dan Fodio, Tamerlane, Yaqub Beg or Muhammad Ahmad? There are countless famous Muslim Kings and Emperors throughout history who waged Jihad against fellow Muslims. Gazkthul (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While Gregkaye and I have disagreed on content, in my experience around ISIL articles he has been quite a positive contributor who works to reach consensus. Technophant on the other hand has been pushing the use of "Islamic State" even after consensus decided to use ISIL for the title and the article. I requested he stop so he put me on the Syria Civil War sanctions warning list in retaliation. The users here trying to keep an mention of criticisms out of the lead are just misguided. Darn near the entire world is upset with ISIL - a huge part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Legacypac's criticism is based on a false premise. The ISIL/ISIS consensus had nothing to do with the use of "Islamic State". The discussion was over a move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the ISIS article's text and nothing more. Secondly, editors have not been against criticisms being in the Lead. The dispute was over what weight to give them and how to present them in the Lead. Sorry to keep chipping in, but there has been some serious misrepresentation in this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Quick observation This edit [69] shows that P123ct1 has changed their ANI comment after I, another editor, commented on it below, something that is not permitted by policy. This is not an attack. I am presenting to the closing admin a verifiable pattern of conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping a dossier on me again, Worldedixor? Lol! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Both of these editors have made valued and verifiable contributions to Wikipedia as its dossier records clearly show. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I am here since only two weeks ago, so I don't what contributions has Gregkaye done to this topic overall. If these contributions are important, then I appreciate them. But unfortunately we can not ignore his continuous disruptions of this article. When I criticized him for this, he answered that the opinion of imams about IS has much more value than the facts stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports on Iraq and Syria, because "Islamic criticisms" are "of more relevance than anything [...]". After this bizarre response, along with the info stated here by Jason from nyc, I can't believe he's editing objectively and in good faith. He's been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. I think something should be done to prevent disruptions, given the fact that warnings and talking to him doesn't work. Felino123 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Persistent POV-pushing, editing against consensus and disrupting the collaborative work of editors are having a bad effect on this article. all jeopardise the Wikipedia project. I have changed my mind about dispute resolution. I don't think it would work and support a topic ban, in order to protect all Syrian War-related articles. However, I am not at all sure what the best solution is here. I now think a topic ban would be too swingeing, as it would stop Gregkaye from making his otherwise valuable contributions to Syrian War-related articles. Some editors on the Help Desk (see my very first comment in this AN/I for the background) thought AN/I may not be the best approach and that some form of dispute resolution should be tried (no details given). --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Could we have some guidelines and advice on other ways of settling this dispute, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has nothing to support his claims that the islamic state "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", his only argument about how "the muslims are against the islamic state" (the only point of his "arguments") are wrong from its core from few reasons:

1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership that can renounce the islamic state in the name of the entire muslims world and islam itself.

2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates.

3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters.

he choose which muslim is "authority" and gives him the authority only in what he himself agree about(like al qaradawi renouncing of shia, alawites and the islamic state), gregkaye relies on "authority" which relies on gregkaye himself.

this is POV, period. and nobody can't deny it even if he ignore other of gregkaye's "arguments" about the islamic state's "morality" as it has anything to do with being jihadist or caliphate.

gregkaye also have obvious hard feelings about them and i already told him on the argument of me with him that he has too much hate for them and that he can't see them in a neutral way.

there is nothing that can serve as an excuse for his aggressive pushing of his POV, even if it wasn't aggressive at all cause wikipedia should be neutral at all cost. so what about the ridiculous accusations of "secret e-mails against Gregkaye" and the pointless talking about how much gregkaye has contributed to wikipedia?, do you get points that give you the right to push your POV? even if there was some "secret e-mails against gregkaye" that still doesn't gives him the right to force his POV.

and by the way i began editing articles only when i joined the discussion(you can see my ip on my first comments to him) and i know gregkaye's opposers as much as i know gregkaye himself, so you can forget from the "secret e-mails" consipracy.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wheels of steel0, Please don't misrepresent me. You put both phrases, "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", in quotation marks. They are not found in, Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

You say: "1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership..." Thank-you, but when a significant section of Islam worldwide reject this murderous (non-jihad), Muslim killing (non-Jihad), territory hungry (non-jihad) group as being un-Islamic, then that has got to say something.

You say: "2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates." Thank you. They say you "can prove anything with the Bible". The parallel phrase seems to be given a more limited use with the Quran but this does not necessarily place limits on the "interpretation of the quran". Show me a text that says that a Jihadist can be a murderer, a Muslim killer and territorially ambitious.

You say: "3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters." Agreed. ISIL has its Islamic supporters and yet their view are very far from being contested within the Islamic world. Please look up Islamic interpretations of Jihad in a variety of sources and hopefully you will see the point.

My conclusion has long been that we can't speak in an unqualified way in Wikipedia's voice and sanction this murderous group as being "jihadist". Wikipedia, as a neutral source of information, can say that the group is described as being jihadist. We might also put the word in quotes or add a footnote to the text so as to present religiously legitimised alternate views on jihad. The footnote is not intrusive and this is now quite literally a case of "to [b] or not to be" which would be mind meltingly laughable were it not for the fact that, without some form of qualification, we will endorse this most extreme of extremist groups by use of the religious, Islamic terminology "jihadist". We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die. You can claim such a statement as "aggressive pushing" if you like but, please, get some perspective. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye stop writing random mumblings as a comment for what i am saying in order to make it look like you had some argument or anything serious to say:

1.significant section of islam also consider shia and alawites as "heretics", it doesn't mean that you can use it to rewrite the defenition for jihad and caliphate and add new terms according to your own will. almost every caliphate and jihadist group has fought against other muslim groups and each one of them sought to expand their territory as much as they can.

2.show me a text about any kind of jihadist/caliphate that didn't commited murder and wasn't "territorially ambitious". you should also show me the text that appoints you to be the supreme authority in islam and gives you the ability to rewrite and add new stuff to islam as you wish.

3.you already provided an defenition of "jihad" but it has nothing to do with the difference between the islamic state and other caliphates and jihadistic groups, the only "point" in your comments is the new terms that you shove into islam in order to make it fit to your personal feelings on the islamic state organization.

so how you talk about "conclusion" and "qualified"? who qualified you to rewrite islam? who qualified you to dictate the authority of every muslim over islam? you even rewrites history with the way you ignores some parts of it.

that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Observation: I cannot tolerate injustice especially when I see a pattern of "selective" notification to influence a process. I, for example, was never notified of this ANI even though I was just 'one of the many' witnesses of Gregkaye's insightful contributions and his passionate dedication to the ISIS article. For the record, I am still not convinced of his Jihadist argument, yet I don't have sufficient knowledge or better arguments to convince him otherwise, but I won't just ban editors when I run out of logical arguments or because I don't like their approach to editing, or because he is in the way of my local consensus club of pals. If we want to address perceived disruption, we need to treat all disruptive behavior by all editors equally without any bias, let alone flagrant bias (especially those who bring forth any type of ANI with unclean hands, questionable credibility and a verifiable pattern of falsely asserting consensus and misleading well-meaning admins and editors with half truths).

Most importantly, I just observed something worrisome that is also compromising the normal consensus decision of this ANI process. As per WP:CANVAS, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." P123ct1 is one of Technopant's (very small) "Local tagteam consensus" club at the ISIS article, and they clearly intend to influence the outcome of this ANI in order to ban Gregkaye and get him out of their way. One example of her intent is her unsolicited and inappropriate attempt to dismiss Legacypac's comment above. So, I am reporting what I saw which can independntly be verified at [70] (Specific Ref: WP:Votestacking), and I ask the closing admin to take it into consideration objectively. Worldedixor (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy Re: Technophant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

returning edit, which had been moved without explanatory comment, to its original position.

• Comment Worldedixor should have not been selective in his link. The full link to the exchange between Wheels of Steel0 and I shows that this is not canvassing but a continuation of an attempt made by both us, independently and each without knowledge of either having done so, to bring the very matter raised by this AN/I to the WP:Help Desk to get some guidance on the best way to proceed (their answer was inconclusive). Wheels of Steel0 specifically asks me in that exchange how the matter could be dealt with and I told him an ANI had been started. He is an inexperienced editor, as he said in that exchange, and was asking for help. This is really not the place to digress, but I cannot let these WP:PAs by Worldedixor on Technophant and I pass without comment. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Had Worldedixor been editing the page (he hasn't for over a month), he would have seen the notice Technophant put on the Talk page about this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Worldedixor, why don't just read gregkaye's "arguments"? he has nothing to say other than giving every muslim he wants an authority that no muslim can have over islam and rewriting islamic terms and islam itself as he wishes. just read our argument her and/or on the talk page in the ISIS article.

that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

so what about stop attacking his opposers as "small group"?, gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Response I will gladly assume good faith as I don't have sufficient information to form an opinion of your conduct. I will also correct you. What you stated "gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article" is non-factual. You cannot lump me as a POV pusher when I clearly oppose his arguments on this particular matter and he has not yet convinced me, just as I oppose this ANI and banning editors who may be more knowledgeable than me in a certain area. I'd rather give them a non-confrontational, comfortable place to think with a clear mind, and give them the chance to improve their arguments, that may or may not influence me to support their contribution.

The ISIL article is a very controversial and heated article, and I am perplexed that we don't have over a 1,000 new editors contributing their diversified and insightful knowledge to the ISIS article. I have my opinion on this but I will keep it to myself for the time being.Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

response Worldedixor i didn't called you a POV pusher, i talked about Legacypac which sided with gregkaye. and why you think that gregkaye know more than you about the subject? he has no special knowledge, he just pushing his POV aggressivly and count on that that people will just let him do whatever he wants.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Response Now, your statement is clearer to me. I stand corrected. Worldedixor (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Comment I remember vividly how clueless I was in my first few weeks on Wikipedia when I was a new inexperienced editor, eight years ago. I am extremely impressed how well versed Wheels of steel0, an inexperienced editor, is in Wikipedia affairs. Kudos.

Also, P123ct1 has changed the order of Gregkaye's comment in an ANI without his permission [71]. This is neither an attack nor a grudge. This is a statement of a verifiable fact of P123ct1's conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

Innocent enough. Trying to put three comments in their proper time sequence. Gregkaye informed. Original order restored. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) What's so innocent about your writing "RfC/U - The worm has turned.", PA and WP:CANVAS at [72]? I have shown a verifiable pattern of your conduct in this ANI and, at this point, not only am I no longer interested in contributing my knowledge to the ISIL article, I will also recuse myself from this ANI because I clearly do not see editors sanctioned equally when it comes to policy violations. I am out of here!... Worldedixor (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Important Observation This edit [73] shows a P123ct1's conduct that is inconsistent with policy in this ANI. This is not an attack, this is a verifiable pattern of P123ct1's conduct.Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) (removed my comment not relevant to AN/I) --P123ct1 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Objections

In regard to Technophant's summary as presented above, the first edit clearly shows, contrary to the claim, "inserted paragraph into lead", that the edit involved a simple movement of text. The content, which had previously been placed as the second paragraph of the lead, was returned to this position. Technophant's additional claims that I have 'ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist"' are laughable. As he will have read, and as his edit summary shows, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. In fact one of the effects of my edit was to take the presentation of Jihadist and to correct the grammar to jihadist,. Technophant also failed to present my actual argument which has always been that a declaration of ISIL as being jihadist should be qualified. The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government. As a result I have consistently argued it is in contravention of NPOV to use Wikipedia's voice so as to endorse the group as having a religious validation that is in dispute. I have since suggested an extremely unobtrusive format of footnoting that can be used to create a more balanced overall picture. In all my dealings on the talk page I have treated people with relevant respect. There is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines against the presentation of opinion on talk pages and certainly not when a reasoned case is presented. I do not object to accusation of pushing POV (hardly an issue on a talk page) but take serious exception when the accusation comes from an editor who uses a variety of spins to promote his. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye why can't you understand that the whole way you treat islam as a group with monolithic leadership and guidance is wrong from its core?, you talk about "view" of jihad but don't understand that the muslims you talk about can't realy seperate the jihad of the islamic state from other groups(like caliphates) who claimed to do jihad, their only objection to the islamic state is cause of non-religios factors like social pressure and arab goverments propaganda which obviously would be against a caliphate without any relation to its "religious validation". and for that "religious validation" you gave NOTHING to disprove their religious legitimacy as jihadist or caliphate but only talked on the opinion of some muslims and gave them special authority according to your will, and the main fact that made your rhetoric useless on that matter is not the fact that you give them authority which they can't have but the fact that you want to use it only when it fits to your opinion and obviously wouldn't agree to use that proposed "muslim majority" on articles about islamic factions like shia and alawites.

i respect your resistance to the islamic state, but you need to understand that you can't use the opinion of some muslims in order to force YOUR opinion on some article. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 why can't you respond appropriately and in relevant locations to the actual content of the thread. None of the above comments apply to the content that followed the emboldened title "Objections".

I had stated: "The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government." Your non-reply fails to address this point.

Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye "Your non-reply fails to address this point" are you even reading my comments to you? like seriously? i commented on your pointless pseudo-arguments over and over and you still don't get it that your rhetoric of mentioning the opinion of some muslims(even as "the majority") as a proof for anything is just stupid and pointless. and it doesn't matter where i comment to you as long as you can see it, now all what you need is to stop with your ridiculous and pointless rhetoric as a defence for your aggressive POV pushing.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am. Again: Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support a very, very limited topic ban: where Gregkaye seems to run into to trouble is with attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words. The same thing happened over at Talk:Antisemitism. According to him Jihad (or whatever other word is the subject) originally meant something, and it can never be reappropriated. This is not how languages work, and it is not our role as compilers of an encyclopedia to second-guess the use of terminology by reliable sources. Since Greg does not seem able to get this particular point, I would support a topic ban on all discussions related to the definition or usage of specific words. This would allow Greg to contribute in all the other areas in which he is generally productive. Oppose a broader topic ban, as the level of disruption does not warrant it. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, you are being disingenuous. As you know there was no "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words" at Talk:Antisemitism. My interventions were to point out the clear weaknesses of "anti-Semitic" terminologies (based, as they are, on a misnomer) and, for instance, stated that, "Sensible terminologies include: Anti-Jewish, Anti-Jewish sentiment, Anti-Jewish racism, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism and Anti-Zionism". As you know I also clearly stated: "yes the word is in exclusive use for the Jews. So is the word "Jews". Why not use terms like Anti-Jewish sentiment when possible. My simple suggestion is, where possible, editors seriously consider the use of terminologies that are not misnomers in preference for terms that give clearer representation of their subject." I have not argued for a redefinition of "anti-Semitic" terminologies but have rather pointed out their clear failings. At no point have I been involved in edit warring and at no point have I said that the terminologies are not exclusive to the jews. However, searches such as on the word "semites" in the talk:Antisemitism archives just goes to illustrate confusions raised by this particularly highly promoted word usage. However, in my view the use of "anti-Semitic" terminologies places less direct threat to human life (not that this topic ever came up) than the threat to human life that I contest is indirectly posed by the unqualified endorsement of ISIL, a widely alleged wayward group, as being "jihadist". This, as far as I am concerned, is the difference.

Your misrepresentations have previously extended involved edits and an unsubstantiated personal attack. This one remarkably came in the context of your focus on the recognisability aspect of WP:UCRN as displayed in the text of talk:Antisemitism.

In my dealings with Jewish issues I have always advocated the taking on of responsibility by all sides but, whenever possible, through the minimum of embarrassment. This is born out in that, when I was getting to grips with the issue of the "min threads = 3" archive issue at talk:antisemitism I even contacted you privately to enquire about options. Amendments to archive settings were presented on the talk page and yet, despite your clear knowledge of the talk page content, you failed to give notification when you unilaterally reverted to a setting of three threads. I find it distasteful that your misrepresentations continue here and suspect further motives of curtailing discussion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: ANI discussions are tough and I certainly do not fault you for being on the defensive, but demonstrating more WP:IDHT behavior on deadhorse discussions does not help your case. I suggested a much narrower topic ban than the one discussed earlier in the thread, one that would still permit you to contribute in one of your areas of interest. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: you falsely said, "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words. The same thing happened over at Talk:Antisemitism." I have quoted reasoned and reasonable statements that I have actually said. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support The removal of the word Jihad means a manipulation of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.115.231 (talk • contribs)

(a) who left this comment? (b) did they read the discussion? It concerned removal of the word "jihadist", not "jihad". Big difference. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a further indication, if it were needed, of the biased and erroneous presentation of this AN/I. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There's a clear consensus that something needs to be done but not a clear idea of what should be done. I support VQuakr's suggestion of a "very, very limited topic" ban, however it does not address problem of potential article disruption by Gregkaye. I would like to propose that in addition to the specific ban on discussing the use of terminology that Gregkaye also be subjected to a "zero-revert rule" (0RR) on the ISIL article or ISIL topic. This would make any editing of the page a very delicate process, with the only clearly safe edits being the addition of new information, which is generally welcomed. The other alternative is that this user be limited to only making edit suggestions on the talk page. Please note that today this user has brought a matter of potential 1R violation to 3RR noticeboard in which one of his edits changing how the term "jihadist" was used was reverted by another user. ~Technophant (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, You fail to set context regarding the both of us that it has been commented that "neither of you violated 1RR", you fail to mention that the "complaint" about the 1RR violation as made at your suggestion and you also fail to mention that this breach involved reversal (by Felino123) of two edits by two different editors which, in both cases, involved the same topic. If this is your concept of a summing up then it approaches the same level of unbalance as the rest of your present campaign. As I have stated on the other page I suggest that you are watched. I also note that in your edit above that you pinged Vquakr and not me. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: I might have missed it in the long back and forth above, but it looks like all the actions by Gregkaye specifically raised here have been related to word definitions - both the 2 minute skirting of 1RR and the DEADHORSE talk page discussion were related to the usage of "jihadist" or similar, no? It seems like the minimally invasive topic ban I proposed above should be tried first, and if edit warring still occurs then a 0RR restriction could then be considered. VQuakr (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr In this second opportunity to check facts you will have seen that the discussion only relates to the word jihad related terminologies and if you had turned to the current situation of the talk page you would have seen, despite seeming attempts by Technophant so shut the discussion down, it is still live at Talk:ISIL with new avenues for constructive development being opened up. Your attempts to jump on a bandwagon and tie in other topics are unsubstantiated. The claim of edit-warring is laughable especially in light of two clear infringements of 1RR mentioned above.

All that having been said and following a fair bit of soul searching and self-reflection, I think that a genuine area in which I have taken things too far relates to WP:SOAPBOX. Since personally realising this a few days ago (and while I made my own enquiries into report related interventions,) I have very deliberately refrained from strong comment on the talk page. I personally view the soapbox arguments as being those of the community whose religion it is and whose communities either have been or are at risk of being attacked. I am a naturally straightforward person whose tendencies can result in blunt comment. However, I deny the accusation that I am trying to change the meanings of jihad related terminologies beyond the extent that I believe it is of relevance to consider the Islamic and arab community perceptions of the subject. Statements by Islamic organisations and various imams as well as presentation by media organisations such as al-Jazeera should, I believe, be considered.

Given this context and given the context of the typically Islamic communities that are involved in this awful situation I find the deadhorse accusations to be both out of touch and offensive. This does not detract from any need I have to tone things down both in terms of the force and pace of my interventions. I am, at least from my point of view, a passionate person but I can, I hope, help the ways in which this is manifest. While continuing to acknowledge the fact of the, I believe warped, perception of jihad as it is both regarded in the west and by many proclaimed jihadic groups, that I can't foresee a route by which I would drop the view of jihad as presented by the wider Islamic community. It is a view that has relevance and, I contend, should be considered.

As mentioned I have done a fair bit of "soul searching" in the last few days but had kept my conclusions to myself in view of the battle ground type tactics that I perceive to have been in operation surrounding this report. I am particularly grateful to editors who have helped with my enquires and to one particular editor who, while continuing to maintain a strong line with me, has kept in good contact and shared some good wisdom. This has really helped.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:11, 28 October 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.

Levdr1lostpassword

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 feel something needs to be done about @Levdr1lostpassword:. He seems to have made it his mission in life to follow me around and act as my personal "judge, jury, and executioner" on any article I seem to edit. This has been going on WAY TOO LONG, and needs to stop. Not only that, he made a baseless, and false sock puppet accusation against me, which I feel crossed the line. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time I tried to help with this situation, you both seemed to feel there was no problem. Gloss 17:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: I was wrong. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it just goes on and on and on. Notice, it always starts the same way..I make an edit, and he's on me like white on rice. The straw that broke the camel's back was on the Firelands article. I added numerous sources to back up my point that the area known as the "Firelands" has in the 20th century also become known as "Vacationland". I added (no joke) double digit sources to back up my claim (just so no one can accuse me of WP:OR or WP:V), and Levdr REJECTED THEM ALL and reverted back. Then the obvious vandal editor "Fruit" came in and raised hell (not only on Firelands, but numerous other articles as well), and Levdr accused me of being the sock. That I felt was going over the line. So I'm just at the point that something...anything needs to be done to get him off my back. It's almost a hybrid of WP:Hound and WP:Bully with this guy. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out by Gloss in the proposed IBAN thread linked above, these two editors have a long and tumultuous interaction history, but mostly aren't doing any harm outside of their own talk pages. Levdr1 opened a SPI on Vjmlhds in response to socks appearing at Firelands where the two were edit warring, and honestly under the circumstances the SPI seems to be justified. Vjmlhds is offended, naturally, but should probably just let it run its course rather than opening an obviously retaliatory SPI and then coming here to complain when it got shut down. Unless Vjmlhds can provide diffs showing a sustained history of abusive behaviour by Levdr1, the user should take a break and have a cup of tea. Ivanvector (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vjmlhds, and ANI is a lousy place to determine the likelihood of socking. By virtue of him filling, he is saying you are a sock, but he is putting his money where his mouth is by doing so in a formal SPI report. If he is being abusive in his claims, they can handle that at SPI. Regardless, we can't work an SPI case at ANI, so this report needs archiving. Dennis - 2¢ 19:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He made a false accusation and has long had a reputation of harassing me. Something has to be done about him...he is the bad guy, not me, and I'm tired of being treated like the villain around here. I should take a walk...easy for you to say - you're not the one whose character is being assassinated! Vjmlhds (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To add to my comment here and on my talk, if you would like you can open a request for comments on Levdr1's conduct, but you will have to provide a lot of evidence in the form of diffs to demonstrate the user's pattern of inappropriate interaction with you, and be prepared to have your own history dragged through the mud. It seems to me that Levdr1 has been blunt with you but not any more so than they are blunt with everyone, so you may not get the result you want if you go down that route. Ivanvector (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's a lot to take in here, and I won't be able to respond to it all right at this moment. For now, I will stop editing the Firelands article due to Ivanvector's concern of edit-warring w/ Vjmlhds. As for the SPI on Vjmlhds, I did not rush through my decision to open that case-- I think anyone who reviews the supporting evidence will see that. I'm confident that if Vjmlhds has nothing to hide, then he shouldn't have anything to worry about, and should simply let the process play out. As for my overall interactions w/ Vjmlhds, yes, they are sometimes contentious, but we practically always resolve our disputes on each of our talk pages w/o incident (clearly this is one those rare exceptions). What Gloss apparently see as a problem, I see as a positive and beneficial exercise (talking on our own talk pages). Vjmlhds and I sometimes disagree, but more often we collaborate in a constructive way. Unfortunately, I think this ANI discussion has more to do with the backlog of cases at SPI than anything else (I doubt Vjmlhds would have started this thread if his SPI case were closed by now). Levdr1lp / talk 20:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lostpassword: Then why on God's green earth did you open the SPI to start with?!? You yourself said there's no direct connection between me and "Fruit", so why did you go ahead with it in NOT for pure personal pettiness? Vjmlhds (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah...all that sounds like is Wiki bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. I swear to God, you gotta jump through so many frigging hoops around here to get anything done. Too much red tape, not enough boots up rear ends. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is at SPI. I can't block him for calling you a sock, then have SPI block you as a sock. When the issue revolves around sockpuppetry, SPI takes precedence. Until that is over, you won't likely find people willing to do anything here. And the admin there are fully capable of dealing behavior issues as well. What we DON'T do is drag a problem over multiple venues. Dennis - 2¢ 20:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Vjmlhds has gone on a bit of a rampage at his own SPI, first posting an angry diatribe and then simply blanking the page as a stated attempt to gain attention. It may be time to block this WP:POINTy user. Ivanvector (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm THE VICTIM here...why should I get blocked when all I want is a resolution to clear my name. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's going to take some time, that's all there is to it. There is a backlog at SPI. I posted a notice at WP:AN to try to draw some attention to the backlog, but beyond that there isn't much that anyone can do to expedite the process. You can watchlist it and safely ignore it in the meantime, and continue constructively as it looks like you have been doing. But I absolutely 100% promise and guarantee you that running around breaking things isn't going to close it one second faster, and is likely to get you much more serious repercussions. That's why I suggested you take a break earlier, before your actions get one forced on you. Ivanvector (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I just love how the guy who is in the right has to always "calm down, and let the process play out" yada, yada, yada...well you know what, the process sucks. Instead of being so worried about the "precious" process, just get stuff done. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Vjmlhds, SPI is backed up a few weeks, so you aren't going to get instant results. I will say this, you need to calm down, go undo your all bold caps, and quit blanking and being disruptive, or you will be blocked. You adding the reams of material will just slow the process down. SPI is not ANI. Opinions don't matter, they do a full investigation using behavioral analysis. They have zero tolerance for drama, and it will get you blocked in a skippy minute. Dennis - 2¢ 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As a favor, I've found diffs that will justify a CU and requested they look at it, which should speed it up a little. It won't guarantee you are or aren't a sock, but will provide additional evidence. Dennis - 2¢ 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lostpassword: has apologized to me for all the hullaballoo regarding the SPI case (which - as I knew I would be - I was cleared of). Therefore I want to pull the plug on this ANI... nothing to see here. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry that Vjmlhds had to undergo the added scrutiny at SPI. I stand by my decision to open that case, however. I just wish there hadn't been such a long backlog. I wouldn't be lying if I said that I considered withdrawing the case just before the CheckUser, if that's even a thing (is withdrawing a case permitted at WP:SPI?). Things seemed to be escalating pretty quickly just as Dennis_Brown, thankfully, intervened and requested that CU. Unfortunately, I didn't think there was enough behavioral evidence to justify a CU in the first place-- now I'm wishing I had. Levdr1lp / talk 07:27, 30 October 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.

Article needs deleting immediately for gross violations of WP:BLP policy

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.

---

Can someone delete this post-haste. [74] It makes serious allegations of criminality against named individuals, as well as violating pretty well every other principle of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close (or even simply delete) the AFD that I had started now that the article has, very sensibly, been speedy-deleted? Abecedare (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at recent contributions of User:Nexus000, the creator of the article in question, I think there may be further WP:BLP concerns. Perhaps someone (other than me - I've got steam coming out of my ears) could take a look and decide what if any further action is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(after ec) Also the many redirects and links that User:Nexus000 created to the the now deleted article need to be deleted/rolled-back. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, how many redirects did Nexus000 create to this page? Ridiculous. I think I've nuked all the bad ones but a second set of eyes doesn't hurt. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This should help catch any straglers. Abecedare (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are more problems than just the redirects though. See this blatant WP:BLP violation I've just removed for example. [75] It looks to me like Nexus000 basically created the article just to add unreliably-sourced allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of his mess I also believe he is operating a Sock Diariesofpierce. My thought is they are not here to build an encyclopedia VViking_TalkEdits 07:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's good that this got cleared up - I'd taken a few swipes at the content earlier but hadn't got round to writing it up properly for WP:BLPN.

I'd seen the Diariesofpierce account and idly wondered what it was about, but it hadn't occurred to me that it's likely to be a sock of the article creator. SPI if necessary. As far as I'm aware, Nexus000 is a legitimate alternative account (or rather, successor account - one couldn't really go as far as calling it a cleanstart) of a much earlier account under one of the reasons listed in WP:SOCK#LEGIT.

Among people who pay attention to YouTube "vloggers" and related things, there seems to be a good faith belief that documenting some of these incidents on Wikipedia is appropriate. (See for example the usually-inappropriate material added to Alex Day by a wide variety of editors over a long period of time now.) Some of the incidents do get coverage in reliable sources, e.g. the BBC. So I am seeing this more as an unwise but good faith manifestation of that, rather than a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to defame. A strong warning might be appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that this isn't sockpuppetry, but I do have a suspicion that this is a case of two people who know each other off of Wikipedia at least somewhat that decided to try to add pages to Wikipedia. I do think that they meant well and I've tried to stress to the users that as long as they are up front about how they know each other (if they do) then being brought in to help with pages doesn't have anything wrong with it per se. However I did warn them that there are ways to check for sockpuppetry, just in case there is some socking going on. 10:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs)

The intention for this article was not to use Wikipedia to defame, it was to provide reliable information on the scenario. There has been controversy surrounding when YouTube "vloggers" were alleged of committing sexual abuse, specifically ones rotating around DFTBA Records. Many of these allegations were anonymous and people were getting curious and jumping to conclusions.

I wanted a more reliable alternative to this list: http://unpleasantmyles.tumblr.com/post/79455706244/tom-milsom-hexachordal-heres-the-post-olga

I figured news outlets which covered this topic such as BBC, The Daily Dot, TenEighty, Independent, The Daily Mail, Channel 4 were reliable sources for this information. I have used news articles for references before on other articles. I never made false allegations towards anyone. I simply provided information on what was accused, who made the accusation and how the situation played out and the impact of it. Although, I admit several such as Gregory Jackson are questionable for being on the list overall. I have had to leave out information because it was never covered by a news outlet.

I have no affiliation with User:Diariesofpierce. I live in a university so there is a possibly we share the IP, though I would highly doubt that. We simply have been editing similar articles, I'm assuming it is because we have a mutual interest in Alex Day's work since we both appeared on The Underground Storyteller also.

Admittedly, the abundance of redirect links was bad of me. They were all names and usernames of people who have been known to be involved with any of the incidents. My intention with that was to have many people find it.

I apologise for any trouble I have caused or any unwise or inappropriate edits made. I assure you this was with good faith. --Nexus000 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2014 (NZT)

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 K7L

As a newer/inexperienced user I've had to take some time to try and get all the info and procedure together. I feel that I am being somewhat harassed and bullied by the user K7L. The user does not discuss changes that are incorrect, and instead finds ways to divert attention away from their actions by pointing out things like "bringing up past mistakes" instead of discussing and following guidelines - I have never denied that I have made mistakes and done things that were not exactly to the guidelines, as there seems to be so many and often contradictory, but I have learned a few things over time. User had an issue with my original phonetic spelling of my username, filed a complaint and I had to change it, even though one year earlier an admin had said there was no problem with my name. User then decided to find fault with a mistake that I made in my early says of editing - I had wanted to clear my talk page, did not know exactly how and ended up renaming it instead. When I tried to have this undone - by requesting a deletion with the history put back into original page - to satisfy the users demands for "you can't hide your past" - I was then harassed on my talk page by this user, who kept reverting it. On a few of the articles that he/she/it was constantly reverting my corrections, the user was even told by another to "Use common sense" and to stop with the nonsense. User has now taken to trolling my edits, pages that he/she/it has never even done a minor edit are all of a sudden being reverted at my first minor correction - even when the same reverts by others are ignored (Cities in Ontario recent municipal elections results for example). User refuses to follow own preachings of "follow the Wikipedia Guidelines", when asked to discuss the reverts before unilaterally re-introducing them. I have to go through my history to find the differences that are requested here, but anyone who takes a look at the edit histories will see that it has become some sort of a personal vendetta against me being able to contribute. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd complained validly about User:NotWillyWonka for multiple issues:

1. A violation of our username policy for the name "not willy wanka", an inappropriate reference to wanking a willy which had already earned talk page warnings from other users. The user had not only repeatedly blanked the user talk page to make the warnings go away, but sneakily moved it to a subpage User talk:NotWillyWanka/delete and attempted to get that page deleted.
2. An edit war repeatedly applying an invalid {{db-author}} tag to User talk:NotWillyWanka/delete. This was no accident. The user isn't trying to archive warnings, but is attempting to hide them or even delete the history. An admin eventually did repair the history by pasting everything back together at User talk:NotWillyWonka and User talk:NotWillyWonka/Archive 1. The user responding by blanking the talk page to remove the {{archives}} link.
3. A sockpuppetry incident in which the user was using two accounts, User:NoGoodOnesLeft and User:NotWillyWonka, in parallel. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NotWillyWonka/Archive.

The user has been blocked twice, once for the offensive username and once for the sockpuppetry. This person is now attempting to retaliate by following me from one article to another, everything from Toll-free telephone numbers in the United States to Area code 664 (Montserrat), with pointless revert warring which is sitting below WP:3RR but hitting multiple unrelated topics in a seeming attempt to intimidate me into leaving the project. This is not "a newer/inexperienced user" as first edit as "NotWillyWanka" was in 2012. I have no idea why this user removed the municipal election outcome in Kirkland Lake but this is not helping build an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we have an instance of WP:BOOMERANG here, since recent edits of NotWillyWonka show mainly edit warring. In particular, the edit history of Province of Canada is very impressive. I know very little about history and legal status of Canada, but a user who is only edit-warring and refuses to accept consensus on the basis of IDONOTLIKEIT should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I keep getting EC'ed, in an effort to ask Wonka if he really wants to file this report, for what is now obvious reasons. Dennis - 2¢ 13:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out, I think, that NotWillyWonka is entitled to blank his talk page if he wants and is not obliged to retain any archives or maintain links to archives (it should all be in the history of the talk page), and K7L should not be edit warring with him on his own talk page to try to force him to. Neatsfoot (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• K7L, let me strengthen Neatsfoot's warning: you have no right to be harassing Willy for blanking his talk page. Moreover, you appear not to observe that this username has been changed; it is now "NotWillyWonka". This user is Canadian: the term "wank" is completely unknown in the USA, and unless there's a strong transition at the border, what reason do we have to take the original username as anything but a misspelling of Willy Wonka? On top of this, you filed an SPI after Notwillywanka had been given a {{usernameblock}}. Have you observed that the template explicitly states You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.? He did exactly what he was told, but you filed an SPI for the new username: were you to realise your error and not mention the issue, it wouldn't be a huge deal, but you continue bringing up the issue as a black mark against him. Regardless of what NotWillyWonka is doing, you have been harassing him repeatedly against multiple user conduct policies; you may consider this your only warning before a block. Nyttend (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The SPI was for the simultaneous use of User:NotWillyWonka and User:NoGoodOnesLeft after the {{usernameblock}} name Notwillywanka had been renamed and unblocked. It is valid. The user moved his talk page to a sub page and edit-warred an invalid speedy deletion tag onto it, the blanking is only part of it. Furthermore, this deletion is badly out of process; why was it made? K7L (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Report user 199.116.81.46

Not sure how to report someone, but this new user (199.116.81.46) appears to be putting a lot of rubbish into articles. All their edits need to be undone and the user warned or banned.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 14:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Knocked the IP on the head for 48 hours. John, for future reference, reports like this belong at WP:AIV rather than here. Thanks for flagging it, though. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):199.116.81.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to have stopped and edits have been reverted. WP:AIV is the proper place to report this kind of thing. Don't forget to apply the appropriate WP:WARNings before reporting. Yunshui got here first but the link to the warning page may be of help to SJ as well MarnetteD|Talk 15:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A good admin knows that a true vandal does not require warnings, and will block if the IP's activity is ongoing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That might be the case if the editor is an automated spambot, but usually the items which end up here are less straightforward. K7L (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I would have taken it straight to AIV, and assuming it wasn't "stale" and that the random admin that showed up there was willing to do his job, the IP would have been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Stoning in Iran and other articles

User:Qizilbash123 has been systematically removing text from articles that portray Iran in a less-than-positive light, in particular regarding the existence of stoning as a judicial punishment, even when this is supported by sources such as Amnesty International or BBC News. Other articles involved include My Stealthy Freedom and Application of sharia law by country, where he has removed any mention of the use of flogging and stoning by Iran. He has been warned against edit warring by multiple users in several articles over a period of months (see talk) and briefly blocked for this behaviour. Repeated attempts to discuss perceived issues on talk pages have proved fruitless, and now he has also taken to name-calling ('rv propagandist bigot', 'POV-pusher + extensive bigotry').--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Qizilbash also has 3 previous blocks for edit warring on similar topics, and ragequit once (he came back). Origamite^ⓣⓒ 11:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. Thank you both for reporting. Ragequitting is not a crime, but the block log for edit warring on Iran and My Stealthy Freedom in June-July certainly constitutes "form" with regard to these tendentious removals of sourced content. I take an especially dim view of their repeat removals of the same material again in My Stealthy Freedom,[76][77] for which they were blocked in July. The edit warring blocks in the summer were escalated appropriately: 31 hours —> 5 days —> two weeks. All in all, I think it's time for a 3-month block for this stubborn POV-pusher. Done. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: (and CambridgeBayWeather) perhaps it would now be okay remove the full protection from Stoning now that Qizilbash123 has been blocked (since he was the only one removing content in that edit-war). Stickee (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I've unprotected. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. User:CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), sunasuttuq 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Stonerism and related pages

For the past day User:Stonerism and User:Fathercloud have been pushing to include an article about Stonerism at Stonerism. They have also duplicated it at their own pages. The actual content may or may not be a hoax, and it is certainly made up. Stonerism was deleted once and recreated. Today User: ‎2601:d:cd80:ae6:1504:2d12:b2a7:bc3c jumped right in with edits to User:Stonerism and the main article. If not socks, they must be some kind of coordinated attack to include this page. KonveyorBelt 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Fathercloud's first edit was to User:Stonerism, it's pretty clear there's some sort of connection. I've deleted the Stonerism article a second time. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The same material has been deleted per WP:CSD#U5 from User:Stonerism and User:Fathercloud. The Stonerism account was set up on 7 November 2011 and edited only on that one day. Fathercloud is new today; I have referred him to WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fathercloud . I think it should be at SPI. -Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 17:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of 3O

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

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

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

ASH article recent history

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

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

Mischief7's history

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

Conclusion / request

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

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

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

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

Looking at the intersecting articles that both editors worked on [78] you basically found nothing, so from that point of view, there is no reason to think that Nellyhan and Mischief7 knew each other at all. That doesn't explain why it wasn't filed at WP:3O, but they weren't editing buddies. Dennis - 2¢ 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

User:Skinny McGee and Midnight Syndicate

Skinny McGee (talk · contribs)

I don't really want to open a can of worms here, and I have no experience dealing with ArbCom sanctions. Given Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate#Remedies (which is still noted on Talk:Midnight Syndicate), I am unclear on whether it is appropriate for Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) to be editing Midnight Syndicate and a host of related articles (including Dungeons & Dragons (album), Out of the Darkness (Retrospective: 1994–1999), Monsters of Legend, HalloWeekends, Andrew Divoff, The Dead Matter and others), especially when at least some of these edits (see this) relate to the contentious relationship between Midnight Syndicate and Joseph Vargo (which was a big part of the original ArbCom case). Could someone who is more familiar with these matters please look into this? J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible legal 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.

---

Hi, Warned the user about their statement on my talk page [79] as it felt like it was meant to have a chilling effect. Then responded with this [80]. have asked them to read WP:CHILL and WP:NLT to see if they will respond. Amortias (T)(C) 20:53, 30 October 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.

Strong quacking sensation.

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,

Nothing concrete but I'm hearing an increasingly loud quacking over at Lisa Christine Holmberg from some fairly new accounts that have cropped up. If there not socks thees a definite meaty flavour to it. Anyone able to take a look. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ginger1774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been around since 2012 but has no edits before yesterday, while Grandma.ricky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today, and both are editing that one article exclusively. They may be two people who know each other IRL but they don't seem to be actually doing any of the things that get you in trouble at WP:SOCK at this point, so probably best to leave them be. If they start causing trouble, WP:SPI is your venue. Ivanvector (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fari enough. Appeared to be tag-teaming on a unsourced article but if they've brought it up to standard then fair enough.

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.

Attention needed on Botswana Democratic Party

Botswana Democratic Party, currently on the Main Page in the In the news section, is experiencing vandalism; also, some election results numbers have been changed. Don't have time to monitor this one myself; could someone take a look? -- Djembayz (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist with watch/ignore talk page threads

As an IEG proposal, I have proposed making a user script which permits you to watch or ignore threads on talk pages. With this script, for talk pages your watchlist will only show the threads you have chosen to watch. Alternately it will show all threads except those which you have indicated you desire to ignore. In addition, the script will permit you to display entries from your watchlist on other Wikipedia projects and languages. If would like to see this functionality happen, please go to the IEG page and indicate your support (endorse).

I have put this notification on this page because the times when I have watched this page, I very much desired this functionality as I was only interested in a very limited number of threads. — Makyen (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Exellent! I will definitely endorse this; I have been looking for this functionality for some time. Good luck! Huldra (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention needed on Talk:Gamergate controversy

YellowSandals (talk · contribs) (an SPA) has this evening been repeatedly attempting to draw comparisons between citing reliable sources noting the misogyny and sexism that is present in the gaming community and, of all things, homophobia. This last is particularly inflammatory on multiple levels: the editor is not only attempting to depict gamers as an 'oppressed group' on the level of the LGBTQ community, which is problematic enough, but is actually referring to some sort of supposed "degeneracy in the homosexual community," comparing it to the cited and verifiable examples of misogynistic behavior in the gaming community. The implication that verified examples of misogynistic behavior are equivalent to supposed "degeneracy in the homosexual community" is just mind-blowingly inappropriate. Could an uninvolved admin please review the page's general sanctions and determine if they apply here? -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed a call to maintain the policy of WP: IMPARTIAL. Accusing a group of misogyny is a slur. There has been no factual verification that the gaming community is broadly misogynistic. There is no way to verify such a slur as truthful, as the definition of misogyny is dependent on context and other factors. Many people find it offensive to be called misogynist. In the interest of WP: IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia does not refer to homosexuals as "degenerates" or "sinners" even though the Catholic Church canonically views homosexuality as sin. We do not call the Klu Klux Klan a hate group, but merely state it is classified as such by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. We do not call Hitler evil, though we describe his actions.

This is the meaning of WP: IMPARTIAL. If TaraInDC wishes to establish the derogatory nature of a group or movement, they should do so in an independent blog. Not here on Wikipedia. This is my stance. YellowSandals (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick addendum here: the press, by and large, considers the group misogynistic, and the issue that has been raised over and over on that page is saying the claim "Gamergate is misogynistic" in WP's voice, and saying "The media broadly considers Gamergate is misogynistic", which appropriately identifies this as a claim and by whom, without assigning the claim in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia speaks with the voice of verifiable and reliable sources. If mainstream sources say something, there is no requirement for wikipedia to say "verifiable and reliable sources say..." aprock (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The page is simply not 'saying the claim "Gamergate is misogynistic" in WP's voice,' Masem. Please either give exact quotes or cite diffs for past revisions where that text was added to the article or stop making the claim. Regardless, the issue here is not whether or not YellowSandals is right to claim that the page is biased. This is about a conduct problem, not the ongoing content dispute. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Content disputes do not belong at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about the content dispute. It doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion if YellowSandals is right or wrong to claim that the page is biased - the problem is the inflammatory language being used. As the page sanctions require the intervention of an uninvolved administrator, this would seem to be the best place to have the conduct evaluated. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out to you that, in spite of the Catholic Church holding it as canon that homosexuality is a sin, the Wikipedia page does not describe homosexuals as a "group concerned by sin" or other such negativity. Because the homosexuality page is WP: IMPARTIAL. YellowSandals (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And that comparison is completely inappropriate. Your repeated comments about "degeneracy in the homosexual community," even if you sometimes (though not always) attribute them to the catholic church, are at best needlessly inflammatory. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is my view that this is worthy of a short block, as the comments are quite clearly inappropriate and provocative, and the editor continuing to make the claims, even after being informed that general sanctions apply to this area, and even after being informed that that particular statement is not appropriate. The only concern I'd have is that even though it's happening on a GamerGate page, it's only tangentially related to the topic itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

IP user 190.53.66.14

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.

---

190.53.66.14 (talk · contribs), while certainly not a vandal, is apparently incapable of reading his/her talk page or recognizing that each instance of adding rowspans to sortable tables has to be reverted. This is a long-standing, continuing issue despite several reminders. I'm requesting that this IP be blocked for a few weeks to get this editor's attention. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:40, 31 October 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.

Vandalism and Paid Self-Promotion by Equine Canada aka user:CanadianEquestrianTeam

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 corporation Equine Canada has been using an account user:CanadianEquestrianTeam (after previously editing anonymously from the Equine Canada owned IP address 173.195.59.242) to remove fully sourced and referenced information, and to replace it with unreferenced self-promotional material, in the articles Canadian Equestrian Team and Equine Canada.

(1) It has blatantly violated WP:SELFPROMOTION policy by the fact that these these edits by the corporation Equine Canada, all designed to either hide unflattering information about itself or to hide positive information about other equestrian organizations

(2) It has violated WP:PAY because these edits originate from Equine Canada's corporate office and are therefore made by Equine Canada's paid communications staff

(3) Its username CanadianEquestrianTeam blatantly violates WP:ORGNAME against corporate names, and attempts to act as if it is uniquely authoritative on all matters of equestrian athletes, instead of being just one amongst a large number of Canadian equestrian federations.

(4) Its only edits are for self promotion to two closely related articles, Equine Canada and Canadian Equestrian Team violating WP:SPA policy against single purpose accounts

CanFan57 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it would be an appropriate report for WP:UAA. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

n/m - you did already. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 30 October 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:Nukefirestadium

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.

---

This relates to the old football stadium in Leipzig, primarily located at Zentralstadion (1956). Instead of starting move discussion(s), the above user is unilaterally creating content forks at new pages (Central Stadium (Leipzig, GDR)‎ and Central Stadium, Leipzig (1956-2000)). When these controversial pastes and redirects are reverted, the user is just constantly reverting despite repeated warnings. The user has also frequently removed discussion templates. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nukefirestadium has triggered a sockpuppet investigation already: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53. The behaviour of NFS looks very similar, including editwarring and conspiracy theories. The Banner talk 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • And blocked indef as sockpuppet, so this case can be closed. The Banner talk 18:50, 31 October 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.

Longterm IP spammer

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.

---

Since January 2014, 195.47.226.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been exclusively spamming content from http://www.listofwonders.com/ to multiple articles despite many warnings. Today the IP created the named account Bellresolve who also started adding the spam link to the article of Colossus of Rhodes and edit-warred about it in support of the IP. The named account has been blocked. I think the longterm IP spammer should also be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for three months by User:Materialscientist. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

• Thank you both. Nice seeing you Bish. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:46, 30 October 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: NazariyKaminski -- Disruptive behavior and edit warring over multiple articles

User being reported: NazariyKaminski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please take a look at this user's behavior. After quickly removing a section tag from a BLP [81] and then copying and pasting his edit warring warning to my talk page [82] I soon realized I needed to take further action. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I just filed a 3RR report on NazariyKaminski before noticing this. He's an editor who has been blocked 4 times this year (3 for edit-warring and one for harassment/personal attacks). The most recent edit-warring block was a month long, but he jumped right back in once it expired with more edit-warring. His contribution history consists of solely of relentlessly tendentious, combative, hyperpartisan edit-warring and invective. If there is a clearer example of someone unsuited to retain editing privileges on this site, it's been awhile since I've seen one. At this point, there's ample evidence that NazariyKaminski's behavior is not going to change and he's not going to suddenly start respecting our conduct policies, so we should probably not put him in a position to waste any more of other editors' time. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Look let's cut to the chase. Somedifferentstuff placed a BLP tag on the article in retaliation for edits that I was making that he did not like. Now, before you go blocking me please note that I have been attempting to work with Cwobeel to come to a compromise. All of the discussion right there in the notes of the talk page. There is a disagreement on what is a primary source and what is a secondary source. I believe that the Federal Election Commission filings are primary and OpenSecrets.org is a secondary source. They claim that OpenSecrets.org is a primary source. However, OpenSecrets.org is a private entity owned and operated by Center for Responsive Politics. It is not a government agency and the information that they have is not original but merely information that is filed with the FEC in the first place. Now, when the admin goes through and counts the number of edits and reverts and all of the rest then you will see that all three of us, Cwobeel, Somedifferentstuff, and myself ALL violated 3RR. This is fact. Now, I am more than willing to take my block, but it needs to be applied fairly which means that the two editors who were reverting me, Cwobeel and Somedifferentstuff, need to be blocked also. I believe the rule is "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", right? Now, Greg Orman has given campaign money to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, that can't be disputed because it is right there in the FEC files and it is reported in the secondary source OpenSecrets.org. Also, the Kansas City Star and Roll Call also report that Orman has given to Reid and Clinton so that fact is not in dispute. So go ahead and block me but you need to block those folks also. Oh, by the way, Cwobeel went out and talked Somedifferentstuff into making his way over to Orman to support Cwobeel's position. Somedifferentstuff has written this note as if he is an innocent child, but he was engaging in the edit war also. Actually, Cwobeel and myself were making tons of progress toward a compromise until Somedifferentstuff got involved in a big way and decided to inappropriately tag the article "BLP" when there was not "BLP" issue. There were clearly other issues that needed to be worked on but not BLP. Also, Somedifferentstuff was removing material that Cwobeel and myself agreed belong in the article. So there you have it. Remember it takes two (in this case three) to tango. You can't have an edit war without two sides reverting each other. Each of them reverted as often as I did. But as I said this went on most of the day. It was just Cwobeel and myself until Somedifferentstuff decided to get involved. Its too bad because we were getting to a compromise.--NK (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not a completely uninvolved editor, as I've also been involved in some of the related talk page discussions. However, the issue raised does pose a broader issue that comes up in regards to polarizing articles. There is nothing wrong with holding your own political views, and if we're being realistic we have to expect that editors' views will impact the changes they oppose or support in controversial articles. However, there comes a point in which, if an editors sole purpose is to push towards one POV and against another, even if this is done through actions that are individually not problematic (such as asking for additional verification, arguing about the reliability of sources, or arguing about the relative of significance of specific points) we can include that they are NOT here to build an encyclopedia. My general test for this is to look at the last 1000 edits for an editor. If these are entirely concerned with pushing or pulling on the POV of a specific event in one direction, even if done under the claims of encouraging neutrality, then I don't believe the user is a benefit to the encyclopedia. The user in question's past contributions seem to indicate this is the case in regards to current American political elections.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd note, however that the user posting this incident is also not perfect in this regard, with a strong focus on POV in political issues. However, applying the same standard to his or her edits does indicate a much wider variety of articles edited, to the point where I wouldn't say they are only here for one sole purpose.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply put - we should lock down political BLPs during "silly season." Else we get folks who seem to wish just to remove those with differing views from what is supposed to be a collegial editing atmosphere. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wooeyparks' edit war with themselves

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.

---

Wooeyparks (talk · contribs) has been adding, deleting or reverting "Gakuen Basara (Yukimura Sanada)" (and sometimes other lines, or subheading names) over and over again. For example there's maybe 50 edits like these [a, b, c] in the Hiro Shimono page history. It almost looks like an automated process. The only reason I can think they might be doing this is to try and increase their edit count.

I've identified at least 5 other articles with this repetitive editing pattern by Wooeyparks: Mamoru Miyano, Nobuhiko Okamoto and (perhaps less extensively) Junichi Suwabe, Kazuyuki Okitsu and Katsuyuki Konishi. I suspect there are more, less-easy-to-identify example. The gaps between edits sometimes span days, and Wooeyparks' contributions show that they alternate between articles, and Wooeyparks often contributes legitimate edits as well as these strange repetitive ones.

I contacted Wooeyparks on their talk page and they deleted my first post [as seen here]. I then contacted them again, and a 3rd time after 3 weeks. They deleted those posts along with others [as seen here]. I am at a loss as to what to do—Msmarmalade (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please advise—Msmarmalade (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Any input appreciated —Msmarmalade (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Any input at all.—Msmarmalade (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here and for your patience. Our admin ranks are getting slightly understaffed, and some harder to handle issues are left to linger. I have now blocked the editor for one week (they had been blocked for disruptive editing in April already), and left a note on his talk page. Let's hope that he'll come back to explain himself and continue his productive editing while dropping the strange edits he makes inbetween. Fram (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to it :). What should I do with this discussion until then? Should it be kept open for Wooeyparks to respond? Or can I leave it to be archived?—Msmarmalade (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll just let it be archived. He had his chance to respond here (he made plenty of edits during its course), now he can discuss this on his talk page. If things don't change after the block expires, you can always drop me a note or start a new section here. Fram (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note here; I've changed the block to indefinite. See WP:Long-term abuse/Wooey Parks, this is either a reincarnation or a troll but in either case not here to be useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:26, 31 October 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.

Edit-warring and BLP-violations from user Muhib mansour

Muhib mansour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding BLP-violating categories to articles not by using reliable sources but by watching videos where actors have played gay parts and drawing his own conclusions about the real-life sexual orientation of the actors. He has given the following reply to MusikAnimal's warning about adding unsourced information to a BLP article: "ok watch this video [video link provided in diff] and from his face you will know he is faggot".

He also left this message to Tiller54: "why you delete this categories of [Actor's name on diff] ? she lesbian ,watch last film blue is warmest color". Mansour has also taken to edit-warring on the BLP of Adèle Exarchopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adding unsourced BLP-violating categories, no doubt from watching one of her films. He also applies pressure to the editors who revert his unsourced additions declaring that he will revert them.

I think this user's casual approach and insults in any context, but especially regarding BLP violations, is something that has no place in an encyclopedia. I also find his edit-warring and approach to other editors to be highly problematic, especially when combined with his interpretation of watching films and drawing his own conclusions, as being equivalent to BLP-compliant sources. I leave the type of admin action that may be deemed necessary up to the admin corps. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Quick block for 31 hours for BLP violations. I had a look at some other edits to see if they did anything positive at all; it seems that they have. That comment you cite, Dr.K., is bad enough to suggest an indef block, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd rather have another admin look at this. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Drmies. I fully agree with your action and evaluation of the incident. Your block message on Mansour's talkpage was also very clear and covered the issues involved very well. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• I took a quick look, Drmies. With considerable difficulty, I'm able to believe that this is a very naive person who hasn't a clue about what's required for decent sourcing, whose English is poor, and who has innocently mixed up "faggot" (pejorative) and "gay" (not). I think that 31 hours should be enough for him to understand both the connotations of the words he likes to use and the need for reliable sourcing. So I wouldn't extend the block. But if he continues when he returns, I'd skip the usual time-wasting warnings and gradually increasing blocks, but instead block him indefinitely as incompetent at best. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well-made points. My only concern is that, based on his editing pattern, he may come back to editing after his block expires, because his edits are usually two to three days apart, with the latest break being an 11-day one. Let's hope, given his apparently weak communication skills, he understands that he was actually blocked while he was absent and what that means. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Flaawless

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.

---

Flaawless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could someone please take a look, this seems to be a vandalism-only account, adding weird content to multiple articles. I don't see much point in a notification or warning, they seem to know they're acting up. Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it might be a compromised account, or somebody having a weird breakdown. Anyway, a number of recent edits need to be rolled back. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably the latter. Looking through the contributions, I think this individual was promoting himself (assuming "Regardless Devon Victory" is a male editor's pseudonym). When his article(s?) were deleted he started vandalizing other articles. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Mike V--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 31 October 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 talk page moved to an attack title

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.

---

• Woody72691 (talk · contribs)
• User talk:Dirtlawyer1 has been moved to User talk:Mr. Assole

I could move the page back, but an admin should do it and delete the attack title. I don't know what the underlying problem is—that can be checked after the page move is fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved back, and blocked the offender. Chillum 08:26, 1 November 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.

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#Requested move

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 don't know what to do with Signedzzz. I'm accused of doing personal attacks, yet "zzz" told me not to come back there and requests that another editor be topic-banned. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you just drop the silly "I don't know what to do with" attitude? On the thread in question, your first comment started with "You have rebutted people who opposed. I'll try to rebut you" when the editor in question hadn't rebutted anyone (except you). Then your next comment starts with "Are you directly related to protesters?" (A purely ad hominem argument) And a little further down, after throwing in a pointless and tacky mention of the Nazi Party, it's "How much do you know Hong Kong culture? Not every English-speaking readers know stuff about Hong Kong", directed at me. All of this on a "requested move" thread, under a box which clearly states "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil." So, as you mentioned, I directed you to look up the meaning of 'ad hominem' - which apparently you have failed to do, despite the link I provided. And I will be filing a request for User:STSC to be topic-banned if his POV-pushing continues, unless of course there's some good explanation for, eg this edit (which I have pointed out, and received no response) where he downgrades both of the Wikiprojects China and Politics from "High importance" to "Low importance" - I haven't filed the complaint yet, because I have better things to do right now, than collect a load of diffs, (and I'm hoping he just steers clear of the article, as he has largely been doing - except for deliberately disrupting the move request just now, and opening an apparently spurious RfC). zzz (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester had; see Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 2#RM (October 2014). --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And, in any case, you have apparently misinterpreted my "please don't later try to come back and comment as the 'voice of reason'" comment, which was referring only to the (already finished) thread. zzz (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It still was unfunny and confusing, but that's my opinion. If you don't want to amend your comments there, that's fine. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you for the way the discussion went, it was doomed anyway. I just felt the objections you had raised were a little off-topic. I certainly wasn't trying to be funny, that's not one of my strengths. zzz (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho, I don't honestly want to amend my comment, but I would agree with deleting it. I was just annoyed with STSC's obligatory trolling, at the time, that's all. zzz (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Now that the comment is deleted (well, it would have been struck out, but deleting is fine as well), perhaps tell me other examples of personal attacks, so I can do something about my comments. Meanwhile, you and STSC can resolve yourselves on your own. --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the user enjoys his trolling too much to stop - ask user:Citobun. You criticised the nominator for COI, after he'd bothered to write a long paragraph in response to your objection. A more detailed response was called for (or none at all), imho. Then you suggested I don't know about the subject as an English-speaker. This missed the point that what I was saying was based on sources in the article. I had mentioned this in a slightly obscure way, in a previous comment, and I can now see that you had possibly missed that, and so you thought I was being speculative. I'm glad I've worked out what happened there, (if that's right, of course) - I hope that's cleared up, now! :)zzz (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The user probably lives in HK. He was probably oblivious about the previous RM a month ago, yet he started a re-proposal. RGloucester convinced me adequately with examples; the other guy accused me of being narrow. His tone sounds like an activist to me, but I'm unsure of whether he is one. About what I said to you, "How much do you know Hong Kong culture? Not every English-speaking readers know stuff about Hong Kong. Even when I know Hong Kong celebrities (I'm Chinese), I still am oblivious about Hong Kong a lot. I've never been there, so how is denying themselves as "Revolution" just "being polite"?", I'm sure that it was a misinterpretation. I'll amend by adding underlined content, okay? --George Ho (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what, he did accuse you, after all. And there's several ways I could have misinterpreted what you said, that you've quoted there. Underlining would help, cheers. zzz (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I see what you were saying! I got that wrong, then. zzz (talk) 03:34, 1 November 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:124.9.91.102

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 can we block this IP (yet again).

Multiple edits to a users talk page threatening violence. [83] [84] [85] [86]

Might be worth rev-del them as well. Amortias (T)(C) 14:17, 1 November 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 interaction ban or more on User:The Drover's Wife

Multiple incivil talk page comments/edit summaries such as, [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. Perhaps a civility block? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit dramatic. Chess was biting newbies (three specialist editors at a Wikimedia Australia event, no less), I called him on it, and I'm done here. I do look forward to our paths not crossing again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple warnings, including [93], [94], and [95]. Also, this user just made another uncivil edit at [96]. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a unique definition of incivility. You bit newbies, I yelled at you for doing it, and it's done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: [97], as well as other edit summaries by you state that you fixed a mess by someone who "failed in geography class". Also, the definition of incivility, (from WP:CIVIL) is "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments." Your comments towards me meet all three criteria. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment while I don't necessarily disagree with the edits (from either side) that have taken place, the attitude of The Drover's Wife (towards Chess) is somewhat disconcerting. Being uncivil in the edit summaries is unnecessary, as it implies Chess is intentionally targeting users or editing in bad faith. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Strong personal attacks at user 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.

---

New user ENT 70, a single purpose account [98] has taken pictures uploaded by other users and use them in a highly insulting way. Two different users have uploaded images of the Christian cross of ashes [99] [100] and ENT 70 have used these pictures to claim it's the "Mark of the beast". Most of all, it's highly offensive to the individuals in the pictures in particular (one of them is named) and to the authors of the images. It's of course bad taste towards Christians as well, but it's the personal attacks on these individual to claim they are marked by "the beast" that concerns me the most. Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

just want to point out that calling an atrack on a religion racist is somewhat nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that and you're probably right, so I changed it. Had it only been that, I would not have bothered. It's the fact of taking someone else's pictures, using individuals who have agreed to appear on imagine in Wikipedia, and to call them marked by the devil that is the problem.Jeppiz (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No argument there. Blackmane (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I did it right but I slapped a CSD db-attack tag on the user page.Blackmane (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Could probably do with a quick block to stop them removing the WP:SPEEDY tags as well if someone could be so kind. Amortias (T)(C) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really! Do you call criticizing Christianity racism?! then what do you call criticizing Islam?! a freedom of speech?!!--ENT 70 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources to back up the claims you are making and present them in a neutral manner then there shouldnt be any problem. The methods and manner you are using to include information however doesnt meet these criteria. If you can present the statements you ahve previously made while still meeting the criteria above then there shouldnt be an issue . Amortias (T)(C) 15:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've deleted the userpage, we don't want that stuff just one click away. Looking at the user's contributions, I see several other problems, especially the two edits to Muhammad, but also the tendentious arguing on Talk:Muhammad. The user seems to have a strong religious point of view, which people are welcome to have, but articles aren't supposed to be written from it. I have put a little advice on their page, including a recommendation that they respond here. (Added after ec:) Oh, yes, I see they have commented. Not very responsively, though. ENT 70, please consider what I wrote on your page. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

What is wrong with my two edits to Muhammad in Islam?! There is nothing wrong with them. I added the "honorific-prefix" of "Muhammad in Islam" just as others added the "honorific-prefix" of Paul in Christianity. Check the article of Paul here. The "honorific-prefix" of Paul in Christianity like "Apostle of the Gentiles" & "Saint Paul" are mentioned in the info-box, then why can't I mention the "honorific-prefix" of "Muhammad in Islam"?--ENT 70 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And what is wrong with my discussion on Talk:Muhammad? There is nothing wrong with it. It's not me who is pushing anti-religious propaganda there.--ENT 70 (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Had Bishonen not taken the lead, I probably would have already blocked you for WP:NOTHERE and due to what seems an inability to listen to others and learn how our sourcing works. And yes, that user page needed deleting, thank you Bish. Dennis - 2¢ 15:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's not me who is pushing anti-religious propaganda." No, indeed you're not, you're pushing religious propaganda. I see your attrition by not listening to what anybody says continues unabated at Talk:Muhammad. We're all reluctant to block new editors, but I've blocked ENT 70 indefinitely for wasting editors' time and for rejecting all information and advice about how the site works. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 1 November 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.

Aslamthelion

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.

---

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

Aslamthelion has made some good-faith edits to articles relating to Jack the Ripper, but tag bombed the Evolution article, added unsourced Intelligent Design commentary to it, and generally expressed the view that the article should give equal validity to other "theories." When Wikipedia's stance on evolution was explained to him, he added a photo of a monkey to his userpage with the caption "a portrait of your average evolutionist" and vandalized the article Cow tipping.

He then added clear POV-pushing (bordering on vandalism) to Rape Culture, and posted a question to the article's talk page that indicates either competence-hindering bigotry (if assuming good faith) or that he is a troll (if we assume that he is a rational being).

A glance at his user talk page shows that I have politely explained a number of relevant guidelines, and that multiple editors have also explained Wikipedia's RS-based stance on evolution. We've not told him to change his beliefs, merely understand that the site will not serve as a platform for them. His response was to not respond. That is, until an IP asked questions regarding Wikipedia's stance on evolution, and I answered them by pointing to the relevant guidelines and explaining the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory. Then, Aslamthelion said "IanThompson is lying (something you should expect from the laity of the evolution church)".

Today, he posted again to Talk:Evolution, trying to argue that we should change the article because he found a video that claims that Anton Mesmer was chosen by Satan to make hypnotism popular to gain control of people's minds, somehow allowing Satan to personally tutor Charles Darwin at the behest of some big evil Council. The claims were made by Roger Morneau, who are article unfairly portrays as sane. Before anyone says "BLP," Morneau's been dead for several years. Aslamthelion did not indicate any doubts or disagreement with the video. At a minimum, he needs to be topic banned from any article relating to evolution. A broader topic ban from articles relating to biology or women's rights might be more appropriate.

Again, his edits to articles relating to Jack the Ripper initially appear fine (if giving undue weight to Phillip Sugden). But if it weren't for those, I'm convinced he'd've been indefinitely blocked as a troll long by now. Topic banning from non-Ripper topics might be useful, since he's demonstrated little good-faith or rationality outside of those pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Been following this account for a few days... vandalism on rape culture, edit warring, personal attacks on Talk:Evolution... user is WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that too, but his edits to Ripper articles are just enough that I'm willing to let him go on his way if he avoids articles relating to biology and women's rights and promises to start cooperating with and assuming good faith other editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian.Thompson, I will stay away from the biology and women's rights articles if I am annoying others. I have no particular interest in them.--Aslamthelion (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And yet you repeatedly demonstrate a marked inability to stay away from these sorts of articles, where you take an apparent great interest in vandalizing them, using them as soapboxes from which to rant about inane and evidence-free conspiracy theories, and attacking other editors who disagree with you. We've given you a lot of rope already.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"And yet you repeatedly demonstrate a marked inability to stay away from these sorts of articles"

I was never told to stay away from them.--Aslamthelion (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You were told not use talkpages as soapboxes before you made this post using the page to make the very sort of arguments you were told would not fly. And really, should you need to be told to not vandalize articles? How is that not common sense? I'm not going to press for a block (although I will definitely condone one), but really, how can you possibly pretend that your behavior outside of the Ripper articles was anything but pointless and immature? The non-Ripper edits were obviously of no benefit to the site (quite the opposite), so why do them at all? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User is clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. At the very least a topic ban to anything other than Jack the Rpper articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I've just followed the trail of edits by Aslamthelion. This is undoubtedly a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. After all of this argumentative, WP:DE, to add "I was never told to stay away from them." is just WP:CHEESE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, you don't help yourself in building a case against someone by linking to a humor page.--Aslamthelion (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been monitoring him as well following his initial nonconstructive/disruptive edits and reverting him if no one else has. Despite his questionably useful edits, I feel this is the type of person who cannot be trusted on Wikipedia. His attitude alone demonstrates this. I would favor a full ban... a topic ban at a minimum. – Maky ^« talk » 06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Block - I see enough here for a block, and suggest it be a substantial one to prevent further vandalistic and tendentious edits. In my view an admin should move promptly. Jusdafax 06:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - The user's editing history, deliberate refusal to converse with other editors beyond ignoring and attacking them, and blatant dishonesty easily demonstrate WP:NOTHERE.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block He is a newbie, he has just agreed to a topic ban in principle and he is not doing more harm than good. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - He's only been here 9 days so we shouldn't Bite the newbies, Topic ban should suffice. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per EvergreenFir below - Clearly as this edit demonstrates he isn't here to build an encyclopedia! & we can only provide so much rope!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Block - ...as stated above. I've dealt with my share of newbies, and I've seen a gamut behavior and responses, both appropriate and inappropriate (on both sides). This "newbie" (assuming he really is) has received numerous warnings (all in a civil tone), yet he does not heed them and responds to other users only through indirect, broad insults and vandalism. I can not see him maturing into an unbiased, civil editor. – Maky ^« talk » 16:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and SqueakBox: Yet they make this edit after commenting on this ANI 3 times... user is NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - See my comments above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support block, book case of WP:NOTHERE. Cavarrone 18:02, 1 November 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.

Politically motivated disruption by 222.153.1.153

IP address 222.153.1.153 has been engaging in repeated, unexplained disruption on a set of related articles. Individual edits may (sometimes) seem like innocent beginner mistakes under good faith, but reviewing the entire contribution history reveals consistent political motivations. Familiarity with New Zealand helps to understand this.

• List of New Zealand flags: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4 - Repeated deletions of the entries of Maori (indigenous related flags from the National Flag section. Please understand that these flags are/were official or notable and there is no justifiable reason to remove them, nor was any justification given.
• New Zealand flag debate: diff 1, diff 2 - Removing all arguments for changing the flag (only leaving the ones against change) in a blatant violation of NPOV, revising opinion polls with bogus figures (to give the impression of overwhelming public support for keeping the current flag), and removing all sourced mentions and information of the upcoming referendum to change the flag.
• Australian flag debate: diff - Similar to above. Changing lead sentence to explicitly frame debate as about keeping the flag, removing section with arguments for changing flag, and expanding the section on arguments for keeping the current flag.
• Talk page: cur - User contacted. No response given. Disruption continued.
• New Zealand flag debate (again): diff - Repeating disruptive edits above with no explanation. Removed entire column from opinion poll table so only the "against change" figures remained.
• Flag of New Zealand: diff - Removed sourced mentions of the flag debate and referendum from lead. Again no explanation.

Please understand that the flag debate/referenda are about changing the NZ/AU flags to remove the Union Jack, so can rile up strong pro-British anti-indigenous colonial feelings amongst some in society.

Transparent 6lue (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

64.183.48.206 A repeat offender

I have been in an unfortunate editing war with this user on two articles. The user insists on adding unsourced material to these articles.

The particular pages on which I am having a problem with this user are:

1. Marrakesh Express (The user keeps adding the unsourced line "On the album version, there is a few seconds of Nash whispering in Arabic gibberish before the music starts." Besides the trivial nature of the insertion, sources indicate a different person doing the gibberish. The user has been encouraged to provide a source, but has not done so.)

2. Our House (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song). (The user keeps adding "Joni Mitchell had two cats roaming around in her back yard that she owned, which became the basis of the lyric line in the Chorus of the song: "With two cats in the yard"." Again, I encouraged providing a source, but he/she has not done so.)

Looking through the user's talk pages, this person has been warned about this behavior in the past and was temporarily blocked a year ago. Also, there is apparently a current complaint about the user's persistent edit wars on that administrator page.

I posted to the user's talk page. The only response I got was for him/her to go back and add the same unsourced edits.

In my opinion, this person should be banned from Wikipedia. He/she obviously has no regard for the integrity of the system. A quick look through the talk page demonstrates this.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading the policies, it seems that I have been guilty of an edit war with this user in that I have reverted his edits three times within 24 hours. I did not know that rule before. I apologize for this and will not do so in the future. When I run across an abusive editor, I will report it instead, as I am doing here.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick search of Google indicates that Graham Nash and Joni Mitchell were indeed a couple living together, and that she indeed had cats. Shouldn't be too hard to source properly. Don't know about the whispering, though I think I've heard that story before. The whispering might be obvious, but a proper source would be needed to confirm who it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that line about the cats, that was some bad writing; I can't blame you for taking it out. Whether you have to do so five times is an open question, but the content was unverified, of course. It is no longer unverified. Is it trivial? Well, it's a detail from a song, a nice little song that millions of people love (including yours truly), and one could argue it adds real-life texture to it. It is no more or less importance than the vase or the fire--but now it's verified. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• There's a Bambifan template on the IP talk page. Is that credible? Drmies (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, everyone.

The reason I say that the line about cats is trivial is that the song is not ambiguous. It's not like the line really needs interpretation. The vase is not something that an editor has added; it's just a quote from the author about how the song came to be.

Sources say that David Crosby whispered the gibberish. So in this case, it really needs a credible source.

My reasons for wanting this user banned is not just the personal annoyance that I have with him/her. Look at the talk page. He/she does this kind of stuff all the time. It is a serial problem.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some constructive edits from this IP, but the repetitive assertion of original research without engagement with the rest of the community does seem to be a problem [101] Willondon (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a possibility that this user is posting under more than one name. 107.220.86.220 has been posting much of the same stuff to many of the same articles. He/she has likewise been warned about unsourced edits.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Harassment from Ryulong

[102] He knows I don't want him on my talk page but uses every excuse to harass me. It started because he wanted to post links to articles that clearly attacked other people. Everyone opposed him in the discussion and so he has gone to cause problems on all of their talk pages. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This IP editor's first edit under this address is to jump straight into the whole Gamergate mess and perhaps while I was mistaken in thinking he was brand new, leaving him the {{welcomeIP}} template and then the Gamergate sanction message does not constitute harassment, nor do my attempts to revert a vandal's edits or the IP's blatant personal attacks which he will not cease.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has the ability to look at a page history. [103] Everyone there could see that I had two previous IP addresses listed on my cell phone. He came to the page I was already discussing and then begged for more support in a discussion that was unanimously against him. Then he harassed me when repeatedly told no. Is this what kind of behavior Wikipedia supports? 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP's accusations of harassment include reverting a blocked vandal, blanking the talk page as he wanted to in the first place, ([104], [105]) and I bet placing the shared IP template on it will be considered as such too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages says I can remove information. It also allows me to tell you to stop harassing me there. No means no. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

IP users are not given the same leeway as regisetred users. Leave the shared IP template up and stop restoring a vandal's edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered, although very old content may be removed."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No one is giving leeway to act in a harassing manner like you and to use pages to defame others. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My edits are supported by Wikipedia policy while yours are not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I full protected the IP's talk page for now. The edit warring there is pointless and disruptive. When there is consensus here, any admin can unprotect the page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

All I was doing was putting {{SharedIP|Sprint PCS}} on it (and reverting the vandalism from Harris Beckford) but he kept reverting it and callng it harassment. This is nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure I agree with full protection. Ryulong put a welcome template on a "new" IP's page, and it was reverted [106] with the summary "Removing trolling comment from a user who believes that posting articles filled with blatant libel on Wikipedia is appropriate". It seems the IP started and continued this entire string of events with a hostile attitude, claiming Ryulong committed libel and trolling. That is incivil by any measuring stick. Dennis - 2¢ 21:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, all editors are allowed to blank their talk page. Except in the cases of IPs, the status of them being a shared IP and the like has to stay. Their removal of the welcome template is not a problem, the edit warring over what the banned user edited and the addition of insults towards Ryulong was. The block was appropriate in any case. Tutelary (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The editor is blocked now, so it makes more sense. I already know that the IP can blank their page, being an admin, I would be expect to know that. What they can't do is call someone a troll and accuse them of libel when doing so. That was the point I thought I made clear. Finding out he is a sock, it makes sense now. Dennis - 2¢ 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

IPs are not allowed to remove the shared IP notice though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That I also know, I just hadn't gotten to that part yet. The setup was just to demonstrate he was up to no good. I just blocked his new IP below. Dennis - 2¢ 21:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (multiple) If anyone needs the info in during the temporary protection of the page, they can find in the page history. I have blocked the IP as apparent block evasion by user:Harris Beckford. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure on sockpuppetry (I don't know how you came to that). All we are sure of is he's not allowed to remove the shared IP notice, make personal attacks, or restore the edits of the now blocked vandal that you've tied him to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Harris Beckford was just a passing vandal that inserted himself into the reverting? -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Harris Beckford's identity is probably unrelated to this IP who is just rude. I'm not sure why he (Harris Beckford) began harassing me, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, for now the IP remains blocked but without the Harris Beckford connection. Talk page access revoked. Talk page unprotected. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ed, you are welcome to join my talk page, since that is where the IP is talking, and I've temporarily not blocked him as there was some question as to the block. I did block the one IP, before the question came up. I would prefer to finish what conversation that needs to be finished there, since this got confusing. Dennis - 2¢ 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I protected the IP talk page to stop the disruption and edit warring long enough to figure out what's going on, but that seems to have just led to more confusion on all sides.  :/ I'll unblock the latest IP and see what happens. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, hes on my page, I recommend we settle it up there. Dennis - 2¢ 21:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Politically motivated editing and sock puppetry

• Mairi Macdonald (talk · contribs)
• 82.24.172.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These two would appear to be the same person. Mairi Macdonald created an account this evening and began changing the nationalities of UK political bios (such as here and here). Edits from the ip then began to appear after she was asked to stop ([107] [108]). An understanding of the Constituent countries of the United Kingdom and their respective nationality debates may be helpful here. This is Paul (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Trolling

Look at this, and this. Can we get someone (a Commons admin?) to put this image on a blacklist or something like that? Drmies (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What you need to do is add it to the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Any admin can do this. I did one myself, long ago :) -- Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Diannaa! Drmies (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Odd admin actions

Earlier today, I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers and deleted the article. Later the administrator Urhixidur (talk · contribs)—who was the article's creator—copied the text of the article, minus the edit history, to his userspace at User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers and restored the redirects to the article (which I had deleted per CSD G8 when I deleted the article) as redirects to his userspace version. The violation of attribution requirements and creation of speediable cross-space redirects seem to me to be extremely bizarre actions for an admin to take; but as I closed the AfD and thus may be seen to be involved, I don't want to delete the userspace page and redirects myself. Would someone else please look into this? Deor (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That is very strange to say the least. I have now deleted these cross-namepace redirects (WP:CSD#R2) but I have a feeling the user subpage should go too. De728631 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a copyvio, CSD#G12, I've deleted it as such. Normal courtesy would be to ask the closing admin to userfy, or if you have the tools, be courteous enough to do the job right and inform the closing admin. Instead, he took what is a normal request and turned it into a copy vio that can never be worked back into mainspace no matter how he reworks it. Dennis - 2¢ 00:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would it be a copyright violation? I thought every single contribution was under CC BY SA 3.0 and only attribution is needed? Tutelary (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As they said above, he just did a cut and paste, which means none of the contributors were listed in the history, because copy/paste destroys the history. It makes it look like HE did all the work. That is a copy vio. Dennis - 2¢ 00:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the history manipulation tools to fix this, but it should be readily feasible to move the article's original history to the new page. Would it have worked to restore the original deletion, then move the page instead? As for removing the redirects, isn't that doing the readers a disservice? Urhixidur (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. The real disservice is providing the readership links to content that the community has deemed below the standard of this encyclopaedia. When something is deleted, it is deleted. Gone. Unless, of course, there is consensus to do otherwise. There was no such consensus here. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The standard is to undelete, move to user space, do NOT restore any redirects which should have been deleted, notify admin that closed. Like most actions, we just like to have two sets of eyes on it. We delete the redirects because it is improper to redirect from main space into user space. The other way around is fine, but as RGloucester noted, user space is below the standard of mainspace, so you can't direct TO it from mainspace, ever. I would also note that if the deleting admin objects, you need a larger consensus to make the move. Rare, but that is just common courtesy since obtaining the userfied version isn't an admin thing, it is an editor thing. Dennis - 2¢ 01:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Serious POV Problem

There is a very serious POV problem on António de Oliveira Salazar which makes quite ridiculous claims and is biased. The opening is entirely pro-Salazar except for one sentence. I attempted to fix it like taking out such obvious POV claims like Portugal was a "civilizing force" to Angola and Mozambique and that Salazar died a "poor man after forty years of public service" (if that isn't POV, then I don't know what is!)

The biggest problem: "Even the communist historian, António José Saraiva, a lifelong opponent of Salazar, recognizes" before it goes on about how amazing Salazar was and how everybody should look up to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robitski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the introduction, where I added views of the other side of the story backed up by sources; this was removed by another user, indeed restored to the original text which cast Salazar in a favorable light.

I did not try to counter the POV with another, but rather was just showing views from the other side of the story - yet this could not be tolerated by some teary-eyed colonialist who removed what is, quite frankly, a collection of facts.

Could somebody please have a word with this person and enforce new edits which try to balance the article, or possibly even put a neutrality issue notification? Quite frankly I can see the article as being offensive to the thousands of people who were tortured by the regime for trying to form a trade union or speaking out against corruption and to the families of those who were brutally murdered in the Portuguese Colonial War which was continued way past a reasonable amount by Salazar.

Please could an admin do something about his? Robitski (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen is quite correct. If you can't understand that a Communist is definitely from the other side of the story, please read up on Communism. If you object to the statement about Portugal being a source of civilisation etc., please read it again: the statement says that this was one of Salazar's goals, without claiming that this goal was or was not fulfilled. Salazar lived a life of simplicity, dying as a poor man after 40 years of public service. "Public service" is generally a neutral term, used of officeholders regardless of whether they really did help the public; if it were solely a positive statement, its application would never be appropriate in Wikipedia. Do you dispute the idea that he lived a simple life or that he died poor? As far as I can see, you didn't make any edits to the article that produce factual evidence disputing these concepts. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen restored unsourced controversial statements while claiming in the edit summary that they were sourced. An editor objected to the unsourced POV about the civilizing force and appropriately removed it. Why did Rjensen restore it? Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is biased, end-of. It does not bring light to the other side of the story. It just doesn't. It does not talk about the secret police, how Salazar crushed work unions or criticize what parts of society really benefited from his rule. I think some translation from the Portuguese wiki might be in order which appears to have a more balanced view. Instead of blowing him up to look like something, the article on the Portuguese wiki simply gives the facts, minus the praise:

(Rough translation)

"António de Oliveira Salazar, Oliveira Salazar or Salazar GCTE • GCSE • GColIH • GCIC HAS (Santa Comba Dão, Vimieiro, April 28, 1889 — Lisbon, July 27, 1970) was a Portuguese nationalist statesman who, in addition to lead various ministries, was Chairman of the Council of Ministers and professor of political economy, science of finance and Social Economy at the University of Coimbra. 1

His career in the Portuguese State began when he was chosen by the military to Finance Minister for a short period of two weeks, in the wake of the revolution of May 28, 1926. Was replaced by Commander Filomeno da Câmara de Melo Cabral after the coup of general Gomes da Costa. Subsequently, he was also Finance Minister between 1928 and 1932, by Portuguese public finances. 2

Prominent figure and promoter of the Estado Novo (1933-1974) and his political organization, the National Union, Salazar directed the destinies of Portugal as President of the dictatorial way Ministry between 1932 and 1933 and, as Chairman of the Council of Ministers between 1933 and 1968. The autoritarismos and nationalism that arose in Europe were a source of inspiration for Salazar on two fronts: the complementary of propaganda and repression. With the establishment of censorship, the organisation of leisure time for workers and the Portuguese Youth FNAT the Estado Novo sought to ensure the indoctrination of wide masses of Portuguese population in the style of fascism, while its political police (PVDE subsequently PIDE and later still DGS), in conjunction with the Portuguese Legion, fighting opponents of the regime that were tried in special courts (Special Military Courts andSubsequently, Plenary Courts).

Inspired by fascism and relying on the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, Salazar has to a State corporatism, with an economic nationalist course of action based on the ideal of autarky and pursued science. 3 That his economic nationalism led him to take measures of protectionism and isolationism of a fiscal nature, customs tariff, for Portugal and its colonies, which had large positive and negative impacts throughout the period in which he served."

See the difference? No "Salazar was the best" or quotes from various people describing how good he is. It just says, there and there, what he did. Robitski (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

With a prominent person such as Salazar, we absolutely need to include major historians' perspectives on him in the intro: it's a huge chunk of his legacy. Meanwhile, we are not the Portuguese Wikipedia nor vice versa; perhaps they have different standards and/or common practices from ours. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to give historian's perspectives, then balance it. All I see there are praise quotes except for one. That's ridiculously biased. Nothing is mentioned about Salazar's treatment of dissidents - ever heard of Tarrafal Camp? Ever heard of Salazar's treatment of work unions? For the working class life was hell and this is why a mass migration of Portuguese people occurred during the Estado Novo regime; that is the main reason why Portuguese diaspora is so prominent today.

The article is obviously putting Salazar in a favourable light. And that goes against Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter what you think is the truth, because the truth is different for different people. The article is completely displaying one side of the issue and it's totally unfair. Just because YOU believe Salazar was a saint doesn't mean he was for everybody else.

The Portuguese article gives an excellently unbiased view of the subject. Wikipedia is here to give the facts, not to present people's admiration. Enough is enough, the article is pro-Salazar written all over it and that is against the Wikipedia policy.

Robitski (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• So fix it. Just be sure to read WP:BRD, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If an article is biased (I have no idea here), then fixing it is NOT the responsibility of admin. As a matter of fact, we have zero extra authority on content at the English Wikipedia. It is up to the editors to change it, and to do so within consensus and in cooperation with any other editors that are interested. Admin only get involved if behavior is a problem with editors. This includes edit warring, personal attacks, and the like. I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page of the article with some bullet points that are backed up by citations. The citations don't have to be in English, although that is always nice where they exist. Even though I'm an admin, you have 100% the same authority to make changes to that article that I have. Use it. Be careful, be kind, be cooperative with others, and back it up with sources, but use it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I did fix it, I did back it up with sources, but unfortunately another user reverted the changes. I don't see much point in putting any effort into an article that will be constantly reverted by somebody else no matter the validity of the changes. This is why I wanted an admin to investigate whether my edits (which were backed by sources and entirely valid) being reverted at the drop of a hat was a form of vandalism. Robitski (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• You have to take it to the talk page, then if you can't find consensus, to WP:DRN. My point being that admin don't get involved in content, only conduct. If the other editor is being a jerk about it, just reverting and won't talk at all, then we can coax them into a discussion, but we can't take sides on which content is right or wrong. Sometimes, it takes a great deal of back and forth on the talk page. He may have good reasons, maybe different sources, maybe you need to find a compromise, I don't know. I'm just saying that this seems to fall under "editing" not "conduct" at this time. Dennis - 2¢ 18:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll attempt to edit it again. If it reverted, yet again, I will start up ANOTHER discussion on the talk page for the article and attempt to talk him into a compromise, but I will say that I highly doubt that's possible. Neo-nazis are kind of hard to deal with. Robitski (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Calling someone "neo-nazi" is a bad way to start a discussion, and against our civility policy. You will do better if you assume that those that disagree with you have legitimate reasons, even if they are mistaken. If you take a confrontational attitude and call them names, or just come across as if you think they are idiots or nazis, they will lose all interest in working with and compromising with you. Seriously, most editors are pretty good people. Sometimes they are mistaken, but that doesn't make them evil or bad, just mistaken. You overcome that with patience and education, not name calling. Dennis - 2¢ 20:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't intending on addressing him as that, but he is a neo-nazi. He looks up to a man who brutally oppressed millions of people. I've been confronted by these people before when I was doing some journalism, it's not pretty and they don't take their idols being criticized well at all. Robitski (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Robitski, I too share your concern with bias in this article. Unfortunately, you chose the wrong noticeboard to discuss the problem. Use the article talk page for brief comments on the matter and I will try to help you out. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sock

We have a user who keeps adding copy and pasted content regarding the synthesis of medications. This has been going on for years. He has created many accounts and also edits a great deal as an IP switching IP accounts every day. Some of the user names include

• User:Luklear (most recent)

• User:Deass
• 86.27.20.95
• 86.31.22.202
• 86.23.124.71
• User:Aschwole
• User:Nuklear (one of their first)

Wondering if anyone knows of anything further we can do to deal with this editor? Sockpuppet archive is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuklear/Archive Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Luklear has behavioral/topic-focus relationship to:

• 86.27.40.30
• 82.26.201.113

via (originally) Draft:Eucaine and its eventual Eucaine (DAB) and subpages. DMacks (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Might want to get a commons admin on this also, as there is cross-wiki multi-account involvement. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

His many accounts created this List of phenyltropanes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dozens of drafts copypasted into article space

A new editor has created over two dozen articles in the last 3 days by copypasting the contents of drafts created by other editors either in draft space or user space: Four examples:

• User:Prozac34/Zulueta Championship pasted to Zulueta Championship
• Draft:David Patrick Coonan pasted to David Patrick Coonan
• Draft:Piero Heliczer pasted to Piero Heliczer
• Draft:Trimax Mowing Systems pasted to Trimax Mowing Systems

I've asked them stop and explained why, and they appear to have done this for now, although they have not engaged in discussion. However, what do we do with the articles already created? First of all, the histories all require attribution or history merging to credit the actual authors if they are viable articles. Secondly, many of these drafts are simply that, work in progress, and not suitable for article space yet. Many of them have already been tagged for problems—notability and referencing concerns, copyvio from external sites, etc. Some of them are very promotional.

The editor's talk page is also full of copyvio notices which suggests that many of these pasted drafts had potential copyvio problems themselves, but when these have been tagged in article space by CorenSearchBot, the editor simply removes the tag [109] as at Christian Lillinger pasted from Draft:Christian Lillinger. Voceditenore (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

They probably need to be decided on case-by-case basis. For example, in your first example, I thing the article qualifies for speedy deletion as an unambigous copyright violation, and the draft should stay where it is and wait for a review. If there are more than a dozen articles affected, probably a copyright investigation page should be created.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, one can decide on a case-by-case basic whether they contain copyvio from external sites, but for all of them the attribution problem remains. The original authors must be credited. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If the originals are still in drafts/user space, surely just delete all the copy-pasted articles? Neatsfoot (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Copy-pasting without attribution is still a copyright violation, though in many cases it can be resolved without deleting an article. But if the draft is not yet ready to be moved, I think its copy in the main space needs to be deleted (assuming it has not been substantially edited).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Gomsi looks like the only one with any substantial editing - all the rest appear to have only minor additional edits or none at all. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It is quite inappropriate to copy paste a draft initiated by a different editor into main space. If not attributed properly, it is a copvio, but even if attributed properly, it is exceedingly rude. If we do not have a rule against it we should (with a caveat for abandoned drafts which may meet our standards.)

The ones I looked at were copy pasted, rather than moved, so I think the best course is to delete them all, and make sure the editor understands why this is not the way we do things. I see an attempt to contact the editor has occurred, but no response as of yet. Is there any reason we should not delete them all?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I deleted Christian Lillinger as a copyvio, not the technical copy of the draft, but the close paraphrase of this site. For the same reason, I deleted the draft.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• I did not find an underlying draft of Gomsi.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think all the ones with an underlying draft should simply be speedy deleted, e.g. Abhutaparikalpa and Karakamsa. However the rest do need checking. Newlai Tingkhatra appears not to have an underlyng draft but is virtually verbatim from http://www.echoofarunachal.com/?p=45590. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• It looks like the original version of Gomsi was copied from here (judging by Hhhippo's edit summary), so all bar the latest version are copyvios. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted:

• Wohldenberg Castle
• Newlai Tingkhatra
• Zulueta Championship
• David Patrick Coonan
• Vibodha
• Vincent Mai

• Township (playrix)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

For the ones listed above, I checked to make sure there was an underlying draft used as a source. I think the pattern is clear, and I am presumptively deleting the rest (except Gomsi, not seeing the problem)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The only problem at Gomsi is that all revisions prior to the current one are copyright violations and should be revision-deleted, I think. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick and Ymblanter, thanks so much for sorting this out. There's just this last one to mop up, American Standards pasted from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Standards. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted that one as well, thanks for spotting the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked User:MacCreator as an obvious sock of User:Donyi Taga. The sad thing is that Donyi Taga rather obviously wants to help, but unfortunately does not at all understand how to do so, or how not to do so. Huon (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I really stepped into it: South-east Asian association football article problems

• Druryfire (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), particularly with edits like this after I offered a step-by-step explanation of each problem (see the history) and a detailed rebuttal of why restoring the material is incorrect.
• Tommy1933 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Two other editors have accused him of vandalizing articles for removing material and the editor has been generally uncivil in his responses.
• SveinFalk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Has been concerned with Tommy1933's edits and has been uncivil in his descriptions of that behaviour.

It's all a mess, like this edit. And there are even more anonymous editors who are involved, almost none of whom speak English as their first language and who are reluctant to discuss their edits: they just "know they're right".

I agree to leave all of the articles alone if someone with blocking ability can take these three editors and explain why their behaviour is not constructive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view the edit history at User talk:Tommy1933, specifically the mass posting warnings and reverting when they are deleted (8 times for one editor, 13 times for another, within 24 hours) constitutes harrassment, or close enough. I've warned Druryfire and SveinFalk accordingly. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had conversations with Druryfire and Tommy1933 at WP:AIV and at my talk page. Both seem to be making good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. An unfamiliarity with some of Wikipedia's policies combined with a lack of communication seem to be the real issue. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

...Hm. That did not go as planned. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I`m sure it went exactly as you had planned, Richard Yin! You are supporting/defending Tommy1933, and is blind to all the shit he has done and are doing! What are the both of you editing my talk page for?? I know why he`s doing it. It`s to provoke and make more shit! But why are you? I blanked it since I`m not going to be here anymore, and then both of you edited it again!

I`m done editing Wiki! I have used hundreds of hours this year searching for and collecting info on Thai football and more, putting it together and adding to Wiki articles, but no more! When people like this Indonesian kid can vandalise like he has done recently, and other editors actually support/defend him, then it shows that Wiki ain`t a serious place, and I can use my free time elsewhere.

Tommy1933 has removed whole, referenced sections. He has removed links to official external sites to remove possible references, and then posted "not referenced" boxes all over articles (up to 10 in one article!). He has not made any response to messages from me or others about this, only "rolling on the floor laughing" and other shit, which shows that his intent was to destroy what others has used years to build! Tommy1933 should be banned from Wiki, not supported and defended! SveinFalk (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@SveinFalk: If you felt that way, and had evidence that you were right (and it seems like you did), you should've reported him to ANI or even AIV, not started a massive edit war on Tommy1933's talk page by copy-pasting the same warning template an absurd number of times and then repeatedly revert his attempts to delete them. I would note that, before the revert I found and warned you for, you were notified that Tommy has the right to delete material from the talk page, and that restoring it would not be an exception to 3RR.

The reasons I chose to use a strong harassment warning rather than any other type or severity were:

• I felt that the edits were egregious, in that there were too many warnings (a single warning would have been enough) and that there were too many reverts (especially the one after you were informed he was allowed to delete comments).
• WP:HARASS reads as follows:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

I felt it was fairly obvious that the reverts were targeted towards Tommy, and that the purpose was to make him feel intimidated and to discourage him from editing.

• I saw the seriousness of the issue and entered mastodon mode. That was no one's fault but my own.

I stand by my decision to warn you, SveinFalk, and Druryfire, based on the fact that you had in fact posted a lot of warnings and repeatedly reverted attempts to remove them. I did, however, fail to look deeply and objectively enough into the issue; otherwise I would've used less severe warnings and I would've also left a note on Tommy's talk page about policies on civility and content removal.

If anyone thinks I did something wrong that I still haven't acknowledged, please feel free to tell me. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked info-en@wikimedia.org what to do, and was told to add Level 3 warning(s) on his talk page. They said level 3 since he already had received level 1 and 2. I added them several times since his only reply was "rolling on the floor laughing" many times on various talk pages. Since he is still destroying articles (November 1), he now "qualifies" for level 4 vandalism warnings. These should be added by you, Richard Yin, or other editors, since you have threatened me with a ban if I add warnings again! If you and the other editors had actually looked at the case, instead of only supporting/defending Tommy1933, all of you would have seen who the problem is. It`s the kid from Indonesia! Not only did he remove whole referenced sections, as I have mentioned, but on at least one of these removals he also added that the section was "not needed"! Who is he to decide that a whole referenced section is "not needed" on Wikipedia? He has already destroyed what others has used years to build, and with all the help/support/defending from all other involved editors, he can continue his vandalism! Druryfire and me are the only ones who has tried to stop him, ending in threats from you and others. Good luck to you editing Wiki in the future, the part you don`t let Tommy1933 vandalise. SveinFalk (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@SveinFalk: I had (and still have) no problem whatsoever with you placing warnings on Tommy1933's talk page. I think that adding a warning, at that point, was a perfectly reasonable thing for you to do. What I objected to was adding a big stack of warnings, and then reverting a large number of times to keep them on the page. This was made rather worse by Druryfire using edit summaries like don't delete an ongoing investigation please, this just goes to show what your about (at no point has a stack of warning templates on a user's talk page ever constituted an investigation, especially an ongoing one, nor has removing a stack of warnings reflected on anyone's character). What, in my opinion, you should have done was:

• Put one (maybe two) level 3 warnings on Tommy's talk page
• Not revert when Tommy removed them, since that meant he'd read them
• If he did it again take him to ANI. I would do so without a level 4 warning (and probably without a level 3 warning) because the discussions here actually review conduct of editors involved besides just "Is <editor> vandalizing? Has <editor> received a level 4 warning? If so, block."

That being said, Tommy1933, some questions for you while I'm here:

• Why have you been removing as much unreferenced content as you have been instead of adding citations, especially when other editors have objected?
• In your post to my talk page here one of the pages you linked to was Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Have you in fact read the pages on the five pillars, especially the policy on civility? --Richard Yin (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Richard Yin, here you and all others can see all the shit Tommy1933 is doing. He is spamming/vandalising hundreds of articles by posting "non referenced" boxes in them. You can clearly see that he don`t read a single article, as he is spamming different articles every 1 or 2 minutes, and there is no way he has time to read, spam and change to different articles in that time. Sometimes he even spams different articles in the same minute. In addition, the articles are referenced in one way or another! Easy to see when you actually read them! I notice that hundreds of his "contributions" are marked [vandalism] in red. Has other editors reported him, or does it mean something else?

Richard Yin, since it looks like you know how to report this guy, and maybe get him banned/blocked, you should do all of us a favour by doing it the way you suggest. SveinFalk (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Richard Yin I don't spoil just add refimprove , citation needed etc , what is it vandalism ? I do not think so

I just followed the way wikipedia works. -- Tommy Syahputra (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SveinFalk you say "spamming/vandalising hundreds of articles by posting "non referenced" boxes in them." ?

you're wrong, I see it, I see that one source and etc. -- Tommy Syahputra (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Admins: please stalk me! This guy is following me around.

I´m pretty sure it is JarlaxleArtemis who is following me around today, after I had a run-in with him over at Silwan. That page and my my user-page have already been protected, but the talk-page on Silwan, and any page I´m working on needs to be protected. A short (24 hours ) would do: Presently he is at Dallata and Abil al-Qamh..look at the history. And could someone please clean up after him earlier today? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Two last IPs blocked (one of them already called me a liar at their talk page); two pages protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, great. But you need to protect the talk-pages also, User:Ymblanter: look at what he calls you on Talk:Dallata. Talk:Silwan also needs protection. This is classic JarlaxleArtemis... Huldra (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

He is now basically going after alls articles I have edited earlier today; Al-Buwayziyya needs protection Huldra (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dallata need to be protected, and there is a new proxy IP on that page, still unblocked, Huldra (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know, I was called like this by registered long-time users, and the general consensus was that it is ok, and if I do not like it I should start an RFC. Why should I then care what a sock writes about me? Please keep adding here pages they are vandalising, we will try to react promptly.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! And I think we shouldn´t give JarlaxleArtemis "elbow-room", so to speak. Talk:Silwan and Talk:Dallata needs protection, Huldra (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Butayha and Biriyya and User:Sjö needs protection (remember to protect the talk-page, too) , thanks, Huldra (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006). Sjö (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone was in doubt: this *is* classic JarlaxleArtemis (compare this from July 2014, and this just now. Huldra (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ein al-Zeitun, Ammuqa‎ and User:Sjö under attack.Huldra (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And he's now stalking me and reverting my edits using different IP:s and an offensive username. Sjö (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TheAirplaneGuy

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.

---

This user is falsely accusing me of vandalism at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014 and keeps re-inserting the vandalism warning to my talk page no matter how many times I tell him to stay off it. I was not vandalizing the page. I removed Cygnus CRS Orb-3 from the list because it was a rocket launch, which is spaceflight not aviation. This user immediately assumed it was vandalism which is in bad faith. TL565 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked TheAirplaneGuy for 48 hours for edit warring at the template and TL565's talk page. Moreover I have left him a note about what actually constitutes vandalism and behaviour at other editors' talk pages. This was certainly not acceptable. De728631 (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I just found that he has also been using profanity in his warnings such as here. TL565 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bit OTT for something so minor. Either rocket launches are included on the template or they aren't (I don't know the guideline on this). Whichever it is, do the right thing and include/exclude it and both parties move on. Who does the 48hr block benefit? Certainly not the project, that's for sure. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought at least TL565 would benefit from such a block so his user talk page would no longer be disrupted. I'd also like to note that TheAirplaneGuy has been blocked for edit warring before so he should have known better. De728631 (talk) 10:21, 1 November 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.

Right, I don't want to flog a deadhorse here, but TAG has seen the error of his ways and has requested an unblock. That was five and a half hours ago. I guess it's easier to hit the block button than to consider the response from a valued contributor who is only here to ultimately do good. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't even informed about this. TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That notice was left to TAG when TL565 started this discussion, so what's wrong with it? De728631 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

TheAirplaneGuy stated that he wasn't informed of this discussion. Demiurge was just pointing out that he was informed of the discussion. GB fan 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, right. Note to self: must train reading comprehension. De728631 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dispute about oblasts of Ukraine

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.

---

Derianus, is, well, a sock of a banned user Tobias Conradi. He quacks pretty loudly, and an SPI was filed, but closed for technical reason, since the last sock of Conradi was blocked too long ago. He must be then blocked based on the behavioral evidence, which is for me pretty much obvious. Irrespectively, Derianus creates too much disruption. He got interested in the administrative division of the post-USSR states (similarly to Androoox, the last blocked sock of Conradi), and he is not really interested in discussing anything, and following WP:BRD. Whereas some of his edits are not disruptive, most of them are, and I have to correct them every morning (he usually edits while I sleep). There are plenty of edits and the matter is getting out of hand. One example of his modus operandi: he is not aware of the fact that all republics of the USSR were divided into raions (district) and insists Ezhiki and me need to send a scan of a source to him [110]. Here is another, outrageous example of his modus operandi. He listens to the discussion between Ezhiki and me whether a bunch of redirects should be created, and how the targets are best sourced (Talk:Administrative divisions of Crimea#X Municipality). I create the rediects. Then he removed sourced material from the article I just added [111] and nominates the redirect for deletion since it is not mentioned in the target [112]. Of course it is not mentioned, because he just removed it from the target with the source. And, sure, he then accuses Iryna Harpy and me in vandalism [113]. This needs to be stopped, and I obviuosly can not just block this sock since his attacks are directed at me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for coming already fourth or fifth time this month to ANI. For whatever reason, we have a steady stream of dormant and new users editing disruptively in Russian and Ukrainian topics. Whereas this one seems to be unrelated to the others, it is really very depressing when a bunch of new users start introducing issues to the articles which have been already discussed to death previously and rejected, and then start to teach other users Wikipedia policies - when they themselves are not ready to even accept WP:CONSENSUS. This makes editing in these areas — which is my main business here — very uncomfortable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Derianus is probably not a new editor - his sixth edit was to start a requested move, and he was clearly familiar with Wikipedia processes. As I have been involved in the unpleasant RM discussion at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine (can someone please close it), I don't think I can take any action, but it would be good if someone else could (as I mentioned on WP:ANRFC, there's also a case of WP:TWINKLEABUSE here [114]). Number 57 10:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RM is closed. I believe Oblasts of Ukraine falls under the ARBCOM restrictions for Eastern Europe and warned him as such. Rather than an outright block, I wonder if a topic ban would be productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban will certainly solve all the problems we have with this user in Eastern European articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBEE exists, one warning, then any reasonable sanction. Dennis - 2¢ 17:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter is constantly harassing me. He reverts well sourced edits [115] [116] [117] claiming "get consensus first" and "UNDUE". This has been brought up at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine#Fact removal by User:Ymblanter. Above he complains about me asking for sources, but that is the way I thought Wikipedia works - providing verifiable sources? Then Ymblanter invents claims about me: 1) "he is not aware of the fact that all republics of the USSR were divided into raions" - I am and was. I don't know why he made that up. In fact, I am the one who added many of these entities to the article raion. 2) On Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine he invented another story about me "They also renamed all Belarusian raions to districts" - which is a blatant lie.

Regarding the larger issue concerning Eastern Europe I would like to quote User:RGloucester, directed towards Ymblanter: You'll notice that these disputes only apply to administrative divisions in Eastern-Central Europe, indicative of the problem we face here. No one anywhere suggests that we move Provinces of China to shěng of China. The vast majority of articles on administrative divisions in countries use English-language terminology. The only ones that do not are these few Eastern-Central European ones. Krais, oblasts, voivodeships. I'm surprised we're not being made to refer to Russian federal subjects as "subyekty of Russia". I'm also surprised that Polish editors like the bizarrely half-translated "Voivodeship", which seems more insulting than either no translation or a full translation.

There is a wall around articles about Ukraine and partially Belarus and Russia, that User:Ymblanter and User:Ezhiki are defending. They work against using the most common English terminology for several articles. Almost all media sources name the oblasts "regions". But even that fact is removed by Ymblanter. Where is the difference to vandalism here?

I am fine with a topic ban for six months on terminology for administrative entities of post-USSR area, but it should be applied to Ymblanter too. Also, there should be sanctions against him for content removal. Derianus (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for this user, even though I support using English-language terminology. His behaviour has been out-of-line, and has veered consistently into the realm of personal attacks. I may disagree with both Ymblanter and Ezhiki, but I respect them as editors and administrators. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • User:RGloucester - Can you show a source where my behavior was "out-of-line"? Or are you now just joining those that make things up, because they are you friends? Do you "respect" Ymblanter for making up false statements about me? For removing well sourced content? For his personal attacks on me? Derianus (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• The edit-arring of Derianus in this very topic demonstrates that a block is really needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Continued edit-warring [118] (WP:POINT)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  The hatnote was in discussion, which started 20:12. Ymblanter shows up there at 20:48, well after crying for block. 20:52 Ezhiki gives an answer. 21:04 I give a thank you to both of them. Now I see the message here. Derianus (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Could someone block them immediately please [119]? Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you, that edit points to the reason why I came back here: User:Ezhiki is promoting physical violence.: "If I ever get a chance to see you in person, remind me to go to a grocery store, buy a frozen trout, and slap you with it". Derianus (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary by User:Derianus:

1. Promotion of physical violence against me by Admin User:Ezhiki ([120] "If I ever get a chance to see you in person, remind me to go to a grocery store, buy a frozen trout, and slap you with it")
2. Spreading of false claims about me by Admin User:Ymblanter ([121] "They also renamed all Belarusian raions to districts though the consensus was exactly the opposite." - while it was Admin User:Ymblanter himself to start with moving articles [122], [123])
3. Spreading of false claims about me by User:Iryna Harpy ([124])
4. Invention of the fact that I am sockpuppet, spreading of that claim before the investigation closes by Admin User:Ymblanter (see section start, and [125], [126], [127])

Derianus (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Indef-block him already

Oh please. We don't topic-ban disruptive socks of banned users, who were banned for the same kind of behavior and exhausting community patience: we block them indefinitely and nuke their contributions. I opened the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tobias_Conradi on Oct 29 and provided quite substantial evidence, and nobody took any action other than a WP:BURO denial of checkuser. Please don't make me dig deeper into behavioral evidence and writing idiosyncracies (such as debating in bulleted lists); it WP:QUACKs loud and clear. I kind of understand why User:Ymblanter didn't block him himself, per WP:INVOLVED, although dealing with socks of banned users is an exemption from all restrictions. We recently had an ARBCOM case dealing with mere restoration of a talk page comment by a banned user, but we're letting Conradi's obvious socks wreak havoc, for reasons that escape me. Administrators, please administrate. No such user (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Given my experience with Tobias Conradi socks, I'd have to agree here. A few other editors familiar with Tobias, perhaps JaGa and Dpmuk, can certainly look at this as well. I'll block the account, and Tobias has been told on a seriously large number of occasions how to go about appealing his ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite convinced that's them. Given the tendency for multiple socks (there are almost definitely accounts we've not yet linked) and other reasons I won't go into here (WP:BEANS) I'd like to see a check-user take a look at this but have no idea about how to go about getting the clerk's decision over-turned. At the very least I'd like to see a check-user rather than a clerk, preferably one that has dealt with this case, to take a look a this. Ping User:Deskana, User:Tiptoety, User:Courcelles as CUs previously active on this case and who have been active recently. Dpmuk (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything about the proper procedure to ask for a CU again after a clerk decline so just boldly changed the template back to a requested CU. Dpmuk (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

On it, will look, and report at SPI. This is obviously him, though. Courcelles 04:22, 2 November 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.

Page dissapeared: Coconut oil

Can somebody put back the page "Coconut oil". The content dissapeared. Pease - thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.111.80 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cant see anything wrong with the page Coconut oil. Not edited since 27-October. Amortias (T)(C) 14:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I had the same problem on the mobile site but not the desktop one, and purging fixed it. I've no idea if it was a temporary problem/random bug or some template vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen blank pages a couple of times on the mobile browser in the last two or three weeks. Ca2james (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

misuse of userpage for self-promotion?

Abhimanyu Sheoran

New user Abhimanyu Sheoran (talk · contribs), who has only edits to his userpage, seems to misuse Wikipedia for self-promotion via his userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually he's not so new since he made his first edit in 2012. But he's clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the nature of the content (contact information, etc.), this probably falls under the purview of WP:USERBIO and probably could be deleted as WP:CSD#U5. I agree that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE, though. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, for a start I've tagged the page as {{db-u5}} (which was promptly enacted by RHaworth). De728631 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anish Raj Prajapat

There is also Anish Raj Prajapat (talk · contribs · logs) who is in fact a fairly new editor but has done nothing but to edit his own user page. Moreover it looks like an unattributed text from some Wiki and might therefore be a copyright infringement. De728631 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Simplest approach to things like this (of which there are many) is just to take them to MfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this user has copied the same content in locations where it doesn't belong, such as here, I would say a disruptive editing and/or self-promotion only account block is in order. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And FreeRangeFrog has now deleted that page per CSD U5. I support blocking the account. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As this user has recreated the WP:FAKEARTICLE as his user page, I have blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, since I don't think he is here to contribute. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Complaint regarding an administrator

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 was just warned about vandalizing Wikipedia, and to my surprise, the person who accused me is an administrator. I object most strongly to this accusation, which I knew was obviously false as soon as I read it (since I hadn't even touched an article, let alone messed one up). When I clicked on the vandalism link, it became even more obvious that this was a gross error. The only purpose of this false accusation appears to intimidate me out of further pursing an issue on the Guy Fawkes Night (the discussion was also closed by that same person as "Nothing to see"). They also accused me of trolling, which I think is at best a one sided view of the situation. I was doing nothing more trollish than asking people to answer some very simple questions and turning their own accusations of a lack of intelligence on their head, something which they apparently find very uncomfortable. Several people there claim that the Anonymous group's choice of 5 November as a particular campaign date has nothing at all to do with Guy Fawkes Night, and no reader would be in the slightest bit interested in such "trivia". Since the article tries to portray GFN as having been all but forgotten in the modern context as regards extreme activism, this is obviously giving out false information to readers. Since the relation has been mentioned in media, as has the wider Anonymous-Vendetta-Guy Fawkes thematic relation (in great analytical detail), it's obviously not trivia at all. After pointing this out, I was accused of using nothing but POV, yet when I pointed out the inherent POV in the argument of the person making that accusation, apparently I'm trolling. This is grossly unfair. Since nobody else appears to have been similarly accused, I think the only reason I've been targeted this way is because I'm new. Since one person there was even open about the fact they see Anonymous as "a bunch of spotty bedroom-inhabiting 4chan teenagers wearing V for Vendetta masks", I don't think I'm being a troll for arguing that their opposition has more to do with this dislike of the group than any claimed lack of relevance to GFN. Galactic envoy (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us see what Drmies replies. Your participation in the discussion, in my opinion, was not highly constructive, but I do not see vandalism. May be it was an error.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone was being unconstructive, it's the people who treated Buddy (and later me) as if our failure to accept their objections was because we're simply too stupid to even understand them. The fact is, their objections are pretty baseless (and quite clearly full of POV), and they could barely even be bothered to respond, let alone reply to our specific objections. They appear to have been more interested in either answering questions that weren't asked, or making hyperbolic claims about what was asked. In addition to helpful contributions like assuming I was just drunk. We appear to have been wasting our time even bothering to take them seriously. And yet I'm the troll? I'm the vandal? No way. Galactic envoy (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an essay on exactly how to resolve this sort of dispute - WP:DROP. If there is an issue, be the "bigger man" so to speak, and go somewhere else and make useful contributions, as opposed to just argueing on a talk page. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In what way is pointing out obvious errors of omission in an article like GFN not useful? I mean, I already knew the connection, so it doesn't actually affect me, but I had assumed that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia would be a bit more concerned about a failure to properly educate people. Forget about it and do something else doesn't seem like good advice in that context. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk about the content dispute and how right you are (that's the talk page of the article). If you want to talk about the inappropriate accusation of vandalism by an admin, that's fine, but lets see what the other party says in response (maybe they will agree with you and say it was just a mistake). --Obsidi (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Let's go through the history here. A new account is created on November 1. Their only edits are aggressive, obnoxious comments at one talk page (and one other related). After they piss off everyone, Drmies gives them a warning. This new account doesn't go to Drmies and talk to him. Rather he comes here and rants some more (without notifying Drmies of this report). Somehow, it doesn't look like this account is here for any purpose but to troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you checked the history did you? Why don't you cask Buddy if I pissed him off? Or did you not even notice him? The only people I appear to have pissed off, are the people who also seem to think we're too stupid to be allowed to even comment on this error of omission, and would very much like us to just fuck off because we're vandalistic trolls. I don't think you're at all concerned with aggressive, obnoxious comments as part of the "history" here at all, otherwise you'd have had something to say about the people who were doing exactly that to us. As for not talking to him, the only thing I would have had to say to my accuser about these obviously false accusations, would be to ask him what the hell he was playing at, at which point I would presumably have been blocked for trolling anyway, probably by you, I'm guessing. So forgive me for having the foresight not to fall for that obvious trap (which most people would correctly recognize is a form of trolling itself). But I knew it would somehow be my fault, yet again. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This post above is NOT appropriate behavior Galactic envoy, you will get your self blocked VERY quickly if you keep this up. Especially the part about "too stupid to be allowed to even comment on this error of omission, and would very much like us to just fuck off because we're vandalistic trolls", you are at best reading words into what someone else said that they didn't say (and including a variety of personal insults and inappropriate language). --Obsidi (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree there are lots of problems with what he has written so far (from a quick glance through his contributions to that page), but it is not vandalism (at least as far as I can tell so far). So he was right in a way to say that he was being accused of something that he had not done (he may have done lots of other stuff that was bad, so accuse him of that instead!). He should have gone and talked to Drmies, but he isn't required to do so before coming here with a complaint about another users conduct. He didn't notify Drmies as he should have (but I'll chalk that up to the clear fact that he is really new and Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies), lets just let him know what he should have done so he can do better next time. --Obsidi (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is indeed likely.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's been explained several times on the talk page that there's no connection at all between the Anonymous group and Guy Fawkes Night. Zero, zilch, nada. What Galactic envoy and others either refuse or fail to understand is that the significance of 5 November for Anonymous is that it's the date of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. So I really can't see the purpose of this report, or what it's hoped will be achieved by it, beyond an attempt to foment trouble. Eric Corbett 16:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been explained several times to this person that the connection to the date is blindingly obvious (and has been noticed by the media several times)- as has the significance of it to the GFN article specifically. The continued accusations of trolling appear to be nothing but an attempt to deliberately ignore these points. The purpose of the report is to expose the fact that the tactics being used to stifle this discussion appear to go far beyond deliberately ignoring the other person or insulting their intelligence or using ridiculous hyperbolic arguments or any number of other duplicitous tactics used to get their way (which is to exclude the information at any cost), it also extends to an administrator making false accusations of vandalism and closing the discussion apparently for no other reason than they agree with the person above, which to me appears to me to be a massive conflict of interest. Galactic envoy (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like getting into content disputes here, but you are basically accusing him of Galactic envoy of just inventing stuff. As an uninvolved editor, I really doubt that is true. Guy Fawkes is like the practical mascot of Anonymous. I mean you look at articles from reliable sources like this, and it seems a fairly strong connection has been made by some reliable sources from Guy Fawkes Night and Anonymous. Maybe its not enough of a WP:WEIGHT to include in the page, but I think its a bit more then the accusation of just inventing something out of whole cloth. --Obsidi (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• We don't have an "only warning" for "disruptive editing, trolling, refusing to get off the soapbox and leave the matter be since it's obviously not going anywhere", so I had to choose the "vandalism" one. Also, what Bbb says (thank you), and, on the content, what Eric says (and the talk page makes this abundantly clear). GFN and its talk page is frequently the subject of trolling, and the sooner we put at stop to it the better. Let me add that I appreciate Eric Corbett's visit to ANI, and that he is NOT here to unload on an admin may well be a sign of the apocalypse. All of you need to ask yourselves, "Will I be left behind?" Drmies (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  I personally would (and do) leave a non-template warning in this case. On the other case, I agree that we likely have a case of NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Might I suggest next time just leave a {{subst:uw-generic4}}: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. --Obsidi (talk) 16:39, 2 November 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.

Ent 70

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 The above user is in the process of requestig multiple unblocks all of which have so far been denied. At present the are making yet more personal attacks on their talk page despite thi being why they were rought to the attention of this notice board to start wiht. Can someone take a look and pull talk page access as well please. Amortias (T)(C) 12:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Problem solved. Dennis - 2¢ 13:38, 2 November 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.

Copyright images

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.

---

Can an admin please delete all images uploaded by TheAdnanMalik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are all clearly stolen. I did list one of the users files for deletion, but they didn't take any notice and just uploaded another today. I will also warn the user. Thanks.--JacktheHarry (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Acroterion has taken care of this. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

<ec> Obvious copyright violations, all deleted. I've warned the user that they may not upload images until they exhibit an understanding of free image policy. If they upload any more copyvios, they will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 2 November 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.

Where can I complain about the above closure?

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.

---

Rant collapsed

Sorry, but no way in hell am I ever going to accept a "final warning" for disruption for objecting to what just happened above. I asked a very legitimate question - how do I appeal that closure, and the person who closed it simply removed the question, saying "closed means closed" (again, there's the assumption that I'm just too stupid to be involved here - of course I fucking know what closed means, I wanted to appeal it). But yes, I'm the troll, obviously. The levels of hypocrisy in all this is frankly astounding. I do not believe for a second that people who are so obviously unfair and one-sided in their approach as Bbb23 obviously is, are the final arbiters of justice on Wikipedia (at least I hope they're not). I think the purpose of these attempts to intimidate me are obvious - it's already clear that Drmies only got involved because he supports the person who was originally accusing Buddy of being too stupid to understand what they were saying. Quite why Bbb23 thinks Drmies should face no action at all for his open admission that his accusation that I was a vandal was not only false, that it wasn't even an error either, escapes me. Unless you read his other statements, then it becomes clearer - there's not much logic in taking action against the person you agree with, is there? And yet somehow I'm the troll here? You don't need to Einstein to figure out what the people who don't want the material added to the GFN article have to gain by painting everyone who does as trolls, and everything they do as disruption, and indeed then acting as if they alone have the final say on whether or not continuing to complain about such obvious abuse is disruptive also. I only got involved in this issue out of empathy for Buddy, but in a way he does at least appear to have been lucky in not protesting too much about the run-around he received at the GFN page. Perhaps this is the way all disputes on Wikipedia are handled, I don't know, but I sure as hell am not going to accept Drmies or Bbb23's obvious bias as the final word on this - if they want to block me for objecting to their false accusations and one-sided dealing in this matter, then I guess it will only prove what their ultimate aim was. Galactic envoy (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you were given a chance to walk away without a WP:BOOMERANG block and warned, now I suspect your about to get blocked. You were given a final warning because your behavior is inapprorate. I suggest you look generally at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing, and specifically at WP:REHASH. This is in addition to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. I would say that User:Drmies is probably too involved to block you (although looking back at it, it seems he only closed the thread and warned you so far, so he might not be involved), but Bbb23 so far has only interacted with you as an admin and can block you (or some other admin). I can't quite think of how this would fall under discretionary sanctions, so I think a consensus would be needed here, but I suspect that will occur shortly. --Obsidi (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I see Ymblanter has already blocked you. --Obsidi (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree Take your pick WP:NPA or WP:DE. This post might even swing it as WP:NOTHERE. Amortias (T)(C) 18:24, 2 November 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.

Page moves need undoing

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.

---

A short while back Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) moved the following articles (and the associated talk pages, and talk page archives)

• Bangalore -> Bengaluru
• Belgaum -> Belagavi
• Belgaum district -> Belagavi district

However there is explicit and recent consensus on the first two article's talk pages not to move the pages to the new official city names, and the third move is also likely to be similarly controversial, and should be reverted till consensus for it is established (see discussions here and here). I left a note at Jamie's talk page, but they seem to have signed off for the day. Can some admin undo the moves instead? I would have waited for Ohnoitsjamie's next editing session, but unfortunately in all the moves-over-redirects and related deletions, the contents of the Bangalore article have disappeared altogether and need to be restored asap.

To be clear, I believe this is a simple matter of Jamie not noticing the talk-page discussions, and no "action" against the admin is desired or IMO needed. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• The first two definitely have a consensus to not have been moved, that is certain. Like you said, it may be that he didn't know, but would like to hear his input on them first, as there may be more to the story, or a simple mistake. I think you are right about the third, it shouldn't be moved without consensus either. Dennis - 2¢ 02:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, something is utterly messed up. Neither Bangalore or Bengaluru go to an article for me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN, same here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, the page moves should be reverted due to that lack of consensus, especially with Bangalore/Bengaluru, where now there is apparently no page. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore has been moved to Bengaluru twice. The first time would have moved the article and left a redirect at Bangalore, the second time would have replaced the article now at Bengaluru with the new redirect and created another new redirect at Bangalore. So Bangalore ends up as a redirect to Bengaluru and Bengaluru is a redirect to itself. The original article is presumably now in deletion limbo somewhere, and simply reversing the move will not achieve anything seeing as both articles are now redirects to Bengaluru. Neatsfoot (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the Bangalore one, because:

• Regardless of the preferred name, the move intention cannot have been to have left us with no article at all, so there's been an inadvertent error along the way. Better we have at least one possible name with an article attached, than neither;
• The name issue has been raised repeatedly at Talk:Bangalore, and the most recent discussion seems to show a consensus to keep the article at "Bangalore" despite the official name change. So that's where I have left the article. If there's a consensus to the contrary somewhere other than the talkpage, please accept my apologies and redo the move with my blessing.

I agree we need Ohnoitsjamie's input, as there is likely a good reason for the move that is not otherwise evident from the talkpage (in which case, sorry for jumping the gun). I note also that the page was previously move-protected, so Ohnoitsjamie's move counts as an admin action. I would argue my move back should be considered as a good-faith WP:IAR to make sure Wikipedia has an immediately readable article on Bangalore/Bengaluru. But if there's a view to the contrary I am happy to revert the restoration with apologies to all concerned. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason given was "official name change by Indian government," which is disappointing, since this wouldn't have been a valid reason to move the pages even if it had been brought up during the recent move discussion. I won't be reverting this since I closed the move requests, but I agree that it needs to be reverted and discussed on the talk page before any subsequent moves take place. Dekimasuよ! 06:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do edits sit with the over-all name thingy? Murry1975 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was fine earlier, that is how I read the two different RM discussions that ended in a consensus to NOT move them. Not sure what happened. If Jamie isn't around soon, I would just say to move all of them back via consensus/likely consensus for now. Eventually, they will end up there, but when isn't really something admin decide. Dennis - 2¢ 13:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response everyone and thanks to User:Euryalus for the resurrection of Bangalore. (Atlantis next?) Given Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) comment here, can some admin move back the Belgaum & Belgaum district articles to their stable locations. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: The remaining pages had already been moved back by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and no further action is needed at this time. Marking as resolved. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 2 November 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 Barfridge Family

Page deleted. That's all, folks. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hi,

Can we get this page deleted and salted. Blatent hoax/vandalism recreated shortly after deletion. Amortias (T)(C) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and blocked the vandalism-only account that created it both times. That should be enough for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:12, 2 November 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.

Massive vandalism attack at Reflection (Fifth Harmony album)

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.

---

There's a large number of registered accounts and IPs vandalising Reflection (Fifth Harmony album) right now - I've asked for page protection at RPP, but I hope there might be someone here who could act more quickly. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:18, 2 November 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.

DungeonSiegeAddict510's 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.

---

A couple of days ago, I informed DungeonSiegeAddict510 that his signature was in violation of WP:Signatures' various guidelines and policies. At the time, he had set his custom signature to be User:DungeonSiegeAddict510/sig so it would transclude as a template, which is against policy and I informed him of his error as well as telling him it was too large and did not include his user name in any form. It was also, at the time, massive when automatically substituted. He then heavily truncated the formatting and after I informed him it was still much too long, he has effectively made another workaround this to have User:DungeonSiegeAddict510/sig2 be in his signature preferences which transcludes the original template and results in the original template just being transcluded instead of substituted when he signs his comments. This is still out of the question, but he has not yet responded to my recent notification that it contravenes policy, even though I initially told him templates were not allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly Id just let it go, there are plenty of things here on Wikipedia that need the attention more than a user's signature. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a small note, signatures are not required to have the user name in any form. ansh666 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It only says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've left him a final warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this really the best allocation of wikipedia resources? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There will be zero wikipedia resources wasted once you alter your signature. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it :/ --DSA510 Pls No Hate 23:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 2 November 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.

Guy Fawkes Night and the hacktivist group Anonymous

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.

---

My apologies if this is the wrong noticeboard for this issue. None of the other noticeboards seemed quite right...

After reading a recent law enforcement warning suggesting that the hacker group Anonymous might be planning an attack on the forthcoming Guy Fawkes Night (November 5), as they have on the past, I visited the Guy Fawkes Night article to learn more about this event and why this group might be interested in it. There was and is zero content in the Guy Fawkes article addressing this so I had to find other articles on the web to explain some of this background to me. Generally when this happens I make it a point to add the missing content to the wiki article with appropriate citations for future readers who might be interested. 99% of the time this isn’t a problem for anyone, but in this case my very small, carefully phrased, and well-citied edit was reverted because it was deemed not relevant. I tried to seek some further understanding on the article’s talk page but I was never given an actual explanation as to why this was seen as such.

My question is, am I completely off the mark on this? The information is provided by and thus sourced from the New York Times, CNN, The Huffington Post, CNET, and many other sources besides. I’m trying to assume good faith and just figure that this article should only reflect the historical information for reasons I don’t yet understand but I can’t shake the feeling that some other editors might feel threatened by this content for some reason. Perhaps some are afraid its besmearing what is currently a 'good article'? I just don’t get it... Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Did you get a consensus at that article, for your addition? If not? You have to get it. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• You have to ask yourself why an article on Guy Fawkes Night would have to deal with a group planning an attack on Guy Fawkes Night. It has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes Night. There really is no reason for it. So this is not "missing content". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• There is clearly a significant number of editors watching that page who do not think inclusion of anything about Anonymous would be related to Guy Fawkes Night. My guess is you are not going to get a local consensus to add anything about that, so I suggest you write up a very detailed (and well sourced) proposal and do an RfC on it. The wider community might disagree with the local consensus. Without an RfC, your chances of inclusion are nil. --Obsidi (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the RfC idea. If it seems like a good idea I'll consider that approach. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe the stuff about Anonymous can belong in the November 5 article or in the Guy Fawkes Mask article, but not in the Guy Fawkes Night article. It is only an anniversary and happens to be connected solely by name. Also, it's a featured article, so any major addition needs to be discussed, as opposed to with non-controversial, lower-quality articles where discussion is, for the most part, optional. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally get that there might be other articles which might warrant this information separately. I'm certainly not crazy obsessed about getting it in to the Guy Fawkes Night article specifically, I was just flummoxed as to why there was such a strong yet undefined opposition to its inclusion and figured this would be a good venue to find some insight. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Buddy23Lee: The insight you seek is: this has long been a favorite target of people trying to poke a particular editor in the eye with a stick just for fun, trying to get him to say bad words and then running here to express shock and outrage. I'm sure you'd agree that people motivated by this kind of thing are the scum of the earth. So people who have been around long enough to know this don't have as much patience as they might with another topic. I'm sure you've got all the good faith in the world, but you've picked the one topic that is 99% of the time (though certainly not in this case) evidence of trolling. This should explain the vehemence of the opposition. As to the underlying content question, it is fairly clear to a large number of people that this (misunderstood) Anonymous tie-in doesn't belong on this article, although it might belong on the Anonymous article. Indeed, a strong interest in putting it into this article and no similar interest in putting it in Anonymous is usually a telltale sign of trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Maybe I'm misguided in trying to read between the lines on this so much, but that really helps explain why I've been getting so much of the cold shoulder on this. Forgive my naivety, but I really didn't know that Anonymous was such a hot button issue here. I just assumed that if I had a neutral POV, good citations and good intention everything would come together. I guess I'll try to be more discerning about this sort of thing from this point forward. Honestly, I've had a great experience here over the years of comradery and helpfulness. I guess it was just this one time lack of this which surprised me so much. Again, my bad for stirring some pot that I was otherwise oblivious to. Clearly, I'd never make a good politician. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any obvious POV. However, these editors have spent a lot of time not only working, but fighting vandalism, on the Guy Fawkes Night article. I suggest to do what Floq said and also put it in Anonymous (group). Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Guy Fawkes Mask is where you might want to look, since that is what is most closely associated with Anonymous. Anonymous has little to do with Guy Fawkes and nothing at all to do with Guy Fawkes Night or the Gunpowder Plot: it's a bit like inserting tax protests into Independence Day (United States) or a tangential event into Christmas. However, please remember that Wikipedia is not the news, and that what amounts to speculative current-events trivia is probably out of place in articles on historical events. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I did put the mask wikilink into my edit. I thought it was more fitting that the content was included on the Guy Fawkes Night page rather than just the mask as the group evidently adopted the date and the iconography due to the significance and meaning of the holiday itself. But again, I'm totally willing to admit I might be wrong about that. I am here more to seek understanding then attempt to sway anyone to a particular view. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you were around for the trivia and "in popular culture" cleanup/purge, but the insertion of current events into articles on historical subjects is widely disliked on WP. As several editors have pointed out, adding things to featured articles requires more-than-usual consensus, and those articles have been abused as a way to try to get a rise out of some editors who view such digressions with even less enthusiasm. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 3 November 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:SubSeven - Violation of Wiki Civil and more

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.

---

Used the comment box to refer to me as an idiot. When I warned him of 3rr revert policy he was going to soon violate. [128]

Used the comment box to speak to me in a demeaning manner, called me slow. [129]

Wikihounded me by following me into an article he has never edited at. [130].

Is engaging in an edit war amongst many users in the Royce Gracie article. Seems to be have a claim of ownership. Engaging in Wiki:Own

CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question for you. Please do so next time when you submit an ANI report. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to give a hoot about UFC, but stuff like this, while not a hanging offence, is really not on, regardless of the circumstances. Note that this discussion would have shown up on User:SubSeven's notifications since the editor who brought this here included his name in the opening post. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

• 1) an edit summary on my talk page is not a message directed at you.
• 2) I didn't call you slow, you may want to re-read that.
• 3) you may also want to re-read WP:HOUND, here is a quote with relevant parts bolded: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
• 4) 'edit war amongst many users'. Nope. Just you, actually. --SubSeven (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling me an idiot was quite unnecessary. [131] CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) His response to another user who had the same issue was "take it up with the ufc" [132]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen (CrazyAces489—SubSeven), you can't fight in here, this is the octago... oh wait. Don't make me pull out the WP:GS/MMA ceremonial mace and brandish it against both of you. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Been a while since the MMA articles poked its ugly head up again. @Hasteur: best beat that ugly head down with the mace. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• SubSeven, you are being a pain, if we are honest The problem is that you are taking a disagreement and turning it into antagonizing and ad hominem, per Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Attacking the individual instead of their argument. That said, I think the "slow" comment wasn't disparaging mentally challenged people, just saying someone isn't paying attention. It could be taken both ways, but I see it in the least offensive light. Calling someone an idiot, however, wasn't smart and is technically actionable. I'm not prone to block you today because it was a singular incident and we all err, but I strongly suggest you avoid being a pain in the future, or a block is more likely. I want to also remind everyone of this [133], which authorizes broad and sweeping powers to admin in the MMA article area, as a General Sanction. That means one warning, then a person can be indef blocked, topic banned, or any other creative sanction the admin decides is appropriate, and only the Arb Committee or the entire community (WP:AN) can override that sanction, and let me tell you, the community isn't kind when it comes to disruption from MMA articles, they are sick of it. The community's patience for problems in MMA articles expired a long time ago. My suggestion is that we all lick our wounds, go write some articles, use the talk page, get a consensus, live with it when most people disagree with you, and try to keep arguments about the merits, not someone's personality. Then you never have to worry about sanctions. Dennis - 2¢ 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

After the 24 hours passed for 3rr violation warning had passed [134], SubSeven simply went right back to deleting all the sourced entries I placed in [135], [136] and one other place. I have no problem taking things to the talk page [137] , I have also asked him to initiate a RFC [138] (I believe would give the community to decide what the article should state). I only want to give an objective article and continue on creating articles for everyone to enjoy. [139] CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought this inquiry was about my lack of civility? I have stated my position exhaustively on the talk page. You just exited the conversation and continued reverting. --SubSeven (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When I first added reliable sources and additions to the page Royce Gracie you simply reverted it and stated that it wasn't a true full rules fight. I placed it on a separate section stating that it was a limited rules fight with a source. You simply reverted it. [140] When I put in a BJJ match with a source in a separate section, you reverted it. [141] You stated it wasn't his total record. Every posting I have made reliable sources are put in. You simply reverted it. At no point did I exit the conversation in the talk page as per [142]. Your last posting was on Oct 26, while I posted on the 27 and the 29th. I have repeatedly asked you to open up an RFC as this is apparently an old issue that has shown up many times on this page. [143][144] [145] [146] CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• You both need to stop editing the article and use the talk page to get a consensus with other editors. I thought I made it clear, but let me make it brutally clear: if you both keep warring, you both will get blocked. Which of you is right? I don't know, I don't care. Let the interested editors on the talk page decide. But the constant reverting isn't going to be tolerated. And to be even more clear: You don't need to pass 3RR to get blocked for edit warring, that is just the bright line where there is no question. There are plenty of people who could join in the discussion. Go drop a NEUTRAL note at MMA Notability and plenty will join in and help you determine what is a real fight/official and what isn't. Or keep reverting and both of you will get blocked or topic banned. Unquestionably, if if keeps up, I will drop General Sanctions warnings on both of your pages, which is one step away from a topic ban. Seriously, I don't want to do that but I absolutely will. You must go and POLITELY work this out on the talk page and stop warring. Dennis - 2¢ 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thank you. All I want is other opinions to be placed in. Also how do I do an RFC, which I believe has many editors put an opinion into a topic so a consensus can be made. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Go read up at WP:RFC, there is a template, it isn't that hard. You just have to make sure it is neutral. Dennis - 2¢ 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dennis Brown I already rattled the saber in the sheath and they continued to misbehave. I've dropped GS/MMA warnings on both of their pages so now these editors are now on notice that they need to significantly shape up. Hasteur (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No apology needed, I can't blame you and this is exactly what the General Sanctions are there for. Hopefully, nothing more than the warning will be needed. You and I both remember the Great MMA War of 2011-2012, and we certainly don't want to go down that road again. Dennis - 2¢ 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown and Hasteur, Subseven dropped a posting on my talk page to try to get some sort of consensus here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Dispute_on_Royce_Gracie_page So we are finally getting some sort of positive movement on the article. This was before Hasteur dropped his warning on both of our pages. I thought an RFC or third opinion was the only option. Apparently this an option also. I have never heard of the Great MMA War of 2011-2012, can you please show me somewhere I can read it. It seems pretty interesting. Thanks CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The ANI and AN archives are littered with MMA skirmishes from those years. There were virtually weekly appearances by the usual suspects that general sanctions had to be applied. Blackmane (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The MMA War was literally an attack on the project by a faction of people striving to delete as many MMA articles as they could, which sent the entire community into a frenzy. This is... a content dispute that happens to be in an MMA BLP article. If you really think this could launch another war, let me set your mind at ease, because it seems to me that CrazyAces489 and I are the only two editors who care about the state of this article at all. --SubSeven (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you mischaracterize the Great MMA Wars. I did a great deal of mediating back then, as I could give a care less about MMA, so I was neutral. There were plenty of people trying to include the most trivial facts and unsubstantiated articles as well. It wasn't one sided. The main point is that the tolerance for ANY fighting in MMA, whether it is related to that previous war or not, is very low. Overwhelmingly, the community stays out of the notability and content issues there and doesn't force any standard on that area, other than behavior. It boils down to "you stay in your yard, I'll stay in mine". Understandably, the community is very gun shy about any MMA problems that make it all the way to ANI. It isn't even about the individuals, we just know how easy it is for that particular walled garden to burst over into the rest of the place. Once General Sanctions were issues, allowing any admin to swing the hammer as needed, most of the problems magically disappeared, making that decision one of the most successful applications of General Sanctions we've ever seen. As for consensus, however you build it, we are fine with it, as long as it doesn't spill back here. Dennis - 2¢ 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Any place I could look at the sanctions or just about the wars CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The archives at MMA Notability and the archives here at ANI. There were also a number of SPIs and RFC/Us filed. There is no single archived that catalogs the entire debacle. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown Once the hammers started swinging faster than new soldiers could be recruited to the war, the external communities decided to take their toys and go home by establishing their own wiki where they can nitpick and document to their own heart's content at http://www.mmawiki.com/. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect idea for a topic like this. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 31 October 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 explicitly claims that they are using sockpuppets and sophisticated tools to deliberately introduce copyrighted material into articles

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 was looking back through some discussions when I landed on User:Kainaw's talk page. This user, who I know used to be extremely active on Wikipedia, and a very competent Wikipedia user, has taken on what seems to be a personal vendetta against Wikipedia as a result of the blackout a couple years ago that protested certain bills in the US Congress. While I understand that this claim was made more than a year ago, I feel like I should bring it to your attention. In particular, what I find concerning is the following statement, which I am copying directly from their user page here.

"So, instead of editing Wikipedia, I develop tools to convert Wikipedia pages into copyright infringement pages by using multiple registered accounts in multiple passes, changing only a few words at a time. I made multiple offers to make tools to help Wikipedia in exchange for an honest answer as to why Wikipedia was blacked out, but I only called many terrible names for not worshipping Jimbo. I figure that eventually someone will figure out that there is tons of copyrighted material on Wikipedia, but as open as I am about it, I don't think they will make the connection that it is being put there on purpose. -- kainaw™ 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)"

Given the fact that this claim, in which Kainaw appears to admit to vandalizing Wikipedia in a sophisticated way, was made at least 1½ years after the blackout, it clearly is not just a momentary temper tantrum. I have no idea if Kainaw is still active in this way, or if they still have strong feelings, but I do think that it may be worth at least a bit of investigation. If Kainaw spent 1½ years stewing over this, it is possible that they may still not have worked past their obsession.

I have not been a very active editor the past couple years, and I really have been away from most of the drama and politics of Wikipedia during that time. I do not plan to personally pursue this any further (and really, I wouldn't know where to begin), and I make no claim that I feel like I personally need some kind of resolution in this matter. I am just leaving this with you on this board to do with as you wish.

Here is the permanent link to the page as it is at the time I am making this post.

Falconus^{p t c} 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The user has not been around for 1 year and 3 months since their last edit. I would say a warning for suspected sockpuppetry and vandalism (and even a block if necessary) would be in order if they were active, but the user is inactive, making even an indefinite block pointless.

Why is this being brought up now instead of when this was posted anyway? Isn't it a little late for any action now? Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) He said he would use multiple accounts to carry it out, so, lack of activity on the Kainaw account wouldn't necessarily mean that he hadn't followed through. --SubSeven (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius: of course I would have mentioned something sooner... Except I didn't read that until yesterday. SubSeven: That's exactly my concern, that the other accounts may still be active (assuming that Kainaw was serious about that in the first place). Falconus^{p t c} 10:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds fair to block the sockpuppet accounts, if they can be found. Falconus, do you have a list of any suspected sockpuppets? A list and diffs may help make your case for a possible sanction of Kainaw. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius, you pretty much have all of the information now that I have. I interacted a little bit with Kainaw back in the day, before they left, but I really can't think of anything else that's relevant at the moment. They were a highly active editor, maybe moreso than any Wikipedian that I have encountered since, so Kainaw would definitely know intimately the ins and outs of Wikipedia (at least the way it was a couple of years ago). I have never investigated any users in any kind of depth, so I am afraid that it is up to other editors to pursue this (or not) further - I really have no idea how I would even begin to try to figure out Kainaw's activities. Let me know if you have any other questions, but for now that's all I've got. Falconus^{p t c} 21:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)A person can claim to be doing many a thing. Regardless of kainaw's scripting and programming skills (such skills are mentioned on his talk page a lot), I doubt such a "tool" is really possible, and if possible it would be ineffective unless it were done on articles nobody else ever edits or looks at. If he were doing it, would he be telling people so openly he was doing it? And if he's been doing it, he's been doing it unchecked for the past 2 1/2 years. To not much effect so far, it seems. Maybe better first to get some expert advice to decide if the thing being claimed is even possible. Do you think if kainaw had stated that he was developing a rainmaking tool so that it would rain continuously on the head of Jimmy Wales, an incident would be raised! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Kainaw account itself was never blocked. This edit shows that this was likely part of a stunt (or else someone actually planning on suing would be a complete idiot to destroy his credibility with this) but we could add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems if anyone else there's anything there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 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.

72.49.36.201 - promotional spam in article text

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.

---

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

IP promoting a book called "Threads of Faithfulness" along with some odd conspiracy theories:

• At Mothman [147] [148]
• At Silver Bridge [149] [150]

I've reverted twice and warned on the IPs Talk page but it may not stick. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Let us wait a bit, they did not edit after warning. Additionally, it is awlways a good practice to add the welcome template, may be they could read the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 31 October 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:Metropolitan reverting the work of three contributors

Three of us were working on the Paris article (about to lose its GA status), and User:Metropolitan reverted all[151]. This in ignoring all talk-page discussions (and talk-page comments after first revert), threatened a revert war[152], and acted on it.[153][154]. Sorry for this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I reverted the first revert, then the second (hoping talk-page message would help bring reason), but I'm done now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me from your description what the nature of Metropolitan's first large edit [155] was. I can see it was shortening the article substantially, but then, other editors had also been cutting content, as there seems to be a general feeling the article needs pruning. You say he was "reverting all" of previous edits, but what exactly was lost, and to what older version was he going back? Also, in the talkpage discussion, he seemed to be offering to manually reinstate some edits of yours that you had been doing in the meantime [156]. Did you ascertain what edits he meant by that, and whether that would have met your concerns? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Replacing the Lede that had just been cut (not by me) for one thing, and other fixes that had been going on all afternoon. The article order is different, but the content is basically the way it was before we started. And the order change is in spite of all the discussion about it that had been going on since a week now. One can't just force themselves like that, that's no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what edits he will be replacing. Do I have to go through all my fixes again to make sure nothing was missed, if they are indeed restored?

I've been making restructuring propositions since a week now, and have avoided implementing anything major until consensus is reached, but Metropolitan hardly took part in it at all. That is no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm currently trying to bring back the edits, I didn't expect everyone to edit so intensively the article while I was working on the new structure. I'm trying to keep on track what people have done but it's not so easy. If the editors want to bring in the contents they've edited in the last hours, they are of course welcomed to help me out. Metropolitan (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But you don't seem to understand that we shouldn't have to go through all that work again. You should have let us know what you were up to, at least. And even now that you know what you've done, you're not willing to redo your restructuring (that we have not yet discussed) from where we left off, and you revert twice to protect your error, to boot. That is no way to edit. The best thing for you to do is put the page back the way it was when SiefkinDR left off, and tell us what you want to do on the talk page - like the rest of us! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

And if all you've done is restructuring, then that shouldn't be a problem for you at all. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I have restored back the Lede to the state is was after last edit from SiefkinDR at 17:49, 2 November 2014. Is it good? Metropolitan (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Still you don't understand. I don't know exactly what my edits were, and I haven't a clue what the others have done, all I know is that the double links I removed and picture size-position are right back where they were when I started, so that means that their work is reverted, too. And you still won't accept outlining your changes for the rest of us before making them, although you know full well that we're discussing that very subject! This doesn't matter? That's the message you're sending, and your repeated reverting just reinforces it. That is no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, as far as I can see none of my edits today have been replaced. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy (expletive), the admin who I asked for advice on how to save the article's GA is at the article correcting the mistakes, mistakes I had already corrected, for me. Even those were reverted! Now add embarrassment to the lot. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it took me a long time but I've scanned every single edits from the afternoon and I took good care to implement them back in the article, here's a link to the diff: [157]. It was not my intent to revert those, I couldn't know you would work in the article at the same time as I would. Sorry again for that. I hope the problem is now solved. Metropolitan (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris again, needs to stop

I've stayed out of editing Paris but keeps it on my watch list. I hoped things would improve after Fut.Perf.'s intervention but I must say I'm worried both by the continued edit wars [158], [159], [160], [161], [162] and related arguments on the talk page. I'm not commenting on who is right and who is wrong, but it just cannot continue like this all the time. Apart from the edit warring, I'm also a bit concerned by the massive deletions of sourced content with very little discussion about it. To take but one example, the history section used to have a paragraph about the Paris massacre of 1961 a highly notable even that was removed [163]. I'm not here to point finger at anyone or take any particular side, but there is far too much contentious editing without discussion, edit warring and confusion. I'm sure all involved editors have the best motives, but there seems to be something about Paris. Nobody wants to see the articles locked again, but I'd recommend the admins to consider putting in place restrictions on deletions and reversions. I've lost time of how many times Paris has been at ANI, something should be done now.Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of history gone, I hadn't realised. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been filling the talk page with propositions and invitations for discussion - and haven't, aside from adding a short section, been working on content at all, but fixes and layout (still not restored) because of the RGA message today. It's discussion-ignoring/work-effacing 'editing' like this that is the problem, because it shows disdain for other contributors and places the focus on the contributor imposing themselves and their own opinion instead of focusing on/discussing content with others. I personally don't care who did what in the past, as long as they're working in the interest of the article - I was actually enjoying working with the others until this happened. I still don't know what was changed today, though - I haven't had time to look because of this. But suddenly, yet again, it's no fun anymore. I left this article years ago exactly because of behaviour like this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: :This new case brought at AN/I by ThePromenader (the 4th time ThePromenader brings a case at AN/I against another Paris article's editor in the space of a month and half) is clearly against the rule set by the administrator Fut.Perf. that no editor with five or more contributions to the Paris talk page should accuse another editor at AN/I: [164]. Please make this stop. The atmosphere in the Paris article is deleterious precisely because of these repeated accusations and strings of complaints at AN/I. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That is simply not true, this is only my second-ever ANI report since I joined Wikipedia ten years ago. And I've seen Sunrise's restriction being taken advantage of more than anything. By the way, my layout work from today still hasn't been restored. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait a second, that's not true, there were a couple more a quite a years ago - and always because of the misbehaviour of the same person. Look familiar? [165] THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment ThePromenader and Der Statistiker, I repeat that I'm not commenting to point finger at anyone. I am sure that you both and all other users at Paris right now are there for the right reasons and do what they think are best. My concern is about the article, and I don't want to make it personal or take sides. Nobody can deny that there have been far too many edit wars at Paris, far too many arguments and far too many discussions at Paris and at other forums. It reminds me a bit of Jerusalem in the sense that edit wars and arguments between long-time users take up far too much time not just at that article but elsewhere as well, and I wonder if it would not be appropriate to put in place similar rules as those we've had at Jerusalem for a long time already.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is already a rule, which says that no editor in the Paris article with more than 5 edits should make any accusation against other editors, or criticize other editors, on the talk page or elsewhere, and especially not open any complaint at AN/I against any other editor. This rule has been broken several times already. If the rule is not enforced, I can't see how any measure of peaceful cooperation can be restored in the article. And comments such as "Sunrise's restriction (is) being taken advantage of more than anything" (see above) certainly do not help to restore a peaceful cooperation in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, User:Jeppiz, you've been nothing but helpful. But I invite anyone to examine what's going on there quite thoroughly. And for the rest: My disengenuousity metre is tipping, that coming from someone just exiting from a block for taking advantage of (disregarding) that very rule. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've said more than enough here, unless I have to debunk any further tu quoique accusations against me: concerning that, please see the diff I left just above for my past need for administrator attention. It's quite revealing. Wait, here [166]. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I also had a large number of edits reverted without notice by Metropolitan when I shortened the lead and history section. I appreciate that when he was told that Metropolitan did finally put them back. Looking back at the history of this article, it seems that there has never been a period of peaceful cooperation in this article. There do seem to be some editors with a specific agenda about how Paris should be described who delete anything that doesn't agree with it. That's not of course how Wikipedia works, and I think that should stop. Accusations against editors have to stop, and deletions of text without any discussion also has to stop. I suggest editors should give notice on the talk page if they are planning any significant deletions or additions, so they can be discussed first, and there should be agreement in advance on where the work on the article needs to be done.Can we try that? This article still needs a lot of work to improve it and we need to get going. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Behavorial warning from admin Fut.Perf.

On 23 October 2014, Fut.Perf. was addressing us a message that we "should all stop, immediately, to fight with each other on this noticeboard"[167], a threat that would be "gladly enforced with blocks at any moment".Jeppiz and ThePromenader didn't respect that rule here. They are totally unable to tell me what is wrong in the new contents structure, but simply state that during the tiny hour I needed to reorganize the thing, they've done edits that couldn't be brought back without reverting back the whole contents structure.

It is impossible to work for the good of the Paris article with them around. Each time other contributors are interfering, they are unsatisfied and go whine at the administrators noticeboard. It pains me to say so but there is no other way at this stage than to make apply the warning initially announced by Fut.Perf.. I'm quite depressed to tell you the truth, as a lot of work is needed to bring back some encyclopedic value to the article, and it's next to impossible to do so if we're brough to the AN/I at every single significant edit. Metropolitan (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That rule has been abused from the get-go; the Paris talk page (and the Journalist obliged to respond to false allegations there) is proof enough of that. If the complained-about really had something to complain about, they would open an ANI of their own, and not just seek protection from complaints through a 'no name-calling' rule. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What really is a problem is, because of a cursory glance, false and valid complaints seem to have equal validity: this really seems to work, and that too is being exploited. I know you're overworked, but someone with a bit of time needs to look into this. And I'm sorry to ask for it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't share at all this opinion. The journalist message was on content-only. I have the feeling the Paris article has largely improved since Fut.Perf.'s initial message. Many edits from various contributors, including yours for the matter, have changed the article for the better. There was just no need to open an AN/I file here. Now there's still major works to be done in the contents of the article, which still reads more like a tourist brochure than like an encyclopedic article. It would be good if we would focus on that instead of bickering. I still hope that we prove ourselves able to work together. Metropolitan (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Since Fut.Perf.'s intervention, I've stayed clear of any personal discussions both here and on Talk:Paris In my comment above, in an already existing thread, I explicitly made it clear I did not comment on anyone and did not call for actions against anyone, I just suggested we may consider WP:1RR on Paris. I named no user, accused no user, I did not comment on the content and I did not call for sanctions for any user. For Metropolitan to then accuse me of breaking rules (what rules did I break?) is not that nice. As I was explicitly named, I've answered and leave the discussion. I'm uninvolved in this conflict and will remain uninvolved. For my part, the discussion is over.Jeppiz (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've carefully restored every single edits wrongfully reverted during the edit conflict of this afternoon. Here are the diffs [168][169]. So indeed, I hope everyone agrees this case is now over. Metropolitan (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you actually made a point of not restoring my edits - only mine, it seems - and another contributor re-did my language corrections and the layout is the way it was before I started working (even the few images I removed replaced). I've lost track of the rest, and I can't be arsed to look - I shouldn't have to, and that's what's not being understood here.

I hadn't realised that you had made so few contributions to the article [170] and that this is actually history repeating [171] (again ignoring talk-page discussions, but you didn't steamroll anyone's edits that time - AFAIK) - usually your role was backing Statistiker's (as Hardouin) edit-warring. And you have a history of telling everyone to stop reverting while you yourself revert [172] - it's the disingenuous equivilent of one little kid trying to steal a toy from another little kid while shouting "You're gonna break it! You're gonna break it!" when kid trying to keep his toy resists.

And when I look at the changes, am I going to see "metropolitan area" inserted everywhere, even for economy where it is factually impossible? Yep [173], even under the title "restoring the promenader's edits" where none of my edits were being restored at all. The disingenuousity here is astounding, but it's obviously working.

The core problem here is that a few from a certain skyscraper forum have made the Paris article their WP:BATTLEGROUND mission to "erase the touristy view of Paris" and use its high readership as a soapbox for their counter-reality "Paris is really a skyscraper-filled metropolis" POV (and anyone opposing this drive is 'against' them). Just a look at the past conflicts make this obvious. If no-one is going to understand this, or take the time to look a the problem, then these problems will continue. And they've got Wikipedia and its admins figured out to a tee, as it's been working since almost ten years so far. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How far back are you talking The Promenader? It looks like your first recent edit was on October 31st and the article has shrunk about 10k characters so I don't know what edits you are talking about. You do need to drop arguing about edits from a year to almost a decade ago and let it go. People really do need to use template:construction or have an RfC on the different structures or something. Given the notoriety of this type of article, I think asking everyone to use the templates (with the section parameter) when rewriting entire sections isn't too far-fethced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User: Ian.thomson is harassing me

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: Ian.thomson need to stfu and stop takin trash about me Lordaleem1 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Lordaleem1 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Actions indicates troll/vandalism-only account, including junk coding, (even at ANI), taunting a blocked account on only his third edit, (and fourth). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly resembles someone who has been here before too. Zero useful contributions and vandalism. Blocked as not here to write an encyclopedia. Will consider unblock if the user demonstrates an understanding of what the project is here for. Chillum 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I endorse Chillum's block in this case, addressing clear-cut trolling. bd2412 T 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty obvious boomerang. Good block. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome someone "takin trash about me". This room ain't gonna clean itself.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:34, 3 November 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.

Threat of suicide/self harm

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.

---

Apologies if this is the incorrect place to report such an incident but I just had [diff redacted] pop up on my watchlist. I'm more than concerned because the user seems to be saying that life is a lie and they will put an end to it. Now I'm reading that as a possible suicide threat.

If this is a suicide threat I'm not sure how serious it is so I'm going to also email the emergency team but thought I'd raise it here too 5 albert square (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We are looking into it. --Jan (WMF) (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Emailing emergency@ was the right thing to do here. Ivanvector (talk) 02:45, 4 November 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.

Weird changes to Constitution of Armenia

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.

---

There's something weird happening at Constitution of Armenia. In the last few days, several people apparently registered with their real names have been adding inappropriate material, mostly (if not all) copied from elsewhere, and signing it with their names - always signing in the same format of "(Real Name)". Examples - [174] (copied from here), [175] (copied from here), [176] (seems to be an attempt to include the entire constitution text, copied from here) [177] (copied from here). I wonder if this is a school exercise or something? Whatever it is, it's ongoing as I write and I've just reverted another addition, so I think it needs some sort of admin attention. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected. WP:RFPP is generally a better place to leave such requests.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I asked here because I didn't know if protection was the best approach, or whether you might have instead wanted to block accounts and try to find out if it was a school thing. Neatsfoot (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if I have time later I might add some messages on the pages of those users - is there anywhere I should direct them if, in fact, it is a school exercise? Neatsfoot (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Student assignments, Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Instructions_for_students and Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard (you could probably post there is anyone confirms it) are all a good start. Who knows, we may create a bunch of new long-term editors from this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• It may be related to a government campaign to get citizens to write articles, see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 168#Armenians asked to write Wikipedia entries to promote culture. KonveyorBelt 16:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, interesting - I could easily see a schoolteacher getting in on it and getting their class to work on one specific article. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:45, 3 November 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.

David Ardi Laksono , Wikipedia:David Laksono

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.

---

Not sure exactly what's going on here. Seems like a combination of hoax/auto-biography/improper cross-namespace page move leaving cross-namespace redirects and a few more issues created by User:David Laksono and User:Davidliem 21. The pages quite clearly need to go, but given the convoluted edit history, not sure what the proper course of action is. Sorry if this is not the correct venue. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done a history merge to consolidate the two articles into David Ardi Laksono. As a mathematician would say, the problem is now reduced to an article which might meet CSD. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think it just barely squeaks by A7 as there are claims of notability. I have chopped some of the spam, nominated it for WP:BLPPROD, and blocked one of the accounts as they are obviously the same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a hoax, but instead of endorsing the G3, I've deleted it as G11, since it's pretty obvious self-promotion with blatant sockpuppetry. Both accounts have been blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:13, 4 November 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.

Disruptive 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.

---

Ahmedzaibaloch1121 (talk · contribs) was blocked 3 times between August and September this year (last time for 1 month) for disrupting Wikipedia, but he continued to carry on with the same work, filling Baloch-related articles with very large amount of unsourced nonsense that is based on WP:OR. When it was blocked IPs starting with 39.48. [178] as well as Balochfaisalyar (talk · contribs) and Mohammadhassanibaloch (talk · contribs) were editing the same articles it was editing. I'm very sure these are all the same person, promoting Balochism by whatever means necessary.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a giant hatchet to Baloch people so I expect to see these editors come out of the woodwork soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, it was beyond repairable for me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not give such a vandal/sockpuppeteer a free pass to disrupt the project. What he has been doing is just disgusting.[179]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Ahmedzaibaloch1121. There has been no talk or user talk page edits at all so until there's actual evidence that the editor is paying attention (rather than just waiting these out), I don't see the point in a time period block. As long as he acknowledges the issues, he should be unblocked but I find these things to be standard fair for ethnic articles unfortunately. As for the IP address, there's either WP:DUCK or WP:SPI if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 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.

Can we add "Siduri" to the username blacklist and create an edit filter?

Socks of blocked user User:Jim-Siduri have been trolling around for the past few days. Something about how there's two days left until something in his hoax religion. KonveyorBelt 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support the proposal, although it will only stop some of the throw-away account names used by this troll (who was formerly a well-meaning but deeply clueless editor until he was indeffed and became a troll). (Are his rants about 5 November in any way related to the threats of Anonymous to do something on 5 November?) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I expect his rants are related to Anonymous; back in September a Jim-Siduri twitter account was posting in support of the group. Ca2james (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• There's no point, as he only edits from IP addresses - the apparent "Siduri" usernames are just hashtags included in the body of his edits. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • PS: What he seems to want to do is post some "Church of Siduri" advocacy on Nov 5, and I think he's just piggy-backing on Anonymous the same way he's tried piggy-backing on gender gap, etc. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is much point in an edit filter, given that it would only catch a small proportion of Jim-Siduri's socks. As for Anonymous, there is no link other than in Jim-Siduri's imagination - his 'threats' consist of nothing but claims that he is going to sue Wikipedia for not providing free publicity for his fantasy 'church', and that he is going to create a Wikipedia fork. Neither of which are the slightest bit concerning to anyone in possession of a few brain cells. I'm inclined to think that WP:DENY is an entirely adequate response, and that any action beyond this is only likely to encourage his delusion that he is somehow significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I only see one currently claimed sock listed at SPI with "siduri" in the name. I just blocked it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose He's on a dynamic IP and creating an edit filter - "siduri", I believe is not worth it. I would prefer a CU on him and blocking his IP range. Meanwhile, we can add him to DeltaQuadBot's username blacklist. But I believe the bot's down. -Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose a username filter as there are too few such usernames. Support an edit filter for 'siduri', allowed only for established users. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• A thought... As Jim-Siduri has declared that "my friends and I want to put the "Siduri's Advice" video on the Siduri page within the next 48 hours (on #Nov5)" ([180]), perhaps a preventative protection of that page until Nov 6? Neatsfoot (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've requested page protection at RPP. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I can't argue against EdJohnston's choice of tools and duration. That should help with the immediate problem. As for the socks elsewhere, they are quite easy to spot, so playing "whack-a-mole" when they pop up is probably sufficient. As for filters, I'm neutral. I don't see the utility in it, but maybe just because I lack imagination. Dennis - 2¢ 17:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner - disruptive edits on Argentina-related articles, blatant POV-pushing on same.

Dear Administrative Staff:

Bobrayner is, for the upteenth time in over two years, pushing his pet opinion pieces (which he calls "reliable sources") on Argentina-related articles and arbitrarily deleting referenced facts and news every chance he gets. Bob Rayner has been pushing POV on articles related to Argentina (and elsewhere) since at least 2012, deleting mention of actual, sourced events, and misrepresenting opinion pieces and wishful thinking in the form of snarky op-eds from at The Economist (well-known for its highly opinionated editorials), or obscure sources like Seeking Alpha, as fact.

He's also fond of blanket reversals - even to unrelated grammatical and other minor edits - while deleting mention of actual event and replacing them with his favorite opinion pieces, some nothing more than bad-faith predictions by the business press (definitely not RS) and all highly biased. In the case of Renationalization of YPF, for instance, he's been cut-and-pasting op-eds as if these were factual edits, while deleting real news involving Chevron and Morgan Stanley, etc. for no reason.

Other examples include: here, here, here, and here.

I don't edit much anymore, but I do like to keep an eye on some of these articles as they make easy targets for POV-pushers like Bob Rayner. I had hoped to avoid bringing this up; but I've been dealing almost single-handedly with his deletions and bad-faith editorials for three years now. Please help if you can.

Thank You. Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You were just warned for edit-warring whilst logged out, then you stalked me, reverting all my edits? Oh dear.

I think this edit speaks for itself. No doubt there are some people who really want to believe what INDEC says, but umpteen reliable independent sources say that it's wrong. Calling anybody who disagrees with you a "vandal" won't change that. Hammering the revert button won't change it either. On wikipedia, we should follow what reliable sources say, and the sooner you stop reverting - or have the ability removed - the sooner articles about the economy of Argentina will reflect reliable sources. And when other editors warn you for systematic copyright violations, writing it off as "garbage" is not a good move either. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• To me this appears to be a dispute on which sources are more reliable. Sherlock4000 seems to favor the Argentina government figures, while saying the Economist is unreliable. bobrayner seems to be saying the Economist is reliable but the Argentina government is not. I would suggest you both discuss this at the thread that bobrayner opened up here:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#INDEC and if you get consensus there and if whichever one of you is not on the consensus side continues to add non reliable sources, then you come back here. Can you, Sherlock4000, point to a prior WP:RSN consensus decision on this that I might have missed? --Obsidi (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• There has certainly never been an RSN thread which supported the use of INDEC. However, although that's near the heart of our disagreement, the problem does cover more than just reliable sources; Sherlock4000 has some problems with stalking, personal attacks, and copyright too. bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Obsidi. Regarding his INDEC edits, he not only added editorials whose bias and unsuitability as RS speaks for itself ("Don't Lie to me Argentina" by the opinion magazine the Economist!?), added nothing that wasn't already under the Controversy section of the article. Besides being argumentative at best, he's blatantly trying to give controversies undue weight, while the "sources" themselves were mostly mere editorials and added nothing to what was already there.

Then there are these two gems of the world of bias ([181]}} and [182]), which Bob pushes constantly just to trumpet your personal view that the renationalization of YPF was just to create a "feeding trough for her political cronies" and a "symptom of weak government institutions." You know, the only other time I recall another editor noticing this, it was to warn him that he was parading op-eds as fact and that the opinions of a random Economist correspondent do not meet notability guidelines and cannot be presented as fact. These types of opinion piece were usually added, by the way, while deleting mention of real-life news - and so often I've lost count.

Then there's the question of the mass deletions, like here. Whether or not you think the data is reliable is no reason to arbitrarily delete them; in the U.S. for example it's widely believed that consumer price inflation is understated as well, but that doesn't give editors the right to delete EVERYTHING the BEA publishes (even completely unrelated things, like import and export percentages, as you've done in this case). I might add that where there has been controversy (mainly regarding inflation data) I took care to add notes to that effect.

Finally, I should add that, as Bob knows very well, I was not edit-warring while logged out, since to do that I would have had to been using BOTH ip address AND a log on while involved in the same series of edit reverts.

Considering all this, Bob, it would seem that you have a real problem making constructive, neutral additions to anything having to do with Argentina - particularly on economics-related articles. Again, I hate bothering others with things like this; but this has been going on since at least 2012, and I no longer think it would ever stop unless I brought this up to someone's attention.

Thanks, and all the best. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so your not arguing the economist is not a reliable source, just that he is using the economist blog articles as facts in WP voice. That I can more understand. You guys can dispute the reliability of the Argentina government over at WP:RSN. bobrayner can you please not source the economist blog entries as fact (those that are under the /blogs/ url)? (you are free to source them like any WP:NEWSBLOG though with attribution). But I am not willing to say he should be sanctioned at this time, especially when I see edits like this by you Sherlock4000: [183] This appears to be sourced by a non-blog economist article (along with a variety of other sources). Both of you need to be more careful about your sourcing from what I can see. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's basically it, thank you - and it's been going on for OVER TWO YEARS. I might add that the edit you pointed to (#107) was mostly the moving of the reliability controversy (not deleting it) to the "Controversy" section within the INDEC article, since Bob slapped it on the lead in an attempt to give it undue weight. The little editorial he added at the bottom of the article is also gratuitous, frankly, as well as repititious, as it just restates what had already been belabored in the Controversy section without adding anything new. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, The Economist is a respected and most definitively reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly just the Economist. For instance, this is an impeccably reliable source, published by a university press; there's also the IMF and the WSJ and the FT and so on; but Sherlock4000 automatically reverts. bobrayner (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh my. Can you provide diffs? In any case, best would be to attract eyeballs to these articles using RFCs. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Obsidi and Cwobeel:

It's not that I'm trying to impose INDEC data to the exclusion of any caveats - on the contrary, I've added most of those caveats myself. If you'll look at the history of Renationalization of YPF, you'll see that he's deleting real news while adding opinion pieces - and had done so REPEATEDLY. He's using them as primary sources, but of course they're not proof of anything. These are just some examples: here, here, here, here, and here.

Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, Sherlock4000. When I see an editor using edit summaries on reverts with "Vandal", "removing POV pushing" and other similar, it is a read flag right there. Opinion pieces are not different than "real news" (whatever that means); if properly attributed and if the sources are reliable opinions are 100% usable in articles. You may need to re-read WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the argument at least is lack of proper attribution as an opinion (at least for those that really are actually are marked as blogs and not articles by the economist), and just stated as fact, which they shouldn't do for WP:NEWSBLOG. --Obsidi (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That is easily fixed, instead of "The expropriation is a symptom of weak government institutions", use "According to The Economist, the expropriation is a symptom of weak government institutions." - Cwobeel (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, Cwobeel, because that's a nothing but an editorial - and a very nasty and biased one at that. Whatever objections there were to the renationalization are amply covered in the article; this would just be injecting a biased -and mistaken- op ed that contributes no real-world information at all. Furthermore, it's from an unknown op-ed writer ("R.A."?) and it's predictions (the op ed piece is over two years old) turned out to be dead wrong, since the firm has managed to turn a 6% yearly decline in output up to then into 3% growth in '13 and 15% growth in the first half of this year (something Bob repeatedly tried to delete, btw). Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be biased. And Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth, we are not here to WP:Right great wrongs. Its from a professional at the Economist a respected reliable source. That's good enough. --Obsidi (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock4000, please stop misrepresenting my edits. Hopefully any other editor who takes the time to look deeper into this will see that I've cited more than one Economist article - and other reliable sources too. Writing it all off as one stray "editorial" or an "opinion paper" really isn't going to help, nor does it justify your systematic whitewashing of articles. It's clear to other editors that you and your IPs have been revert-stalking; it's clear that multiple other editors have warned you about copyright problems; and the new trick of claiming that you add caveats even though there are lots of diffs where you and your IPs did no such thing, well, that's the icing on the cake.

I should stop responding to any further comments by Sherlock4000 or their IPs here, since engaging is just going to increase the drama. bobrayner (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Bob. Good night. Obsidi, whether or not such editorials are reliable material is frankly dubious - especially since they're injecting no facts, just invective and someone's wishful thinking. What Bob's been adding -and on the lead, I might add, for maximum undue weight- are just someone's opinions, though, because those op eds rarely if ever had anything factual to contribute (certainly not the ones he used in Renationalization of YPF). He certainly has no problem deleting what Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote ([184]). Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You came here to accuse other editors, but from what I see is that you may be the problematic editor. WP:BOOMERANG indeed. Heed the advice given here, and play nice. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How so, Cwobeel - because Bob goes on about how he can't be bothered to reply? How did I insult him? He insults everyone by wasting everyone's time FOR TWO YEARS with his pet op eds about "feeding troughs" and someone's wishful thinking that buying back a badly-run company is "renationalizing their way to poverty". They turned it around in just two years!

Such edits contribute nothing factual, useful, or in any way accurate to the article at all, and in fact inject notions that fly in the face of real-world results. More so because he's trying to tack them onto the lead, for maximum effect. Sherlock4000 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Bobrayner has been disruptive when it comes to other articles as well, especially regarding Boris Malagurski-related and Yugoslavia-related articles. So, it's no surprise that he's disruptive when it comes to other articles as well. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't helpful (and borderline WP:WIKIHOUNDING). --Obsidi (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

2 admins fighting each other

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.

---

Urgent help or intervention is needed here. Two admins, User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:TParis, are fighting each other and it's about to get heated up. I have never seen admins argue with each other before. I guess admins are not perfect afterall. 208.54.38.223 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 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.

Long-term copyright concerns: User:Light 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.

---

• Light show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1

This user, formerly known as Wikiwatcher1, has been under a WP:CCI investigation since April 2012 for questionable file uploads and has been indefinitely blocked on Commons since 30 November 2013 (after having been previously blocked in August 2012 for the same problem under his old account). An RFC/U in October 2012 failed to gain enough participation to read consensus. Multiple discussion at WP:MCQ have floated concerns, from diverse users: User:Ww2censor, User:Howcheng, User:Masem, User:We hope, User:Crisco 1492, User:TheFeds, User:Quadell, (8/2013, 12/2013 - there may be and probably are more) including repeated cautions that care must be taken in uploading images. He was advised by one of the WMF attorney that for us to be certain of copyright he needs to verify on upload whether an image contained a copyright notice, how the exact image was released, and whether the release was "general" or "limited". He's been told by community repeatedly that he must upload both front and back of an image to demonstrate that there was no copyright notice. Yet he continues uploading images that consume community time and resources in evaluation and that are questionable in copyright status determination - see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_October_5#File:Anne_Bancroft_-_1955.JPG (deleted image was uploaded in 9/2014) - and see file:Anne_Bancroft_-_1964.jpg, uploaded without back (so that no assertion can be made regarding copyright); File:Don Murray 1956.JPG, very clear copyright notice cropped out (no information on how he determined that it was not renewed); File:Larry_Parks_1950.jpg, what could potentially be a copyright notice, cropped; File:Rosemary_Clooney_1954.jpg, very clear copyright notice cropped out (no information on how he determined that it was not renewed). He has uploaded many good images, but has never seemed willing to do the due diligence or exercise the necessary caution in image work. His deleted edit count for the file namespace has well over 1,000 edits. I'm not sure how many files deleted that represents; somebody with a tool might count - some of those files may have been moved to Commons before they began deleting them there, but he clearly has had the same issues for years: see this 2009 example). No efforts to get this user to improve his documentation practices seem to have worked. I am at a loss for what to suggest, unless it's that we ask him to stop uploading images (thereby losing the good images he does upload) or stop bothering with the ones that maybe aren't so good. Other contributors shouldn't have to waste their time cleaning up after somebody who isn't interested in changing his documentation processes. Bringing it here for other input. Please help. (Lots of notifications to follow, although "ping" may do its job while I'm doing so.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support ban on image uploading. Light Show has continued to try to fall back on the highly generalized argument that promotion photos/stills from that era were frequently not marked to match copyright, which, while I don't doubt is true, clearly does not extent to all such images, and why we need proof positive that there's no such markings, moreso from someone that has been under copyright investigations. WP's concept for free images is based on positive affirmation that the image is in the free, otherwise assuming non-free, and Light show's approach and assumptions atop past behavior does not support this. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Support ban on uploads, per the above and per competence is required. It sounds to me as though the user's good contributions are outweighed by the amount of community time it takes to verify their submissions, and many editors have made an effort to get the editor to improve. If we're at the point that the WMF's lawyers have spoken to the user and they still won't change, we basically have no choice but to ban the user from uploading images. Ivanvector (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Ivanvector. :) I want to be sure that's clear, though - the attorney feedback was given in response to a question about how to determine if a publicity still is public domain when the CCI was requested. Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikiwatcher1#Attorney_reply --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I went and had a look at the CCI after I posted my comment. Like you said, the legal team gave feedback on specific criteria for due diligence, and the user was given instructions (per Moonriddengirl above, to upload front and back, etc.), not by the lawyers but by the community, and the user has not followed those instructions if I'm reading Moonriddengirl's discussion above correctly. It seems the user has good intentions but has tunnel-vision when it comes to copyright law, and this creates more work for everyone to double-check all of their contributions. The CCI itself lists hundreds of possibly non-free contribs from this user. That's too much. Ivanvector (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Our last visit to this subject was at MCQ in June of this year. I was ready to support a topic ban then and am supporting it now. The editor's practices haven't changed. Just about every 6 months, he complains at MCQ that copyright regulations are being ignored at WP. Have never seen anyone agree with his position; everyone tries telling him (again) what the rules for the projects are and he proceeds to tell all of us that we're wrong and he's the only one who is right. I've nominated many of his uploads here at PUF and at Commons DR. Even with the Commons block and possible topic ban here, sorry to say, I believe many more both here and at Commons are questionable. We hope (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on image uploading. After reading through the last MCQ thread, I can't clearly tell if Light show is unwilling or unable to understand copyright and NFCC policies—either way, they ought not be uploading anything at all. This has already taken way to much community time. --Laser brain (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I've repeatedly been engaged with this editor, mostly at Commons, over similar issues, and they're now under a Commons ban for refusing to comply with very basic requirements. Aside from the notice problems that Moonriddengirl describes, Wikiwatcher just doesn't appreciate the importance of establishing the date and place of first publication -- or even the basic fact of publication. I've found, as I recall, images marked only for UK distribution as published in the US; images with no evidence of publication uploaded with unsupported publication dates (most egregiously, taken from ebay listings reporting the images came from collections of mostly unpublished photos); and older images taken from recent books with claims, unsupported by evidence, that the images were published in the year they were taken. Light show/Wikiwatcher, underneath it all, doesn't accept the need to provide convincing evidence that each image they upload meets Wikipedia's requirements for showing that an image is free for use and reuse -- instead, they've argued, over and over and over, that because many "publicity" photos have ended up as free, all publicity photos should be treated as free unless proven otherwise. The amount of work that other editors have been forced to do because LS/Ww1 doesn't accept reasonable, accurate community standards is just too great. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Images like these although seemingly harmless really should have been looked into more first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: While there is an implication that WP does respect U.S. copyright law, it's only in so far as it's useful to attack the uploads, not support them. The U.S. attorney who replied to the CCI said: It is likely that promotional materials, including production stills or posters released to promote a movie, released before 1978 are in the public domain. The questions they said should be answered were, 1) Did the image contain a copyright notice? 2) How was the exact image released? and 3) Was the image release “general” or “limited?” And one way or the other all those questions have been answered for my uploads. Question #2, which you guys never seem to understand, is that a publicity photo is released en masse to the media. And during the CCI, at least one experienced editor did the research and commented, After seeing what Wikiwatcher1 has said here and reviewing some of the deleted images, I think most of their images are probably okay and were deleted too hastily.

MRG wrote that I "never seemed willing to do the due diligence or exercise the necessary caution." Never? C'mon. The comment about Bancroft not showing the back, when it's 100% clear that any notice would be printed on the front, along with all the other details, is incorrect. The comment about Murray's photo, which showed the uncropped version and no copyright was found with a simple search, is wrong. Likewise, Larry Parks' photo, which had all image details printed on the front, doesn't need the back. And no, the copyright notice on Rosemary Clooney was not cropped out. As stated, there was no registered renewal per a simple 1-minute search.

The essence of the problem in my opinion is that the image deletionist editors, primarily We Hope, are not too concerned with U.S. copyright law and really feel it's almost irrelevant with regard to photos. I posted a comment about that last year. The topic is strange, or worrisome, because WP relies on U.S. copyright laws in its tagging system. However, the editors who keep attacking the uploads go by EU or UK law.

Hence, Masem, considers well established U.S. copyright law as not much more than a "generalized argument," ignoring the experts at Film still. Fastily, who blocked me at the Commons, deleted an image that I said I had in my possession, and would upload a scan of the back if needed. Result: deleted, There is no evidence presented to substantiate this (probably false) PD claim. Another non-U.S. Commons editor, deleted an image that showed the front and back, because of insufficient information to verify no notice claim. Another Commons editor mass deleted images on two occasions, with no rational, no tags, no warning, no notices, no questions, nothing. All deleted with no explanation. Another Commons editor who has deleted around a hundred PD images, mostly from the 1930s to 1950s, with no copyright notice, expects the impossible: Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons.

We Hope has caused the deletion of hundreds of valid PD images simply because he chose to ignore published Copyfraud violations by Corbis, who puts a notice on all their web site images, 99.99% of which they don't own. When I explained to him with legal support that the Corbis copyright notices are bogus, he simply says he doesn't care and stands by the deletions. He has deleted an unknown number of images by relying on erroneous copyrights, as when they continually rely on a motion picture copyright instead of photographic image copyrights, which are totally different. I tried to explain that to him on a few occasions, as recently as last March on their talk page. Response? None, he simply deletes my comments. He again used that same erroneous reason for tagging another Anne Bancroft image last month, which got deleted anyway without reason. Whatever We Hope tags gets deleted.

Obviously, I take copyright law very seriously. I took a year of copyright at Boalt and still have a stack of copyright books. I was doing photography professionally for newspapers and magazines back in high school and college for income. I've since consulted with copyright attorneys about various matters over the years, including Google's early attorney. And since, IMO, the attorney you've contacted about this does not specialize in copyright, I'd be happy to reimburse WP if they want to find one that does to get their opinions about all this. If you want me to find one and forward their opinions, that's OK also. Your option. I've pretty much stopped uploading any non-U.S. images because of all the hullabaloo, but for U.S. images it should help clear things up. I hope We Hope is up for the task of restoring 400-500 images if the copyright attorney says they were fine. If you want me to stop uploading photos pending a copyright attorney's opinions, let me know. No problem. However, if you want me to agree that U.S. copyright law is irrelevant, that will be a problem. --Light show (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Labeling an image that would be non-free as free incorrectly/without sufficient evidence is akin to letting the genie out of the bottle - you can't get it back in, and creates a legal problem for Wikipedia. (The reverse, however, labeling a free image as non-free mistakenly, is not an issue). Hence why we (both en.wiki and commons) require proof positive of an image being in the PD rather than an assumption. It is likely true the majority of film stills are in the PD due to lack of notice, but that's an assumption we cannot safely rest on given there do appear to be limited number that have this. This has been pointed out several times to you and you've chosen to ignore the advice and guidelines set, repeating the same thing about copyright law before, but clearly not understanding we are purposely stricter than that to drive free content generation and to avoid legal hassles; as such, the ban against uploading is easily warranted. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. WP "requires proof positive of an image being in the PD rather than an assumption." But the proof of copyright is very clear, and there is no room for assumptions. If a noted expert on the subject states, Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted, that's a fact for reference. But the proof required is always based on the original photo, with nothing assumed.

However, if this entire discussion is because some photos did not show the reverse, then please make that clearer. I've been complying with that new rule for a long time, and the few times I've skipped it is when, like in my recent uploads, the copyright notice was on the front but was not renewed, or the image info was fully printed on the front without a copyright. But if you want even those to show the back, fine. Just let me know. --Light show (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban after reading the tirade above. Your education and your attorney's opinion have no bearing on policy here. Dennis - 2¢ 01:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per above. Thomas.W ^talk 11:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban per Fallacy of the undistributed middle. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on image uploads. Copyright law is no place for guesswork or assumptions. Clean-up places a huge burden on the community. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support I've dealt with WW1/LS in connection with the CCI and other image issues. Enough is enough. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 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.

Long-time disruptive editor User:Alexyflemming resorts to trolling

Scroll down to Though I am not an artist to inquiry to artistic value ... here (diffs: [185], [186], [187]). After User:TU-nor offers genuine advice about how to improve the picture on the sidebar, he responds with mockery. This user has a history of disrupting anything to do with Cyprus. I don't even know where to start. Here is where he's persistently falsifying a source. Here is where he rants on about Armenians and Greeks unprovoked. Here is where he admits to OR, but insists on adding his imaginative map to the article. And this is but a sample. I think people have already wasted plenty enough time trying to prevent his harming the encyclopaedia; simply, this adds insult to injury. I don't know what, but something should be done. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I support the assertions of the IP editor. Wherever Alexyflemming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits, editors have to be close by to correct or delete the POV of his edits. My recent AE report on him got rejected due to an ARBMAC clarification by Arbcom on its applicability on Cyprus-related issues. I have linked to it here because it has a variety of links which show the longterm disruption this user has engaged in. Recently he hijacked the talkpage of Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia with loud walls of text supporting the edits of blocked sock Gasmonitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and trying to push an OR map that he made which by the way has the filename File:UK SBA EEZ.png as compared to Gasmonitor's File:UK SBA EEA.png which was deleted, please see Gasmonitor's talkpage. He also comments in external forums  :

  Alexy flemmings • 12 hours ago Greedy Greek Cypriots think that they can steal the natural gas and oil of BOTH Englishs and Turks.They will awaken from their dreams very soon!

and then uses the forum as a source in the discussion. There are many more diffs available for personal attacks, POV edits, OR, SYNTH, you name it, but I would like to avoid overloading the reader. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "My recent AE report on him got rejected due to..."
  

Then why are you still holding the stick in your hand, WP:DROPTHESTICK.

From WP:DROPTHESTICK page:

If you have "lost" – sorry, hard luck. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't actually "win" because of... whatever.

Recently he hijacked the talkpage of Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia...

Discussing an issue in Talk page with other Wiki users is "hijacking" since when?

and trying to push an OR map

Discussing an issue in Talk page with other Wiki users is "try to push an OR" since when?

Gasmonitor's File:UK SBA EEA.png

Do you know UK is the abbreviation of United kingdom (very frequently used), SBA is the abbreviation of Sovereign Base Areas (very frequently used), ... If that user used EEA for Exclusive Economic "Zone", i.e. "A" for Zone, then definitely he would be incapable one since "EEZ" and "Exclusive Economic Zone" is the official standard names.

He also comments in external forums

We are in Wikipedia! To justify yourself, please use only the edits in Wikipedia. Do not travel the whole internet!

There are many more diffs available for personal attacks, POV edits, OR, SYNTH

See below to find the diff in which you said "Silly" to me! Look at also for your History Distortions part below.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am not sure if user Alexyflemming is indeed trolling. I have recently clashed with the filing party of some north/south Cyprus related issues. And in that, I noticed a severe preference from mr. IP for the Greek names of human settlements now in the remit of Northern Cyprus. I plain disagree with the accusation that Dr.K is an "Very Obsessive Editor" as he is clearly trying to calm down mr. IP. The Banner talk 10:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do provide diffs for this 'severe preference' and my needing to be calmed down. I can provide plenty diffs where you keep doing things you can't substantiate. Refuse to perform a technical move from Port of Gemikonagi, Lefke Cyprus to Port of Gemikonagi 'cause it'd 'complicate [the] procedures' of a merge proposal, but then proceed to move the destination page without discussing it with anyone? Check. Attempt to pass if off as a revert? Check. Crumble to pressure when asked about it and accuse me of bias simply 'cause my IP is in south Cyprus? Check. Revert my edits without explanation? Check check check. Now, please stop spouting nonsense. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Do not downgrade the comments and posts of other Wiki users like spouting nonsense. You are new to Wikipedia. I am here since 2010. Be respectful to every Wikipedian whether they are agree or not with you! Alexyflemming (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'll speak my mind when I'm being denigrated. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Alexyflemming: You, talking about being respectful to other users? Remember your message on my talkpage?: Armenians said billions of times "genocide" since 1915 just as Greek Cypriots say billions of times "invasion" since 1974 and I said One can bury his head in the sand like an ostrich till the hunter (truth) faces him.. Please, transmit my this message to GC fanatics (perhaps you may know some of them) along with USA Federal Court decision so that they can take their heads out of sands. And this is just one of your many personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dear 213.7.147.34, here, a Wikipedian disagreed with you. He has the right to do so. I cannot imagine what you will respond to him if he said "silly", "paid supporter", etc. to you! You must learn the enduring and stomaching the criticism of other Wiki users. You must even protect your common sense in the case you are insulted. Do you know that even when I am said "silly", "paid supporter", etc. from disrespectful Wiki users, I still protected my common sense? You being very new to Wikipedia does not justify your behaviors of this kind!Alexyflemming (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• And here is where The Banner introduces a redirect from the anglicised Turkish name for Karavostasi, even after his move was reverted, saying it's a 'correction'. He's either having difficulty practising diligence, or he's being very WP:POINTy indeed. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think ALexyflemming is trolling, but he's definitely out on a mission and not here to build an encyclopaedia, as I noticed in a recent discussion I had with him on Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia, an article where he was edit-warring to get a self-made very POV and totally OR/SYNTH map into the article. Thomas.W ^talk 11:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't know what you want to call this, but I though trolling was apt. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Though I am not an artist to inquiry to artistic value of the painting, I thought that there may be some Greeks who will not enjoy that as@ in such a main template. Any idea? As@ is in the center. Full balance! If a Turkish Cypriot put it there for devilment, shame on him...Alexyflemming (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

…

If I were (in place of) Greek Cypriots, I would not put that mosaic. I am sure the Helen culture in the Cyprus island has more artistic mosaics than this one. If they regard that especially that mosaic represent their History better, then that is their business, of course.Alexyflemming (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thomas.W, what is more natural than Wiki users may think differently in things in discussion. What you call as edit-warring to get a self-made very POV and totally OR/SYNTH may be really so, may be not. But, does this justify the use of the insulting swearing words towards other Wiki users (Dr.K. said "silly" to me, Neo ^ said "paid supporter" to me)?Alexyflemming (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your constant POV-pushing and the walls of strangely formatted text with odd indentation you add everywhere, combined with your total inability, or unwillingness, to listen to others, make other editors frustrated. Besides, neither "silly" nor "paid editor" are swearwords. Thomas.W ^talk 12:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Does this make us have to approach the usage of "silly", "paid supporter", etc. as something very normal? I want to emphasize the importance of politeness. Look what IP213 wrote above: "I'll speak my mind when I'm being denigrated" to justify his usage of "spouting nonsense". This is what I wanna say and show. People must approach respectfully to each other even in the cases where they strongly opposes each other! "Silly", "paid supporter", "spouting nonsense", etc.. If we (the Wikipedians for more than 5 years in WP) do not do this, who will do it... Alexyflemming (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Respect isn't confined to abstaining from uttering fairly innocuous non-curses. Do you think derailing discussions by refusing to follow talk guidelines when you've been told many times not to is respectful? Do you think edit-warring over the inclusion of a quote you've falsified across ten or so articles is respectful? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• After User:TU-nor offers genuine advice about how to improve the picture on the sidebar, he responds with mockery:
  

Read the responses given very carefully. Read what I wrote: "If a Turkish Cypriot put it there for devilment, shame on him". I considered a Turkish Cypriot might put it there. Hence, I requested TU-nor to check it. There is no mockery.

This user has a history of disrupting anything to do with Cyprus:

You are just describing yourself! There was a very determining single "case action" part in "Cyprus dispute" Wiki article since 2011. Once Greek Cypriots lost the case in October 2014, You (IP213) immediately removed it without any consensus! Even though you also edited the very same case action part, you eventually noticed that it is in no way to the good of Greek Cypriots and removed it!. That said, you (IP31) and Dr.K. removed the decision of the USA Federal Court from Northern Cyprus article as well though there are strict objections from other wiki users (Alexikoua, [[[User Talk:MelbourneStar|MelbourneStar]])). This is not the way we do things in WP: Record whatever good for Greeks, delete whatever existed against them. Digest every good and bad things and accept them to be written in Wikipedia.

Here is where he admits to OR, but insists on adding his imaginative map to the article:

Who admits OR? Do not put the words into my mouth that I did not say. I even showed another map related with the article. That map was drawn according to international treaty btw Rep. of Cyprus and UK.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I wrote "If a Turkish Cypriot put it there for devilment, shame on him". IP31, you are putting the words into my mouth that I did not say, and removing some parts (here: "for devilment") of my words to justify yourself! When you bring a case here, reflect everything as they are!Alexyflemming (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight, you think a Turkish Cypriot might've put that mosaic there to spite Greek Cypriots because the mosaic depicts a bum? Words fail me. No, nobody is this stupid. You're trolling. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Do not hide my relevant posts, and do not bring here whatever suits you! Read, read, read carefully what I wrote:
  

If I were (in place of) Greek Cypriots, I would not put that mosaic. I am sure the Helen culture in the Cyprus island has more artistic mosaics than this one. If they regard that especially that mosaic represent their History better, then that is their business, of course.

(with edit summary: "If Greek Cypriots regard that especially that mosaic represent their History better, then that is their business, of course").Alexyflemming (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Giver their record and their apparent unrepentance, I suggest that Alexyflemming is banned indefinitely from editing any page remotely concerned with the island of Cyprus. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A counter proposal would be to serve you with the same type of topic ban for the same reasons. The Banner talk 17:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have any specific examples against this editor, please provide them in diffs, but I don't think you have followed the IP editor's contributions carefully. He is a neutral editor who has come to my talk to correct the opposing to Alexyflemming POV of other editors on the article of EOKAB. He has, in consensus with other editors, corrected the disruption of the Alexyflemming SPA many times. He has also contributed greatly to Cypriot municipal onomatology and he has done a lot of work in that field. He is an expert and Wikipedia needs editors like him/her. He needs congratulations not a topic ban. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Very Obsessive Editor User:Dr.K. and His Continuous POV edits

I know User:Dr.K. since 2010. He is older than me in WP. Though that I observed various his misbehaviours in various ways. He continuously struggled to block me. I think the reason is my neutral and objective stance on Cyprus dispute and related articles. As far as I see, I am not the only Wiki user who faces this behavior from him. He forgets very important and inevitable rules of Wikipedia. I will give this rules in order in the following and then I will list my related proofs.
1. Wiki users must be polite towards each other in discussions and talks irrespective of our thoughts and ideas.
User:Dr.K. frequently omits this simple rule, and frequently uses impolite language whenever he sees a Wiki user that thinks opposite to him.
User:Dr.K. said "silly" to me! Even though this, I protected my common sense, and did not use any offensive language towards him (Language reflects people!). Later, he apologized from me. But, then again he used "silly" towards my thoughts and idea in my posts. I again protected my common sense.
2. Dr.K. sees me as an "enemy" and acts very offensively:
Dr.K. tried to block me for the first time in 2014 January and his baseless claims were all rejected.
Dr.K. tried to block me infinitely many times. I forgotten its number! (The content of the diff of this link is below; see the obsession.)

Dr. K.'s Infinite Efforts to Block Me Never Stopped:

You continuously and insistingly accuse me to be sockpuppettry of some other man.}} Dr. K., you say "Nobody agrees with you". To become modest and humble in this world is not a bad thing, is it?. Are you everybody? You seem to see yourself as everybody. Proof: See this page above: I am talking with T*U, and saying him "...You seem to miss this point...". You (Dr. K.) reply "...He is not missing any point...". You put yourself to the T*U's place. Are you T*U? Don't T*U have any mind and thought to reply me? Perhaps, T*U may disprove my thoughts and arguments better than you. If you put yourself to the place of everybody in Wiki world, then definitely your "Nobody agrees with you" makes sense! It is fair not to insult others who do not share your opinions, isn't it so? Did you look every Article/Talk Page of Wikipedia I edited? I have countless edits in Wikipedia (more than 60 Wikipedia pages, more than 200 different topics, since 2010). Though it is a fact that there are many Wikipedians who opposes me, there are many supporters as well (not closing the eyes suffices to see this). walls of text: You already accused me with this phrase, and many many others. Remember: See: your 10 edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&action=history You accused me almost everything (you embellished your accusations with almost all sort of spices): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=592725296&oldid=524695112 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725296 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725419 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725546 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592725698 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592726502 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592727227 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592727548 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592734707 Then, against your non-stopping and countless accusations, I even feared that someone else may block me without my disproving your claims. Fortunately, some Wikipedians acting with common sense and prudence, allowed me enough time to reply your millions of accusations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592735526 I replied to your countless accusations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592766108 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592771272 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592772379 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592773832 After my above defence, you continued to attack me with your new claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592780998 Against your new further accusations, I defended myself (look the edit summary: Further accusations and further proofs): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592796962 Wikipedia authorities analyzed both your accusations and my defence. And, your claims found to be inconvincing. The case was closed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=next&oldid=592803341 I hoped you would stop your sockpuppetrry accusations towards me; I hoped you stop insults to me. You continued to your accusations whereever you find: here are the places you accused me: User talk:Lfdder, Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots These are your edits in User talk:Lfdder: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=594339462&oldid=594339422 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594339249 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594335726 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lfdder&diff=prev&oldid=594280016 These are your edits in Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots: "As far as the invasion being legal that's what multiple socks of Justice Forever kept saying" : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594443187&oldid=594422649 ). "This is the usual MO of this user. Constant arguments which defy various Wikipedia policies including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and in this case WP:COMMONNAME. Remarkably, the arguments used, reflect faithfully the historical arguments of Justice Forever and his many socks. It is getting disruptive": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_exchange_between_Greek_and_Turkish_Cypriots&diff=594533973&oldid=594531437 I kindly alerted you that the place of sockpuppetrry accusations are not the Talk pages of articles or Talk pages of other Wikipedians. I alerted you to make such accusations in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexyflemming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever Furthermore, I think most importantly of all, you are building and collecting "proofs" (in quotation!) from various places and various arguements to use against me in directing me a new sockpuppettry accusation. You even highlight them with different color and text style like (I collected your embellished text from various places): shows sharp and constant decline in 1979 when Greece's highest court qualified the 1974 event as "legal" and "intervention". To justify yourself in your difficult edits about Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue, you are almost always referring to the opposers of your edits by accusing all of them to be a sockpuppettry of justice forever. Strange coincidence, isn't it? By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people. What does all of these efforts, countless accusations, insults show? OBSESSION! OBSESSION! (By the way, since my academic career, I had a break in my Wikipedia during 2011-2013; defending towards your numerous accusations and insults, I remembered and learnt Wikipedia syntax a little further. Though there are myriad things I have to learn: you are accusing me WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COMMONNAME-violations. You enlighten me what I should deeply learn next!)Alexyflemming (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

3. In their last effort, Dr.K. and (some Wiki users with no Wiki username but only IPs) tried to block me with the pretext of "violation of 3RR". Although they are the violators of 3RR, I was blocked! During my blocking period, they continued to insult with every word they think. They even said "paid supporter" to me!
4. Dr.K. does not like me since I reveal his distortions to the history:
a. (09.02.2014) "hiding the name of the principal initiator of that war";
Dr.Κ.: "The term "1974 Cyprus War" is misleading because it hides the name of the principal initiator of that war, which is Turkey"

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

Look at what you wrote a couple of lines below: Britannica: In July 1974 the Greek Cypriot National Guard, whose officers were mainland Greeks, atempted a coup, planned by the ruling military junta in Athens, to achieve enosis.. Hence, you disprove yourself your "hiding principal initiator" arguement. Notice that, almost whatever is handled in Cyprus dispute, there is some degree of bias just as your new "principal initiator" arguement. It should be Wikipedia's neutrality aim to be free from this conflict of interests. Also, 15.07.1974, Coup and declaration of "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", 19.07.1974, Makarios' speech at UN SG: "Cyprus invaded by Greece", 20.07.1974, Turkey's meddling. Are 15.07.1974 and 19.07.1974 not preceding 20.07.1974? Are "coup", "Declaration of Hellenic Republic of Cyprus", "Enosis (union with Greece)", "Makarios(1st President of Cyprus, in UN SC meeting): "Cyprus was invaded by Greece"" not initiator for a war? The facts: 20.07.1974 (I-day): Turkey's military operation to Cyprus. 19.07.1974 (just 1 day before I-day): Makarios, 1st president of Cyprus, a Greek Cypriot, on United Nations Security Council Meeting: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece" 17.07.1974 (3 days before I-day): Nicos Sampson: "I declare "Hellenic Republic of Cyprus"" 15.07.1974 (5 days before I-day): Nicos Sampson finished Makarios with a coup."

b. (03.03.2014) island nation of Cyprus;
Dr.Κ.: "Historically, the island and the island nation of Cyprus have been considered to be the same."

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

When one mentions a certain people as a nation, there appears at least one dominant character (religion, ethnicity, language, culture, etc.) in that people. What is the religion, ethnicity, language, culture of this "the" island "nation" pre-1571 and post 1571? Forget experts even beginners know that there is no "the" "nation" in Cyprus island. Pre-1571 it was "CatholicChristian/OrthodoxChristian", "Frankish&Italian/GreekCypriot", "Latin/Greek", "Latin/Helen"; post-1571 it was "Islam/OrthodoxChristian", "Turk/Greek", "Turkish/Greek", "Turk/Helen". There occurred lots of conflicts, struggles and wars for the last millennium within the people of Cyprus island since the people of Cyprus island is not a "nation". This "the" island "nation" injection of bias/pre-conditioning is rather a merit of a politician, not a fair Wikipedian. As an expert, I want to redirect you to Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus, you know): This way, Makarios (1st President of Rep. of Cyprus) emphasized the absence of "the" "nation" of Cyprus island!: Makarios:"Donkeys: the only true Cypriots on Cyprus" Makarios: "Donkeys: the only true Cypriots on Cyprus" Makarios:"There's only one living Cypriot in Cyprus and that is the Cypriot donkey"

c. (03.11.2014) "forcible eviction".
Dr.Κ.: ""Northern Cyprus" ....is the result of forcible population evictions".

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

Locations of orthodox Greek Cypriots and catholic Maronite Cypriots who chose to stay in north of Cyprus in 1975 and are still living in north of Cyprus in 2014 Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Greek Cypriots in Agios Andronikos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Greek Cypriots in Agia Triada chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Maronites in Asomatos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Maronites in Karpasia chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Maronites in Kormakitis chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Turkish Cypriots in Lemmossol chose to stay in southern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Cyprus in 2014. All the rest chose voluntarily to switch the sides in 1975 according to "Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement on 02.08.1975" between Turkish and Greek Cypriots (Third Vienna Agreement) under the auspices of United Nations. i.e. if all of the Greek Cypriots in Kyrenia had chosen to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and all of them now would be living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Since this is so, the Greek Cypriots (who want to return Northern Cyprus) were/are/will be always rejected wherever they go: USA Federal Court (09.10.2014): "..Greek Cypriots CANNOT CLAIM here that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots...." The news of the decision of the Court: (13.10.2014): http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm The website of the case of the Court: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002 The decision of the Court.....: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 NOTE: Previously, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected Greek Cypriots' request to return Northern Cyprus. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (27.05.2010): (Tasos Asproftas: [Application no. 16079/90] and Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90]): “The houses which the Greek Cypriots left in North Cyprus are not their homes any more because they have lived almost for all their lives in another place and they have no concrete and persisting links with the houses they claimed. Therefore Greek Cypriots have no right to return to the North.” Sources: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Asproftas"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98684"]} http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Petrakidou"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98688"]}

• This is yet another demonstration of the cluelessness and personal attacks toward me, of this editor. He is brought at ANI by another editor, his disruption is demonstrated from the discussion above this section by two other editors, yet he adds another of his useless walls of text, concentrating on me and personally attacking me, using nonsense arguments. This disruption has obviously got to stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the user for long-term disruption. Please see user talk page for more info. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• And Alexyflemming has now posted a 14.3 K "unblock request" that isn't an unblock request, since it doesn't address the reasons for the block, but a further wall of text promoting their POV views. Thomas.W ^talk 21:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• First of his unblock reasons: A. Diannaa, yes, it is "Cyprus", not "Cypress", referring to a typo by Dianna, which she had already corrected before his unblock request. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Alexyflemming keeps a propaganda blog on Disqus. Several of his edits on Wikipedia are items on his blog. For instance the SBA EEZ claims and the US court decision, which he spammed and edit-warred on multiple articles. It seems he tries to import his blog propaganda on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor201503

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.

---

Editor201503 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was blocked just a couple of days ago for vandalism, and since then, he has:

• Change Dwayne Johnson's birthplace to something clearly incorrect
• Added "They will give you give you 666" to Illuminati
• Changed Joel Anthony's school to something clearly wrong and added questionable commentary
• Changed Chris Daughtry's hometown to something different from what's given in the source
• Changed the year Shōta Sometani won an award to the incorrect year

The reason I didn't just go straight to AIV is that he has some other edits that I can still pretend were made in good faith, or at least to maintain the appearance of good faith. They could be accidentally beneficial, as he may not have realized that he was actually improving a page by removing an unsourced and somewhat unnecessary statement, or he could be trying to cover his tracks, or the above acts could just be him not realizing that this is an encyclopedia and that it's best to double check one's facts before changing them.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeffed as a hoaxster that isn't here to contribute.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:43, 5 November 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.

IBAN Violation between User:The Rambling Man against User:Medeis

There's currently an indefinite IBAN between myself and User:The Rambling Man at my repeated request since December 2013, instituted between him, myself and another user with community consensus in Jan 2014.

It's been repeatedly violated. Here's a copy of the evidence emailed to an admin who did not want to be seen as unilaterally defending me from TRM's attacks

(A) I assume you are aware of the IBAN between myself and The Rambling Man. Back in may he violated it by making indirect insulting comments, reverting me on H. R. Giger, and removing a ready tag I had placed at ITN Nominations, see Bishonen's warning at diff 4 below. A few days ago, after cleaning up the article, when there a 10-7 vote in favor of posting the nomination, I marked it ready with a comment that there was good consensus, and the following day marked it attention needed. See diff 3 below. Following my tagging it attention needed and again noting the consensus in the second to the last post, he removed my [attention needed] [Ready] tags with the comment "certainly no clear consensus at all." See diff 2. At that time I contacted Bishonen, but the following day she asked me to get someone else involved for both appearance sake and that she was busy. I was busy too, so I let the matter drop, although I feel on these grounds alone he deserves admonishment and a 24hr block. But again today I made a comment on a different nomination. A respondent indented his response to me, and TRM indented his own response "indeed" agreeing with the person criticizing my opinion. This was obviously no accident. See diff 1 At this time I request TRM be blocked without further warning. There have been various other things going on like reverts and attacks by proxy IP accounts, and repeated comments on other talk pages that repeat previous criticisms by him, but without mentioning my name. I feel like I am dealing with North Korea testing the waters, and know that I would have been summarily blocked had I reverted his addition of tags to a page or commented about him in any way. Thanks for your attention, please let me know if for some reason you need me to take this up in another venue. Medeis (B) Diffs: (1) "indeed" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=631102015&oldid=631101365 (TRM comments agreeing with my critic at ITN vote) (2) "certainly no clear consensus at all" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=630788021&oldid=630787879 (TRM reverts my Ready tag, quoting my comment on consensus) (3) "good consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=630706886&oldid=630706589 (My comments noting consensus, of which he referred to, showing his awareness of who tagged the article) (4) "please be careful and do not skirt the ban further or I'll block you" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=608799381&oldid=608797815 (Bishonen's warning to TRM he be blocked immediately on any further violation, I am quoting it here so you don't need to read the markup) (C) Bishonen's warning to TRM on the later's talk page: Picking at your IBAN TRM, I've seen you making indirect comments directed at Medeis lately. Here, three minutes after they posted this, you added this immediately below. I hope you're not going to tell me that was just a general comment and you didn't mean anybody in particular had been offering half-arsed opinions and pissing in the wind. At ITN, here, you removed Medeis' "Ready" mark and commented on their reasoning for it, immediately underneath. Here, you reverted their removal of a section tag at H. R. Giger. On that one, I might possibly take it as an accidental interaction, but on the other two I really don't see it. As you know, per WP:IBAN you don't get to make reference to or comment on Medeis anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly, nor undo their edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means). Please be more careful and do not attempt to skirt the ban further, or I'll block you. And before you ask, yes, I'm serious. Bishonen | talk 06:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC). Of course, you've warned her too, right, for her "indirect comments" directed clearly at me? No. Once again a perfect demonstration of your one-sided view of this. And sorry, she removed my edits on Giger first. Do me a favour, get someone else to do your edits here as I'm sick of your undying love and defence of her. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC) If there are such edits by Medeis, why don't you tell me about them? I'd appreciate knowing these things. Vague allegations are less useful. Bishonen | talk 06:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC). [This exchange was later deleted by TRM with no response--Medeis] END OF COMPLAINT

Now TRM has challenged me directly to answer him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=632457262&oldid=632457154 I'd like an admin to step in and put an end to this repeated IBAN violation on the part of TRM. I understand TRM is a sysop and an admin, which is bad enough. How do I go about putting and end to his abuse? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Pings are generally not considered sufficient to meet the threshold of notifying someone per the instructions. I've notified them for you.--v/r - TP 20:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, pings don't work unless you sign the post at the same time you ping them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• It's awkward when two ITN regulars have an interaction ban. Have you two usually been avoiding commenting altogether on nominations made by the other? I don't take this particular comment as "directed" at you; TRM appears to be saying it isn't worth posting until there is a conviction; this isn't directly challenging you to respond. If the agreement is to avoid each others' nominations, then this is breaking that agreement; if the agreement is just to not address each other personally, or poke each other with sticks, then I don't think that's what happened here. If the agreement is unclear, then, crap, I guess the community has to waste time fine tuning the wording of an interaction ban because you two can't stand each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Although I'd be the first to say that I'm hardly a neutral admin when it comes to TRM, I'd agree with Floquenbeam that the diff from today is a series of rhetorical questions, not a direct request or challenge for Medeis to answer. All the earlier stuff is, well, much earlier, and no-one's going to block now for violations in May 2014 (even if violations occurred). Bencherlite^Talk 20:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you telling me, Bencherlite, that if I "rhetorically" answer TRM here I won't be blocked? Please be explicit. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The place to discuss ITN candidates is WP:ITNC, as you know, not here. There is no such thing as "rhetorically" answering someone's questions. Bencherlite^Talk 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not about to directly notify any user I have an IBAN with of anything, the last time I did so due to a routine matter of clean-up I was warned I would immediately be blocked the next time I deleted a duplicate ITN nomination. Given these users have apparently been indeed been pinged to this page, I am not sure what else needs be done. And if rhetorical attacks including the pronoun "you" addressing me directly are fine, then will the commenting admin simply remove the IBAN? It's one or the other, no? This is not a new phenomenon. I have had multiple "thank" edits from TRM, have been attacked in may and october, as well as today, personally. Is this whole IBAN just a joke? Should I ignore it, and do as I like, as he does? μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Now you're talking" is a common English expression (in British English, at least - I don't know what primary version of English you use, Medeis) and it doesn't actually refer to you, Medeis - it's an example of the generic you. If I may translate the last part of TRM's comment: "If they were to be found guilty of mass murder, then that would be a more appropriate story for ITN." That's all. Bencherlite^Talk 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• This seems to be an adequate response to something at ITN: it questions the rationale for inclusion, nothing more. There is nothing personal in the comment. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• When I raised the subject of the interaction ban violation on ITN in February, you said "There's basically nothing to address here. I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so. Frankly, I am curious why this matter has even come up." You can't have it both ways. Stephen 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Stephen, I said I was not interested in having TRM banned from making objective commenst without regard to me made about ITN nominatins, yes or no? I never said I was happy to have personal comments made against me, yes or no? I didn't think so. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved." The comment was directed at the nomination, not you. Stephen 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, Medeis asked me about this matter too and I suggested she should take it to AN if she wished something to be done; I told her that I would not unilaterally block in a matter that I'm not familiar enough with. I agree that the "you" here is very much a generic you; if The Rambling Man had been dancing around the edges of the iBan that would have been something, but I don't see that here. I am not aware of any other possible ITN iBan violations, but I am hardly a regular there. I don't think Bishonen has been pinged: ping. It seems to me, however, that if this is the only possible iBan violation, and again, I don't think this was one, that Bishonen's word to the wise was received properly. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll simply take it that the IBAN is nullified. Would I be wrong to do so? μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Three or four editors here seem to disagree with you, yes. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would expect that a community sanctioned IBAN would only be rendered void with community consensus. Blackmane (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment explicitly and clearly. Three to four admins seem to agree that TRM can say what he like, or you were entirely unserious when you said in the quoted material above that you would block TRM immediately if he continued his attacks on me? Do you seriously want me to quote it? μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Three or four admins said that they do not see a violation in TRM's comments. No one says he can say what he likes. And I believe you are confusing me with Bishonen (I find that flattering, but still)--whose comments date back a half a year. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No admin can unilaterally overturn a community sanctioned ban. Even if 4 admins agree that the ban should be rescinded, they would still have to put it up for community consensus. If the community was against the overturning then that is what will happen. If you preemptively presumed that the IBAN was nullified, without this consensus, and violated it, then you would be blocked. As it stands, so far, no one has agreed that TRM has violated the terms of the IBAN, including myself upon reading his comment. "Now you're talking" is a common colloquial English phrase that means "there are grounds for discussion". It is an undirected comment using the subjectless "you". Blackmane (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In September, there were 19 ITN/C threads where TRM and Medeis both posted a comment. This includes 4 times that Medeis commented on a thread that TRM initiated, i.e. the reverse of the scenario mentioned above where TRM comments on a thread Medeis started. In two of those four cases, Medeis included questions as part of his response, i.e. a similar behavior to the kind of questions that Medeis has chosen to object to here. Given that record, I would have to say that either the behavior by both TRM and Medeis is okay, or they are both in the wrong. Personally, I'd lean toward it not being a big deal for them to comment on the same thread, as long as the comments are focused on ITN issues and not specifically directed at each other. That said, if either party really feels strongly that commenting on the same thread or on posts initiated by the other party should be prohibited, then I suppose the community should consider extending the IBAN to cover those cases. Dragons flight (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't that been customarily been a bit of a grey area? If they're discussing content in the same thread but not directly replying to each other. What happens if either reply to another editor who is commenting on something one of them said? Does that rise to an IBAN violation as it's technically commenting on the editor they have an IBAN with indirectly? This is a bit grey. Blackmane (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Medeis is incorrect—is there a problem with English? The diff in the OP which allegedly shows that "TRM has challenged me directly to answer him here" shows nothing of the sort. That has been explained above, and it appears the explanations have been rejected. The diff shows the very sensible and extremely standard point of view, commonly expressed at Wikipedia, that it is not desirable to amplify the arrest of a specific person who is suspected of involvement in the disappearance of 43 college students—Wikipedia should wait until someone has been found guilty of mass murder. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Jravia

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:Jravia is clearly only here for the purposes of self-promotion. So far, the contents of User:Jravia (and also now at User:Jravia/Jitendra Ravia as well) have been subject to an old AFC, two AFDs, a speedy deletion in 2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitendra ravia and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jravia in July 2014. I was the nominator of the last AFD so I'm open to others about speedy deleting this and probably blocking him due to the repeated G4 violations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked & deleted, obviously here to promote himself and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:00, 5 November 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.

Hip Hop Rabbit Hole

Could someone please check this out and take appropriate action. I'm just going out of town and have no time to handle it.

I just deleted Phines "NOP" West. It connects to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phines0001, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phines West, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phines A.H. West. The quotes help recreation of deleted articles, of course.

Phines "NOP" West was worked on/created by User:Johnwilliams000, User:Kellymillezzz, User:Delrayisit.

User:Johnwilliams000 created Joseph "808" Derivé (also worked on by User:Kellymillezzz). The refs that I can check do not seem to go to the subject. Joseph "808" Derivé leads to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Derivé.

Thanks for any help you can provide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's all fake - I can't find any sources to support any of the claims at Joseph "808" Derivé, and I can find resources to refute some. For example, this person is claimed to be the producer of Bad Boys (Alexandra Burke song) (actually produced by The Phantom Boyz) and Loud (Rihanna album) (multiple producers, but not this guy). Some of the works mentioned have had their articles changed to say that Phines/808/Derivé is a producer, but there's no sourcing for it - see [188] [189]. There are lots of Google hits for Phines/808/Derivé but all look to be user-generated and I can find no proper sources. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've requested deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph "808" Derivé Neatsfoot (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted G3 as an obvious hoax. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked all three of the above-mentioned accounts... based on their contributions, the quacking is so loud, I'm surprised that hadn't been done yet. I'm sure there are some sleepers, but I don't think a CU is needed at this time. I'll leave it to someone else to determine if the article Kehlani falls under the purview of WP:CSD#G5. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to deal with these repeated creations of "Phines*West" via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or other sort of pattern-matching protection? --Kinu ^t/_c 16:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Couple of things... First, a filter or blacklist on "Phines" wouldn't really be enough, as the latest hoaxing has switched to 'Joseph "808" Derivé' and '808'. Also, it looks like this has been going on since 2012 - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phines0001/Archive, and that there's an elaborate hoax been developed on a number of internet sites. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Neatsfoot, Black Kite, and Kinu. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:KorinoChikara

Long story short it appears that this user has a stalker after him/her. The user does not understand good English so I would request someone who can possibly speak their language but wanted to bring it here as I have tried to figure out what to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional info: User talk:KorinoChikara. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User is requesting help with the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is their language Danish? I'm trying to figure it out based on their editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

From this older revision of their userpage, they're very likely to be of Nordic extraction. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@JEissfeldt (WMF): making you aware of this as I made a report to ANI and WMF about the same editor yesterday and you were involved. Is there any way Wikipedia can help? 5 albert square (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, is this the right place? I'm really tired but I just want help. I was more or less seperated from people that I really loved and cared about. They were really nice to me, while everyone else acted really mean. I am really sorry for that behaviour, but I can't take it anymore. I can understand what you're saying, but... what is extraction? I do prefer Danish (Norwegian or Swedish is fine too), but I don't know much if people can help me here.. I am aware what I should do to actually help now, but I can't with problems like this. I do have people by my side, but I'm not seeing them... and I really don't have anyone I can say I even like around me. I've always had a really strong distrust to the ones around me right now, and they've all just been overall horrible. I do see someone I talk to usually came online, which is unusual. Maybe they can help me here, I guess. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 03:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, and I know it's a horrible thing to feel hatred for, but I'm tired of it. Why do they keep isolating me? They are treating me like I'm horribly different and weird (and I was perfectly fine with my life up until 2013 or something). I have a girl online who was jealous of me for unjustifiable reasons. She resorted to being mean to me, and I personally think she's trying to destroy me. She made it quite clear. I'm tired of that kind of thing. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 03:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And it may sound really stupid, but when people treat you that way forever and not 1 nice person in "real life", it's quite offensive. Also if it doesn't make much sense my mother and father divorced each other, and I have my father's last name. It's completely different from my mother's and stepfather's. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Im sorry for your hardships but you have to get back on the horse so to speak and move on here. Anyways, I brought this here regarding your comments on your talkpage, will your account be all set here on Wikipedia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is unable to be understood. I have someone stalking after me, trying to destroy everything. They are probably watching now. I can barely live like this, and I'm not wishing to pay attention a lot. I wish I could go back, but I can't. I wish I could send the girl away, but I can't. I wish I could erase the hatred and sadness, but I can't. Not anymore. I'd at the very least like someone able to speak to/for/with me, I don't want people misunderstanding what I say, taking offense to my words (and acting that way too), etc. I wish people would understand the severity, but how am I going to do that if they can't see me or talk with me? --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 03:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@KorinoChikara: Hej Undskyldninger hvis oversættelsen er forkert, men jeg bruger Google Translate som jeg kun taler engelsk! Har du prøvet at tale med din lokale politi?

Above translates as Apologies if the translation is wrong but I am using Google Translate as I only speak English!

Have you tried speaking to your local police? 5 albert square (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations at White Privilege

Could someone please check this for WP:COPYVIO. I removed most of it already once, but it looks to be re-added by a second burner account. Clearly large sections of a book have been cut and pasted as is noted by the inline citations to references within those sections. I don't want to be accused of an edit war. Arzel (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, a look at the recent history shows at least two additional SPA's adding large sections of cut and pasted material. Four editors in the past few days have added such material and this has been their only edits. Arzel (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a copyvio or not. I'll put my faith in you and reject the said inappropriate changes. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 14:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, dammit. Nyttend (talk · contribs) has gone ahead and done it. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 14:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Already handled by me; I don't care if it's a copyright infringement or not, since either it's that or a dump from the IP's self-written essay, and both of those options are inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sssh, use the template, {{ec}} instead. xD --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 14:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Denial of an RfC on proposed General Sanctions

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.

---

• (diff) 10:13, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Turn the debate it into an RfC so that a broader consensus can be sought)
• (diff) 12:27, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (→‎Moving forward: I never put forth an RfC. Don't use my wording with an RfC.)
• (diff) PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• (diff) 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

From the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain

From the history of the page:

• 13:31, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

I don't believer that this section belongs to you! So under what right are you reverting edits made by me? If I create another section for an RfC, opinions will be split over two different sections. This is not fair on people who have already made their opinions clear, and needlessly complicates the RfC, but if you insist I will create a section below this one. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester For someone who is seeking the consensus of the community to bring in some general sanctions, I find it extraordinary that you would not want to include as many people as possible in building that consensus and are trying to block an RfC on the issue!

The RfC does not in any way alter what you have said. It does not imply that you support the RfC, and that is not the issue. Your have twice removed an RfC what the RfC process says is "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." My emphasis. You are free to state under the RfC that you do not support the RfC if you so wish but you are not free to removed it for that reason.

If you will not let me place the RfC banner at the top of this section then I will create a new one at the bottom and I will use you proposed wording because that is for which you are seeking to gain consensus. As I have said it will be inconvenient for those who have already expressed an opinion in this straw poll and could easily lead to confusion, hence the reason I think it better to convert this section into a RfC. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it shows bad faith on your part. It singles my proposal out amongst all other general sanctions proposals, and puts a bureaucratic block in front of it. Not because of any particular policy or guideline, but because of one editor's opposition. You do not have a right to filibuster this proposal, nor do you have a right to unilaterally force bureaucratic measures on it. I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you. I will follow the established procedure for general sanctions proposals. I will not be made to jump through hoops at your behest. If you continue to disrupt this proposal, I will be forced to open a thread at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never been put in a situation before where an editor claims copyright on wording such the proposals for general sanctions to prevent an RfC being held on whether those general sanctions are acceptable to the wider Wikipedia community. But how else is one meant to understand I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you.

I think that the proposed general sanctions are badly drafted because the UK is not defined and potentially covers hundreds of thousands of articles. If one looks at list of general sanctions they are tightly focused on an issue or on a specific area, this proposal is neither. Therefore I think that a decision on whether to impose the sanctions should not be restricted to the dozen or so editors who have expressed an opinion so far.

Now that there is a definite draft I think it should be put to the community via a widely adversed RfC. User:RGloucester had twice reverted my attempts to start an RfC and seems to be determined to continue to do so. I think that this is unreasonable and I would like to see what the consensus is here at ANI is:

1. On whether the language highlighted in Green is reasonable
2. Whether it is desirable to hold an RfC on such a wide ranging (and I think badly drafted General Sanction)

-- PBS (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are an informal process, as it says at the RfC page. Such a process cannot be forced upon a proposal by one heavily-involved editor. You've expressed your objection to the proposal, as is your right. However, that does not overwrite the views of other editors who do support the proposal, and do think that the UK is adequately defined. Your one objection does not trigger an RfC, nor does it overwrite the standard procedure for establishing general sanctions, which is to start a discussion at WP:AN. There is no reason why this proposal is any different from any other general sanctions proposal. I will not take part in any farcical RfC requested at your behest. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I will not accept one editor's insertion of an RfC template before my words, without my consent. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, I can't see any evidence of anyone 'claiming copyright' on anything. What I can however see is an out-of-sequence construction of a RfC around a comment made in another context. I'm not surprised that RGloucester objects to you misrepresenting his posting in this way. If you think an RfC is merited, start one in the appropriate manner, in your own words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the general sanctions proposal is to stop the bizarre disruption of UK related pages by advocates and opponents of the metric system of measurement in the UK. Both sides have often paralysed a series of articles, whilst converting backward and forward to / from their favoured measurement system. A clear consensus had formed at WT:MOSNUM there was a need for this, there was a clear consensus at WP:AN to enact it and now progress is being prevented by PBS in what I can only describe as filibustering. This wasn't an RFC, it was refactioring another editors comments - something that in normal circumstances could well lead to a block. It is a bizarre demand by any standards that you be allowed to refactor another editors post to become an RFC; so much so that I question whether PBS still has the WP:COMPETENCE to be an administrator.

1. Yes the proposal is reasonable and there was no need to forum shop it elsewhere.
2. No, I don't see a need for an RFC on the proposal. WCM_email 17:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump If the statement "I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours." is claim of copyright, then what it it?

@Wee Curry Monsternon one is proposing to "forum shop it elsewhere". I did not redactor anyone's comments indeed if anyone refactored anyone's comments it is User:RGloucester for removing text -- but given the circumstances that is not a question that needs addressing. The question that needs addressing is does one editor have the right under the relevant policies and guidelines to prevent another editor starting an RfC with claims of ownership over both a process and text that that editor states they own? -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere with this "line of questioning", I can assure you that. This is starting to look like pure badgering. RGloucester — ☎ 12:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to push this forward to some sort of conclusion, and again we're going down a side issue Doesn't "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." that appears under every edit window have relevance here?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Havin been party to the GS discussion, I found it decidedly odd that PBS would unilaterally try to wrap an existing discussion into an RFC. As Andy says, PBS, just start a new RFC. RGloucester has stated their objection to your use of their words in the way you wish. You may have the legal right to edit any text on wiki but wrapping RG's words into your RFC when he's indicated his opposition would be ethically wrong.Blackmane (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I think someone uninvolved might consider closing this and the AN discussion possibly as well, if he finds consensus has been reached.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: If you think you can add the RfC tag to his proposal and then have it take at least a week (and default of a month) before closing, you are wrong. If you just added the RfC to try to get more interest from other editors, I can understand that, but if he doesn't want it to be an RfC, the RfC tag should be removed from his request and start your own. He cant stop you from creating your own RfC thread using whatever words you wish. But don't expect him to stop the building of consensus for his proposal and wait for your RfC to finish (by the time the RfC finishes it is unlikely to matter anymore). --Obsidi (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm starting to get quite fed-up, here. PBS has now started a new "RfC" at WP:AN#RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another. Instead of making his own proposal, he copied mine as I told him not to do, clearly in bad faith. This is absolutely absurd, and I don't know why it should be tolerated. There is no reason why I should be badgered like this. I followed the standard procedure for general sanctions, I worked hard with many editors to ensure that their concerns are dealt with. That's why I have consensus in that AN thread to establish this proposal. It doesn't matter, what I've done, however, because some lone-wolf guy called PBS can come in here, assault me for trying to resolve a serious and long-term problem, and destroy my proposal. Now we have a duplicate joke RfC, and there is nothing I can do about it. I'd like to seek sanctions against PBS. Perhaps he should be blocked, perhaps admonished. I don't know. But this is clearly unacceptable behaviour, and behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. It is childish, and stupid. Please close this farcical RfC, and do something about PBS's behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 13:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: What is your problem with him starting his own RfC? It doesn't stop you from continuing to do what you were doing before. --Obsidi (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

His own "RfC" on the wording proposed by me, disregarding the ongoing discussion that we've been having above, all the input people have put in there? His own "RfC", requested unilaterally by himself as a bureaucratic block on my proposal? His own "RfC", in defiance of the standard process for general sanctions, which is to have a discussion at WP:AN? His own "RfC", an attempt to force his opinion on everyone else because he just doesn't like the proposal? His own "RfC", despite my telling him explicitly that I don't support such an RfC, and that I didn't want him to use my proposal for his own purposes? It is not a legal question of copyright, but one of ethics. This is pure bad faith behaviour, essentially badgering. There is absolutely no justification for this behaviour at all, especially coming from an administrator. It is pure disruption. If he wasn't an administrator, he'd likely be blocked for such behaviour. He's likewise topic-banned editors for doing similar things in articles under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions. The fact that this nonsense is being tolerated by the community is absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it is "bureaucratic block on my proposal"? They operate independently. If your proposal gets consensus, it gets closed and enacted. At that point in time the RfC becomes moot (as already enacted), and gets closed for that reason. Doesn't stop or block you at all. --Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. There are now two discussions about the same proposal, one of which is illegitimate. Nothing can be done with the upper proposal until this "RfC" is closed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not? You proposed something using the normal process, and he proposed something using the RfC process. Same words/different words, doesn't matter, two different proposals. Normally fractured conversations like that are bad, and we like to merge into a single process, but if people cant agree, then there is no requirement of having only one. I don't see how the RfC prevents someone from closing your proposal (assuming it has a consensus to be enacted).--Obsidi (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is called Wikipedia:Forumshopping. It is bad, pure and simple. People do agree: everyone except PBS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think its forum shopping, he isn't asking to override your consensus (at least from what I can tell), by going to another forum. He is trying to get input from other outside editors, using a process that probably in my opinion isn't going to work (because of the time an RfC takes), but that's all it is. He isn't asking that your consensus be overturned because he didn't get the answer he wants. When your discussion closes with a consensus (assuming you actually do get a consensus), then the RfC should be closed. --Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he is. He thinks that the comments made in the discussion I started were not "wide enough", even though plenty of other general sanctions have been established with less participation. As such, he is unilaterally opening an RfC so that he can do whatever he can to stop the proposal, even if only temporarily. He is saying, essentially, that the discussion I started isn't good enough, and that there is no possibility for consensus without an RfC. That's exactly what he said in the thread I started. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: He says that it is "not a well watched page" and that he would like to see a "well advertised RfC" and that he created the "RfC so that a wider community consensus can be sought". Maybe its ambiguous on exactly what he meant to do with the RfC (override whatever consensus developed without the RfC or just gain a wider audience viewing it). One is clear forum shopping, the other is just trying to get more eyeballs on the topic that might be interested in it. Best to ask PBS what he meant for the RfC, to clear things up. --Obsidi (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It doens't matter whether it is a "well-watched page" or not, because all other general sanctions have been drawn-up there, and that's the standard procedure. I followed that procedure, and I should not be punished for doing so. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Jumping in a little late, but I must say I found that a quite extraordinary argument. According to the most recent database report, WP:AN is number 18 most watched page on Wikipedia. If that's "not a well watched page", what is a well-watched page? Kahastok talk 21:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, you followed the procedure, and that is the procedure, and with consensus can be closed and add the general sanctions you proposed (with or without the RfC). I just disagree that makes the RfC improper as I don't think it stops or prevents or in anyway interferes with your proposal (if that is what is being proposed by PBS that would be forum shopping). If he wants more people to view the suggestion, that is fine, if he wants to override the consensus with the RfC that would be improper. --Obsidi (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"I followed that procedure, and I should not be punished for doing so." Why you should think that an RfC is a punishment is beyond me. although I do see that your claim of ownership over the wording is an indication that you do not see this as a broadly inclusive process. There is no time limit on the process of deciding whether to introduce such sanction. It is better to have sanctions with wide support than narrow support. I do think that the proposed sanctions, which I think are badly drafted, could be interpreted to affect 100,000 of articles and therefore potentially thousands of editors, so I think that the proposed sanctions should not be embarked upon after a discussion between less than a score of editors, and the easiest way to make sure that does not happen is to hold an RfC and see if a broader consensus supports the narrower one. -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What you think, PBS, doesn't matter. You do not have ultimate authority to decide whether an RfC is required or isn't, or whether some kind broad consenus is required or isn't. You have no authority, because you're involved, and you're pushing your own point of view as far as it can go. I am closing the RfC, now, because I'm tired of the inaction, and because I won't let this farce continue on my watch. If someone else wants to support me, fine. If not, fine. I will not tolerate this nonsense, nor will I allow you to think that you can get away with it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Got to say that is the first time I have seen an RfC closed as: "Closed as farce based on bunk PoV pushing" [190] (especially for such a neutrally worded RfC). --Obsidi (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't about wording, in this case, but about behaviour. PBS does not get to have outsize impact on the discussion because he feels like it. He doesn't get to repeat his position across multiple forums. He doesn't get to split the discussion. The only reason he opened an RfC is because, as he said, he "doesn't feel" like the extant discussion met his own personal standards, or supported his own viewpoint. I apologise to PBS if that is the case, but his feelings are not based in policy or guidelines, and have no relevance. No other editor would be allowed to filibuster a proposal based on his or her feelings, nor should PBS be allowed the prerogative. He expressed his opinion very well in the existing discussion, and for that I'm thankful. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Premature close of the RfC

RGloucester has closed the RfC I initiated. As RGloucester is clearly an involved editor, this is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Particularly as the wording in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding states "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met." I do not wish to edit-war over this issue so could an uninvolved administrator please revert RGloucester's premature close? -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead of that, can we please have an uninvolved administrator sanction PBS for consistently disrupting this discussion on general sanctions for the sake of advancing his own point-of-view? RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, PBS has been utterly disruptive in this matter. I'm tempted to suggest a topic ban is appropriate, he has bulldozed the discussion over the comments of others and totally dominated any attempt at consensus building. WCM_email 21:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly involved so I would rather not do it myself. That said, the RfC was closed. There is a procedure to follow when reviewing the closure of an RfC [191]. I would focus on "if the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area." --Obsidi (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The RfC was not legitimate to start with. The better way to put it would be "no RfC was ever opened". He placed the template, but it was not really any kind of RfC. Just a farce. RGloucester — ☎ 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you really want people edit warring in/out RfCs? With one side saying "there never was an RfC". That's not how things get handled. He created an RfC. You closed the RfC. He can ask for review of that closure. --Obsidi (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no RfC. It was farce. An exercise in absurdist theatre. The "RfC" was a figment of PBS's imagination, used to advance a point-of-view. RfCs are an informal process. They are not a bureaucratic block, nor are they required for anything. Nor is it acceptable to use an RfC for the purpose of forum-shopping, nor for the purpose of splitting a discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 4 November 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 trolling talk pages - block?

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.

---

103.244.189.183 (talk · contribs) seems to be leaving talk page messages that suggest battleground mentality / trolling. Block? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, seems to have some backstory of offsite harassment too. Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 5 November 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.

Romeo Ravi kumar sah

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.

---

Romeo Ravi kumar sah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a vandalism-only account; repeated deletion of content from List of cities in Nepal, creation of a WP:HOAX article Thareshwarnath for an imagined place mentioned in no WP:RS anywhere. Anaitha is a similar hoax, created by a similarly-named user who was already blocked as an vandalism-only account; one page links to the other. I'd call WP:SOCK on this, but there's no need as the content itself is vandalism-only and can stand or fall on its own merits. Other users have already placed the talk-page warnings to no avail. K7L (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked per WP:DUCK for block evasion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:25, 5 November 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.

Quest Early College High School‎

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.

---

Would it be possible to get Quest Early College High School‎ locked? It has been vandalised around 50 times in the last day by several different accounts. Thanks, Haminoon (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Several of the vandal accounts have now been blocked. If the disruption still continues, you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have semi-protected the page for 3 days. For future protection requests please consider WP:RFP. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 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.

Inappropriate threatening to "report" users on Talk 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.

---

BeyonderGod (talk · contribs)'s Talk page features the potentially intimidating text: "Please don't leave unwanted comments on my page or you'll be reported." I approached them about reconsidering the message only to have my message deleted. I'm reasonably sure such a message is in violation of policy/guidelines but can't find an appropriate link. If I'm wrong and the message is fine, I'll be happy to provide the requisite trout. If not, perhaps another editor might succeed where I failed? Thanks for your input! DonIago (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There entitled to ask people to stay off there talk page. It looks like theyve decided to capture everyone on Wikipedia at once with their message but it doesnt appear to be policy breaking. Warning can still be posted as can notices so it might just be they dont want a cluttered talk page.(No trout nessecary as was done in good faith, maybe a small Mackerel.) Amortias (T)(C) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's against policy but I'm failing to find any common sense in the warning. You've left your message, DonIago, they've deleted it which indicates they read it. Don't let it worry you much. Tiderolls 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. I was mostly worried that inexperienced editors with valid concerns would feel they couldn't approach the editor because they'd get into trouble, not realizing the message is essentially blowing smoke. DonIago (talk) 21:36, 6 November 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.

CSD tag edit war between myself and User:Hayatgm

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:Hayatgm wrote article Javaid Hayat Kakakhail, which I believe fails CSD criteria G11 and A7. Assuming my initial CSD tag doesn't count as a revert, I've hit 3RR; the article's author has been removing the CSD tag without explanation. I believe it was acceptable for me to re-add the CSD tag after its removal, since WP:CSD says that the author of a page may not remove the CSD tag. I've warned this article's author accordingly. Should I continue to replace the CSD tag? --Richard Yin (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted it because it was a copyright violation of this and this. GB fan 20:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Restoring a speedy deletion usually falls under reverting vandalism so doesnt put you in an edit war. Amortias (T)(C) 21:51, 6 November 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.

Transclusion issue, posting here because it's a very visible 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.

---

Portal:Featured content is the place (directly clickable from every page on Wikipedia, see third link in navigation bar in the top left corner). Something went wrong with the transclusion. See also the discussion at Portal_talk:Featured_content#The_Best_Wikipedia_Has_to_Offer.3F. If someone could solve this quickly that would be great, as that page is featured so prominently. Thank you in advance, and sorry for abusing this noticeboard for something that isn't an admin-issue. But it too is a highly frequented page ... --Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. The problem with that weekly article is that it was on a very tight schedule: between the list of content finishing and the Signpost's publication was half the time for any other Signpost article. As such, I asked for it to be delayed a week to make the schedule a bit easier to keep up. Portal:Featured content can gracefully deal with no Signpost Featured content section, but a redirect was accidentally left behind when the partially-finished page was moved to next week's issue, which meant it saw the redirect, and grabbed it to publish. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:04, 7 November 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.

ElNiñoMonstruo talk 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.

---

Hi, I come here to ask that it is protected from ElNiñoMonstruo talk page, since you're using it for anything, and not this using to request the unblocking of your account. which are also reverted your changes.--McVeigh / talk 12:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get what you're trying to say. Is your native language something other than English? I noticed that the IP mentioned your name. And your writing style almost matches his. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 15:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the request is for the user talk page to be protected (or talk page access to be removed), as User:ElNiñoMonstruo is misusing it. It looked like this before I reverted, with all those fake block messages added by ElNiñoMonstruo and not by McVeigh. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

McVeigh's first language is Spanish, as he's from Venezula, and his user page says he was " i was expelled from the wikipedia, for reasons which I will not say for now, I don't need :-)." hmmmm.......looks interesting. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're implying what I think you're implying, why would a sockmaster request that his or her sockpuppet's talk page access be revoked? --Richard Yin (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good hand, bad hand, an attempt to confuse, a form of trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like McVeigh's English WP user page is referring to his block at eswiki for the socking of banned user es:Usuario:Chema. Interestingly we've had a parallel account Chema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was indeffed in June this year. De728631 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damián80/Archive. The history of User talk:Chema indicates that Chema was originally named User:Jorge Horan, and the history of User:McVeigh indicates that McVeigh was previously named Damián80 (and before that User:GeorgeMilan). The SPI page says that Chema is the same person as GeorgeMilan. I'm...still not sure what the point of all this is. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I just came to ask for help, and have made investigate me?, I do not understand what is the reason for this, if I put in my user page I do not want to give details, it's because I do not think everyone interested about my past :O.--McVeigh / talk 19:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• The accounts Chema and Damian80 are both blocked on eswiki for being abused by the same user. The account Chema (formerly Jorge Horan) is indef-blocked on enwiki as a CU-confirmed sock of McVeigh (formerly known as Damian80, formerly known as GeorgeMilan), who himself was not blocked indefinitely. However, that seems mostly irrelevant to the request being placed here (unless there are socking concerns, in which case WP:SPI is thataway, Robert McClenon).

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.

Admin decides and then gets involved to support themselves

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.

---

Mevarus (talk · contribs) moved Gaza beach explosion (2006) twice in 33 hrs, without proper discussion (the page is within 1RR rule). After the second move, I requested a Move back to revert vandalism. ("Technical request") [192]. Then admin Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) contested this rv request, and turned it into a Requested move [193]. However, the admin decided to not revert the vandalism. As is the correct route, I asked on their talkpage [194] about this, to which the admin has not responded.

Then I noticed that that admin had engaged themselves in the move discussion, with the !vote position that they supported the move (they had not reverted). In other words: the admin refused to revert vandalism, and then went into the discussion to support, as an involved editor, their own admin decision. When I discovered this I again went to their talkpage [195], but this too got no response.

I request that the admin is told that this involvement in their own decision is incorrect behaviour. Also not responding to questions asked wrt their admin action is unbecoming for an admin. (FYI, in the talkpage discussion I noted that the editor who did the moves is "gaming the system", and after that the discussion was disrupted by canvassing. So far for rewarding the move warrior). -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, what happened differed in some respects from what you have said; for example, Mevarus did not move the article twice in 33 hours, nor indeed in any number of hours: he or she moved it only once. Secondly, the move was not "vandalism": good faith changes which you disagree with are not vandalism. Thirdly, to claim that a requested move is "uncontroversial" when you know full well that other editors have moved it in the opposite direction is absurd. Fourthly, once Anthony had recognised that the move request was controversial, he could have just declined the request, but instead he chose to start a discussion on it, saving you from the trouble of doing so. There is no reason on earth why he should not then express an opinion in the discussion. Not responding to your talk page message is the only aspect of this case where he might reasonably be thought not to have acted impeccably, but we are all volunteers, and none of us is obliged to do anything, including responding to talk page posts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Mevarus did not move the article twice, but for some reason only one move appears in the page move log. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• "However, the admin decided to not revert the vandalism.: I know the rule, but here, obeying it (by moving all those pages to the capitalized forms) would have needed me to make nearly a hundred page moves before discussion could start, and if the discussion had decided on "accept the uncapitalized forms of the names", I or someone would have had to do another nearly a hundred page moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? As far as I can see, we are only talking about one page, not hundreds, and capitalisation has nothing to do with it. RolandR (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gaza beach explosion (2006) was one of nearly 100 "revert undiscussed move" requests that came out together in a long list: see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#A long list of moves that User:Hmains wants reverted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:52, 6 November 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:Joeygreeny

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.

---

Joeygreeny has been creating advertisements in mainspace for the past few months. Even after warnings on their talk page, it appears that they are continuing. This is a list of some of the pages created by Joeygreeny that have been speedily deleted for advertising:

• The brand of Acymer (Three times)
• YIDEJIA (Two times)
• Yidejia, a woman's world
• YIDEJIA,electronic shopping platform for women
• What is Acymer?
• How about the brand of Acymer?
• Aedfwe afwea

I don't think this user is here to build an encyclopedia. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 09:34, 7 November 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.

IAC legal action again

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.

---

See this now deleted post:[196] - should anything be done about the IP? Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to request action because the message has been restored three times. This relates to IAC LTA. An IAC activist has apparently threatened legal action against an individual connected with Wikimedia India, and a couple of IPs are offering opinions at the India wikiproject—opinions that clearly convey a chilling message including that a certain editor has criminal culpability. The message has been removed and restored and I do not feel like debating the issue with someone who might be another IAC activist, so would an admin please remove the message and warn that it must not be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

122.162.56.203 has posted on several user talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WMF already know about the underlying threat. IAC have been bombarding WMIN for weeks, and have recently up'ed their activity in that regard. Can't say any more here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is only in continuation of previous discussions on the legal situation under Indian law, triggered by [[197]]. As it involves Wikipedia India community, I've pinged some interested users. 122.162.56.203 (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

And suddenly Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) becomes active. A known past supporter of actions against Wikipedia and someone whom IAC have been quoting. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke is a reform slate candidate to clean out the Wikimedia pornographic website. Chapter Elections are underway. 122.162.56.203 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, we can block 122.* for evasion now. I can't spill the beans here but it is obvious given the off-wiki stuff. Probably should block YK also but I realise that might be awkward. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for what, Sitush? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Good hand/bad hand. Come on, Yogesh. You've been working up to this for several days. Go sue who you want but don't raise it here. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for 48 hours. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What did I raise here Sitush? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Hopefully, someone who is watching this has clue. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So, you're hoping. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WMF has been in the loop [198], [199]. 190.201.103.231 (talk) 10:39, 7 November 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.

Legal 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.

---

Najemhasan added a comment to the Bobby Cummines stating all IP addresses and edits are logged (diff) I'm not too sure if it is a legal threat, however I'd thought I would report it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I don't know if I'd call it a legal threat (else the whole WP:ABUSE system might have itself constituted an ongoing legal threat, along with all the shared IP templates that mention abuse reporting). But it's definitely inappropriate and likely merits having a chat with Najemhasan. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It qualifies as a legal threat as wikipedia uses the term, and the guy also boldly asserts a claim of authority due to being closely related in some way. Two reasons to put the guy away permanently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just advised him about WP:COI. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's now marked for a speedy, so it might disappear before the threatener has a chance to squeal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the article has been here for 4 1/2 years. Maybe getting it deleted is what the threatener really wants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Both the speedy and subsequent PROD are gone. Besides, User:Najemhasan probably wants to push a POV, not get the article deleted entirely, so the POV notice should be added instead. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Najemhasan has replied to a message at his user talk page where he also left a number of reliable third-party sources [200]. Maybe we can use them in the article. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

He needs to recant and disavow the threat about logging IP numbers and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In the strictest interpretation, I wouldn't call it a legal threat (he's not threatening to sue or anything like that), but it is a threat to breach the privacy of editors. In any case, the user in question should certainly redact his comment. --Biblioworm 20:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

He should be blocked indefinitely until or if he recants and disavows that threat. That would be the normal course of action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• It certainly has the appearance of a threat, and although it does not explicitly mention anything legal, it could well be seen as implicitly being a legal threat. However, I don't think that an immediate block would be the most helpful way of dealing with the matter. It looks to me like a good-faith editor who sees what he or she sincerely sees as problems with the article, and has tried to deal with the perceived problem, but, being unacquainted with Wikipedia's ways, has done so in a way which is not the best possible. I have posted a message to the editor's talk page, in which I have asked him or her to clarify the meaning of the edit, pointed out Wikipedia's policy on ownership of articles, explained that comments about editing of an article should go in the article's talk page, and invited the editor to contribute to this discussion. I hope that will help the editor to understand better how to deal with such concerns as he or she evidently has. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 7 November 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:Lfrankbalm

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.

---

enough at this stage on Iotablue or . No view either way on suspected sock Adnarkey, and suggest this go to WP:SPI. The explanation given in this thread is disingenuous - the sock account is nothing to do

• LfrankbalmSo. I tried to give some advice to this editor on their talk page, but it seems like they 1) don't care and 2) are using their talk page as a sort of ranty Facebook soapbox. I know I was being a bit jargon-y with all the shortcut links and stuff, but, seriously? I don't want to deal with this - can someone else try to talk to them or something, perhaps give a little warning prod to behave? Thanks, ansh666 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) (I'm not watching, {{ping}} me if anything comes up.)

Let me just make this clear to you; WP:ASSHOLE--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is in need of serious cleanup to return it to a non-soapbox state. The behaviour of the user appears to be short of civility and the above statement could quite possibly be a personal attack . Do we have a three strike rule? Amortias (T)(C) 21:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no civility on my part here, because the idiocarcy which is Wikipedia needs transparency, call it what it is a big lie, a dissonance machine, a waste of time, a welfare program to feed the weak minded. THERE ARE MANY FOOLISH INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY USING THIS RAG-TRIPE AS A DAY TO DAY FACTUAL REFERENCE. Until you edit this damn thing... you don't realize how fucked up and unreliable it is. This platform provides dissonance with an industrial strength platform for propagation. It is the definition of a computer virus. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• They do seem very angry, don't they? I'll try to have a word. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No anger here;

My conclusion is that this technology provides a major societal disservice. The only parts of Wikipedia that are partially reliable consist of a few of the reference links, which for the most part are random in nature. Even the idea of secondary and primary sources is bizarrely-wrong as it applies to research. No, I am not going to feed something that is societally detrimental.

I am more than happy to part company with Wikipedia.

More so than that. This is just a blatantly-evil construct as implemented. It has the unintended opposite effect of spreading ignorance not knowledge. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Lfrankbalm: If you want to go, go. If you want to stay, stay. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No comment (yet) on the civility/ranty bits here, but why are we bothering to care what someone does with their talk page? Just unwatch the page. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There also being unconstructive on AFD's which was the original cause for concern if im correct. Amortias (T)(C) 22:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that, I'm just taking every opportunity to push back against the community's recent habit of nosing into user/user talk pages of editors and getting offended by what they see. It's pointless and meddlesome in almost all cases (with obvious exceptions for blatant personal attacks, shit lists, etc.). Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Amortias said is correct. After I attempted to give them advice about AfD, I got slammed with rants about how I was an asshole and Wikipedia is a breeding ground for ignorance, as far as I can interpret it. I have no real comment on the rants (other than that I don't think they meet WP:OWNTALK), but their uncivil attitude, including personal attacks, was concerning to me. ansh666 22:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with the principle of leaving other peoples talkpages well alone the personal attacks and general soapboxing despite being advised against this does seem to be hitting every note of WP:NOTHERE. If they were just going on about something without throwing out at people who were offering advice etc it'd be one thing (that I would understand if let slide) but they just dont seem to be willing to contribute constructivley. Amortias (T)(C) 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to you on a personal basis.. Breeding ground for ignorance is quite correct. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thank you. ansh666 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've only just encountered Lfrankbalm in the last few days, first at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa), where I was unsuccessful in explaining notability of bibliographies (but it's a pretty weird category of article, so that's understandable). Still, I noticed there and elsewhere problematic WP:POINT and WP:COMPETENCE (or WP:IDHT) issues. The most recent talk page message looks to be the first thing egregious enough to come to ANI, though, so I don't know if this is misplaced. I'm basically concerned he/she is engaging with article deletion processes unconcerned with applying/following consensus-based guidelines many people have linked him/her to. Dismissal of Wikipedia as something with value here and at the blog-like talk page suggest WP:NOTHERE. Some WP:AGF is in order as this is a new user (although an account with edits almost entirely at AfD, nominating things for deletion, and working on pages he/she thinks should be deleted suggests some experience), but the basics have been explained/linked a number of times and seems to fall on deaf ears.

• For example at this AfD he/she started comments with Delete Palestinians, see Gaza Strip, definitely use asymmetric tactics to cast themselves falsely as the victim through the absorption of collateral damage (unnecessary loss of civilian life)., later admitting the intention of using AfD as a forum. Shortly thereafter he/she created Israeli child killing apparently to make a WP:POINT about the stone-throwing AfD.
• !voting in AfDs with rationales like "subject-matter is irrelevant", arguing delete based on links currently in an article, no rationale whatsoever, various commentary. Most of the user's own nominations are with clear disregard or indifference to relevant guidelines (e.g. this article which a basic glance at the relevant notability guideline rather than personal criteria would have clarified the person's fitness for inclusion (criterion #3 even gives "royal society" as an example, which, while Canadian rather than English, is quite prominent in the article)). I don't know that any of this is block-worthy, but the efforts of myself and others do not seem to be effective.
• Devil's advocates/critics are a useful thing on Wikipedia, and there are some edits that show this user may have things to contribute, but needs to better understand how things work before engaging in things like page deletions. I have a feeling after this my help might not be wanted, but as it's not a personal thing -- lots of people jump into AfDs, myself included, without quite knowing how they work -- I'd be happy to answer questions if Lfrankbalm wants help before nominating something for deletion, etc. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

-Believe it or not, the discussions here are quite positive in terms (of forming a perception) on the process. For the record I did not create the Israeli child killing entry, I simply redirected it to Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; as to tallest buildings in xxx it-speaks for itself ludicrous,Martin Daly was my mistake. ; as to the bibliography.... errh.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to take Rhododendrites up on their offer of advice on AFD's and have a look at your talk page to see fi theres anthing that might be considered a personal attack meant or otherwise that could be removed? Amortias (T)(C) 22:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

They've removed...much of their talk page (~7000 bytes), including everything that started this. I'm fine with that, though my comments did include some useful links. ansh666 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldnt believe it if I hadn't seen it myself but this could be a constructive non-blocking outcome from an ANI! Amortias (T)(C) 22:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it either. This discussion has been constructive from an overview-perspective. I am not quite as "fatal" in terms of my perceptions. In the first edit attempt, I attempted to do a minor edit on a "now deleted entry" to have every minor revision countered unbelievable resistance by a user abusing the process. I was viewing everything from that perspective. This discussion counters that in spades. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As to User:Rhododendrites offer, sure why not..--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll bung a welcome notice with some useful links at the top of your talk page if you want. It might be useful to point you in the direction of places for advice. I'd also suggest popping over to the teahouse if you have any questons as they are very good at providing advice. Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

-thanks.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment on their talk page regarding one of the AfDs that was contentious. For what it's worth, I did not get an insulting reply. That's good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as I have caused a fire-storm here.. Would anybody mind "locking" NYS Ebike Law from further edits.. The entry is now correct to fact.. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that one would get through the process to protect a page we only lock pages to prevent vandalism and major disputes that are going to affect the quality of the article. You could add it to you watchlist to keep an eye out for vandalism if your interested. There may be changes or other information that may be pertinent that other users may be able to add to the section to improve it orad other relevent information such as legla cases that are relevent additional sources and other facts that help t improve the reliability. Amortias (T)(C) 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I too have encountered Lfrankbalm recently, but all I know for sure is that he didn't understand WP:BEFORE before nominating Martin Daly for deletion. It seems I'm not the only one concerned about his behavior at AFD, though (see this edit). Also, I agree with Ansh666 that he has been misusing his talk page as per WP:OWNTALK. Jinkinson talk to me 02:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned that Lfrankbalm does not understand the WP:ILLEGIT use of alternative accounts. For example, User:Renaissancego was created on October 21, 2014 and all edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira and Doug Casey overlap with Lfrankbalm. Adnarkey edited Doug Casey here and here between Lfrankbalm here and the IP Lfrankbalm regularly uses here. In addition to being similarly uncivil, all of these accounts have the unusual behavioral characteristic of often double signing posts: Lfrankbalm [201], Renaissancego: [202], Adnarkey [203], and Iotablue [204]. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance, but I am very concerned about the use of alternative accounts. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

er, "LFrankBalm" sounds a LOT like L. Frank Baum, the author of the Wizard of Oz stories, but more interesting is his first post mentioned Wikipedia jargon right out of the gate . Could this be a possible secondary I.D ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

-I created an Id to address the issue and concern with the Gonzola Lira article, it was necessary to do a request for help regarding a user who owned the topic.. .--Lfrankblam (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out the username similarity to L. Frank Baum to WP:UAA and the response was that impersonating someone who's been long deceased is not a violation of the policy. I guess it's a BLP thing. As for the alternative accounts, there are valid uses for alternates and it doesn't seem like this user is deliberately misusing them. The user has shown great willingness here to own up to their mistakes and reform; perhaps if they review the alternate accounts policy and retire whichever alternates they might be using inappropriately, we can let this one slide? Ivanvector (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Were I you I would WP:Site ban this fellow, seriously If I had the intent (which I don't) to cause absolute chaos on Wikipedia you would be seeing absolute chaos on Wikipedia.... --Lfrankblam (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) BTW, I also reverted the redirect of "The International Man," on the basis it is the correct thing to do! Lfrankblam (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would encourage the community to give Lfrankbalm a little slack here as they had a very bad first experience on Gonzalo Lira and were bullied and abused by an editor who 'owned' the article. That article has been AfD'd and the bully user has not edited since Oct. 20th. I'm hopeful that now Lfrankbalm can see the bigger picture and be a productive editor here going forward. If there are multiple accounts then that could be excused if he/she comes clean and they are all closed and there is an understanding that this is not acceptable for future per WP:SOCK.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 5 November 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.

Rogue Admin

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 here to dispute a decision made by an admin who proposed a topic ban for me here and imposed it only just 3 days and 0 input from uninvolved editors. The only input given was by editors who have a content dispute regarding Boris Malagurski-related articles, most of which have attempted to manipulate Wikipedia guidelines to remove me from editing and discussing the topic matter which interests me. After numerous sockpupped investigations that attempted to prove I was Boris Malagurski or working for him (and in the end it was concluded that I wasn't, of course), now, one administrator, Ricky81682 has banned me from editing Malagurski-related articles, with the support of a few editors who have been out to get rid of me for quite some time now, all because I'm not anti-Malagurski like them and have followed Wikipedia guidelines in regards to editing and sourcing. I would like a second opinion from uninvolved editors and request a lift of the ban imposed on me, as it had immediately been used by one user who was swift to support the ban, Pincrete to quickly shape the Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and Kosovo: Can You Imagine? articles (all Malagurski-related) in a way that pleases him (all on issues where I disputed his POV). They were all waiting for me to be banned, and now they can do what they like, as I was the only neutral editor pressing for neutrality. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Without any comments on the legitimacy of the claims for or against UrbanVillager, am I the only one uncomfortable about imposing a community topic ban based on the input of three editors? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• All it takes is one admin to indeff someone, but to answer your question: no, you are not the only person who thinks this not the best way to run an online community. I don't think any bans should be enacted by just one or three people, but that's how it works around here and good luck trying to change anything. I.e., admins want it this way, and they will close ranks to protect their near absolute powers. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. The 'process' (three ANI comments then a topic ban) doesn't seem fair or reasonable. AnonNep (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely inappropriate for an WP:INVOLVED admin (per [205] [206] [207]) to be imposing community sanctions like this. Support immediate reversal of ban, but no prejudice against uninvolved admins reviewing the discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Without regard one way or the other on the merits of the case, it should be reopened to seek additional input. Three people is far too few to determine a consensus in matters such as this. Otherwise, no opinion with regards to the merits of the case, or the admin who closed the initial discussion. Just reopen the discussion, and wait for a more broad consensus to develop. --Jayron32 17:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• The topic ban chould be vacated and the discussion reopened. An admin that one month supports] a topic ban and then a month later closes a discussion and establishes a topic ban against that user is patently wrong. GB fan 17:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• What Jayron32 said. Processes have to be open, fair and transparent. Best solution is revert the close (and findings) and reopening this to let it run to a more natural conclusion. Dennis - 2¢ 17:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: since there has been an accusation of anti-Yugoslav bias in the previous discussions, are these articles considered to fall under the discretionary sanctions for articles relating to the Balkans? Ivanvector (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In my view, yes, so I added the warning to The Weight of Chains at least. If people think so, it should be added to the filmmaker (the breakup is his topic) and to his films on the subject. The talk pages reflect users going on about the general issue of the breakup and the region. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per Jayron32, this closure should be reverted if the admin already participated in support of the ban (which will probably result in resumption of discussion where it was left or reclosed by some one uninvolved). Appropriate warnings should be given too. Although the consensus may support the ban anyway; it does, however, need re-evaluation.--lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Reverted I reverted the closure. Please discuss the merits of a topic ban itself above. Based on This and this, it is clear that Ricky81682 is heavily involved in editing disputes with UrbanVillager and should not ever take administrative actions regarding him.--v/r - TP 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Aw, now you've done it. We can't hold one of our own to any sort of standards if we want to close ranks and cling to our near-absolute power as described above. I mean, the godlike feeling of power when closing a discussion or protecting a page, you can't endanger that! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It took me a second to realize that was sarcastic. Given the level of dialog on this page it did not seem unrealistic enough to immediately appear sarcastic. Chillum 19:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I lifted some of it word for word from the third comment in this very thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What's nearer to absolute power? Enacting sanctions based on that near-absolute power, or reverting the near-absolute power itself? That like, over 9000 absolute power!--v/r - TP 19:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know much about if he should have been topic banned or nor, but as others have said the admin was clearly involved. That said, it was not bad enough to request a desysop. Still I wish there was a way that the community could censure admins that abuse their tools (a kind of formal statement of disapproval). If you look at any person here, you can look at their blocklog and see every time they were blocked forever. And yet if there is an admin abusing their tools today, by next year people probably wont even remember it occurred (or the same people might not be involved). I guess you can go searching through the ANI archive, but still that doesn't seem quite enough. --Obsidi (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In this case, I don't know the admin (never even HEARD the name Ricky81682 before today), so I really don't know if it is a singular slip of judgement, or an ongoing issue. I will assume a singular slip up until shown evidence to the contrary, via WP:AGF, and the fact that if it was a regular thing, I would have heard by now. We all make mistakes and such, I won't judge. To answer your question: If it were an ongoing issue, gather up the diffs and go to WP:AN is a good place to start. All admin are subject to review by our peers (meaning ALL editors, not just other admin). An RFC/U can be done if that doesn't produce results in a reasonable period of time. As Beebs sarcasm indicated, as a group, admin don't all cover each other's butts, like the cop's "thin blue line". Eventually, Arb will hear a case, but they need to see that it was handled down here in the regular community and failed before they get involved. Two are there now, although one obviously doesn't belong there, and the 2nd one probably doesn't. Dennis - 2¢ 00:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • At this moment in Wikipedia's lifecycle, the efficacy of the RFC/U is disputed; as ANI is not the forum to address that, I'll leave it at that. Editors wishing me to explain further are, as always, welcome to post on my talk page. NE Ent 00:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a bad idea. Such documentation would be used as ammo for every disgruntled user who was sanctioned by an admin for violating community standards. If an admin messes infrequently such that there's not a community memory of it it's best to just let it go. Egregious violations of expected behavior will be called out, often by other admins. NE Ent 00:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • That's probably a better way to put it. I didn't mean keep a running tab, although it might have looked that way. But yes, we admin really do try to police our own. Dennis - 2¢ 00:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• My apologies. My first involvement was at this ANI by UrbanVillager where UrbanVillager had the same issues as discussed above. As stated before, UrbanVillager is a SPA who's entire focus seems to be promoting the work of a single Serbain-Canadian filmmaker's theory on the breakup of Yugoslavia (including starting articles that later add to the promotion). While not focusing on a single article, editing about a particular filmmaker, only their documentaries and only the people interviewed in the documentary over the course of four years are pretty close to an SPA to me. In my view, this also relates to the ARBCOM sanctions on Eastern European articles (the talk pages of the editors reflect IP addresses complaining about that angle). At the time, I would consider a topic ban but I attempted to assist instead (obviously an extraordinarily poor idea) and following the attacks at Talk:The Weight of Chains and now specious sockpuppetry reports against all other users, I instead opened it up for suggestion again. Given that I opened the discussion, it was in poor taste to close it myself and I'll leave it others to comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  As long as understand the reason for the concern, and understand how to avoid it in the future, I don't see a need to flog you at this time. Dennis - 2¢ 00:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm coming up on nine years as an admin (and it's a good sign I'm not actually well known). It comes with the territory. I'm sure I'll be flogged again for something else soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I get flogged regularly, but I'm a glutton for punishment, it would seem. Dennis - 2¢ 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As an admin, if you're liked by everyone, you're not doing your job right. Blackmane (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

David Beals

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.

---

Short background: long term troll/vandal, adds pictures of random ceiling fans to articles, or tries to link to youtube videos of fans, sometimes compares people who remove the pics to Adolf Hitler, or misspells their names (perhaps changing a syllable to profanity).

See the SPI page and the archives for how much time this guy wastes.

At the latest SPI, User:McDoobAU93 raised the idea of contacting Beals's ISP about his vandalism. He's using a dynamic IP, but they're all from Philadelphia, and I'm guessing we've got enough socks to CU to figure out which service(s) he's using. I'm not quite aware as to how we'd do that, but I'd assume someone here would. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the traceroute and geolocate info for known IP addresses, he's on AT&T, between Kutztown and Philadelphia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop now, you don't have to report. 166.171.57.248 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You've given us no reason to believe you, and plenty not to. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Community Ban - Enough is enough, and this is way overdue. I also support real world remedial action including contacting authorities as suggested. Jusdafax 05:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support action per Ian.thomson. Enough is enough. Blackmane (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban and inclusion at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse as well. What a sad waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban and whatever other actions we can take - I'm tired of removing his f*cking ceiling fan videos. Thomas.W ^talk 11:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• I support contacting his ISP. To the people supporting a community ban: formal community bans of notorious long-term vandals aren't needed. A situation where somebody is indefinitely blocked and no admin would unblock is a de facto ban, compare WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Not sure about creating a long-term abuse page for him. Building monuments to trolls should only be done when absolutely necessary. They like it. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC).
• Support community ban, if only to make it official and reduce the scope for any further chicanery so that new socks can be shot on sight. I'm agnostic about reporting to his ISP; usually my experience offwiki has been that ISPs don't actually give a hoot if the action being taken by their user isn't illegal. As irritating as this individual is, I don't think that it's at the point where we'd get law enforcement involved. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC).
• (edit conflict) Support community ban, listing at LTA, and contacting his ISP, per all of the above. The situation is a de facto ban as Bishonen described, but it's still a block, and the hope with blocks is that the user will reform and come back as a good editor, even with indefs via the WP:STANDARDOFFER. There's every reason to expect that this user will never reform, so our strongest sanction (formally kicking them out) is warranted even if it is a formality at this point. Ivanvector (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Makes sense, if this is truly the extent of his "contributions". Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban - A complete time suck for other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban and LTA, and perhaps contacting the ISP. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban and attempt ISP contact (though it'll probably end up buried by them nonetheless). More making it official than anything, they've already got a de facto ban and only the most naive of souls would dare to give them any editing responsibility. Nate • (chatter) 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban - enough is enough. Noteswork (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban and contacting his ISP, I have enough vandalism to clear up without having to remove ceiling fans. Amortias (T)(C) 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support AT&T must receive a LTA report and a site-wide autoblock should be issued. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably a terrible idea, feel free to ignore. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In case AT&T makes it clear they're not going to do anything, would it be possible to range block AT&T dynamic IP addresses from Kutztown and Philadelphia, and leave a message for such IP addresses saying "please contact AT&T at (phone number, email address, etc) about David Beals's vandalism"...? Possibly the same sort of methods we use for some open proxy IPs? If so, we have leverage if/when we contact AT&T about Beals, and will establish to other ISPs that they need to listen when we ask them for help. Not that we'd bring it up first thing, just if they don't want to help us. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: I think we shouldn't do that, since that could cause damage to the project by deterring helpful IP contributors, not to mention it'd basically be a concession of defeat to this vandal/troll. Not to mention he could just go to a public library and add ceiling fans from there or something. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support community ban Contact At&t per above, this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban and attempt ISP contact. Per the above. Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban & contact the ISP as as everyone's said Enough is enough!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban, ISP contact and a side order of eternal damnation! Favonian (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Also try to contact the user's ISP. We should contact AT&T to see if access to Wikipedia pages can be denied for this user. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support both the ban and contacting AT&T. Much as we all like ceiling fans during the summer, I think this has gone on for long enough. ansh666 00:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'll make you a deal After seeing this, I decided to stop adding videos and images. Just wait until I continue before contacting ISP. 166.170.34.116 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why should we? You've repeatedly shown us no kindness, nor given us any reason to trust you. Right now, you're not even giving any indication that you actually have any remorse for your actions, but are just trying to avoid trouble on your end (trouble you brought on yourself). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I decided to stop, because I've seen people saying about ISP. I'll wait like few month, then apologize what I did, then try to edit again. 166.170.34.116 (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't want you here at all. You've used over 70 accounts to make clearly disruptive edits, and have made personal attacks against the people cleaning your mess. Your options are:

1) You leave, and don't edit here ever again.

2) We contact AT&T and get them to make it so you can't edit.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is totally rude what you said. After reading about what you would do, I absolutely never do any bad edits again, ever. 166.170.34.116 (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support community ban, no deals. ... discospinster _talk 03:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• That's rude. If you had just given me a warning about ISP and community ban, I would have stopped. Please do not support ban until you see my vandalism edits after 3:28 November 5, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.34.116 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You've had dozens of accounts warned and blocked. No sane and honest person could pretend they didn't get the message to stop from that. Do you have any reason why we shouldn't contact AT&T? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I did get warning about getting blocked, but didn't get any about ISP. My reason for not contacting AT&T is that I noticed it, and decided to stop it. How many months do you think I should wait before apologizing and try to edit again? 166.170.34.116 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Im wondering here how many of these "Last chances" you got. You would think that after having an account blocked for socking one would get the message but you made what... dozens more accounts? You really need to open your eyes if you don't realize why people don't trust a word you say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I know I got some, but after reading about contacting ISP, I have decided for real that I will absolutely never do vandalism edits, ever again. 166.170.34.116 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Some? You had over 70 accounts blocked. If AT&T can't block you from editing without completely blocking your access to the site, then good riddance. Your continued vandalism shows that you don't care about what's good for the site, so why should we care about you having access?

How is not knowing that we could contact your ISP an excuse? How is it any different than us having to block you over 70 times? You had over 70 opportunities to start over and not be a total screw up, and you chose to engage in vandalism and personal attacks with every account you made an edit with.

You do not get to come back here to apologize, your options are:

1) Leave the site alone and never edit again.

2) We contact AT&T and ask them to institute a block on your end.

Either way, you don't edit ever again. You've proven you cannot be trusted to behave maturely, honestly, or rationally. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is different from blocking because I especially wouldn't want to get in trouble with ISP. Can you stop acting like you're an Admin? 166.170.34.116 (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So you don't have any remorse for your actions, you just don't want to get in trouble with your ISP? How does that benefit the site? At no point have I pretended to be an admin, I'm merely echoing the clear support above for the community ban. You are not welcome here. If we had some indication that you regretted your childish behavior, I'm guessing more people might consider letting you voluntarily leaving the site without us getting AT&T to block the site on your end. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Get the hint and clear off, In the nicest way possible - No one wants you here, You've been given chance after chance and now it's becoming a joke, Someone here will contact your ISP so if I were you I would simply go away & find another hobby!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

About me saying about you acting like an admin is that you said that I'm not welcome ever again. You can't decide that, when you're not an admin. It's not fair, good edits are better than no edits. And I would like to apologize for what I did, and will absolutely never do it again. 166.170.34.116 (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't decide that: everyone else did. Look above, at all the posts saying support community ban and support site ban. Notice that no one is defending you. Look at the 70+ accounts you've created that have been blocked. You are not welcome here. You've shown you utterly lack either the ethical or intellectual capacity to make good edits, and so no edits are better. You are not welcome here, and we do not want you here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have decided to stop editing. Maybe in the future, I might start a fresh new account, that no one will recognize. And I'll try to keep it fresh, thinking about how we talked in ISP.166.170.34.116 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You and a ceiling fan have 1 thing in common - You both are going around in circles here!, No worries you create an account - We'll recognize you - We'll contact your ISP ... Get the hint. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, regardless of what you say now, someone should still contact your ISP. People have been firefighting to keep your crap from WP. From now, it's a preemptive strike to stop any future vandalism. Once you're dealt with from the ISP end, you won't be able to come back as an IP or account to cause any more trouble.Blackmane (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

On fresh new account, I won't post random videos on random articles. 166.170.33.80 (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's nice but someone is still going to contact your ISP. Nothing like "the sixth biggest website on the internet need to stop a guy who won't stop posting videos of ceiling fans" to make everyone around feel foolish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice, and irrelevant. As it stands, there is a very solid consensus to indefinitely community ban you. That means you as a person are banned, regardless of your account. That also means that from whenever this discussion is closed till, pretty much forever, any editor can (and will) revert your edits regardless of their quality without worrying about invoking 3rr. You wore out your welcome a long time ago and now not only is the door closed to you, it's locked and barred shut. Blackmane (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely universal consensus for a community ban (whether one thinks there's already a de facto ban or if one thinks we need a de jure ban), and there's plenty of support and no real opposition to contacting AT&T about Beals. I think we've got enough to seal the deal here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• If anybody notices any new accounts, it would be appreciated if someone could report them to m:SRG or #wikimedia-stewards as this is a cross-wiki vandal. If you report it at SPI, someone will get to it eventually, but this helps the disruption to be minimized quickly. --Rschen7754 04:00, 6 November 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.

• Question: As noted by Euryalus, there is consensus here to contact Beals's ISP regarding his vandalism. Has anyone acted on that? --Richard Yin (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Rogue poli-sci class?

Not sure where to report this. A bunch of accounts with similar naming patterns have been making edits to biographies of members of the US Congress. The edits seem mostly well-intended, but are highly problematic as many lack sources, have POV phrasing, and are borderline undue.

Accounts

• Bill922 (talk · contribs)
• Bureaucracy472 (talk · contribs)
• Divided government190 (talk · contribs)
• Government19 (talk · contribs)
• Legislative agenda19 (talk · contribs)
• Public good249 (talk · contribs)
• Supremacy clause399 (talk · contribs)
• Watchdog12345 (talk · contribs)
• Separation of powers643 (talk · contribs)
• Home style955 (talk · contribs)
• Political action221 (talk · contribs)
• Redistricting648 (talk · contribs)
• Direct democracy367 (talk · contribs)
• Iron triangle52 (talk · contribs)
• Ranking member539 (talk · contribs)
• Opinion137 (talk · contribs)
• Necessary and proper917 (talk · contribs)
• Constitution844 (talk · contribs)
• Election294 (talk · contribs)

I'm hoping these aren't puppets of any sort. Many of the edits were made today and on October 30th, so perhaps there is a poli-sci class out there? Anyone know what this is? gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To begin with you need to notify each account that you mentioned them here. Next you might try asking them what is going on. GB fan 20:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've also mentioned this at the education noticeboard. gobonobo ^{+ c} 21:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As general information for anyone reading here, Template:Welcome student is ready made to put on talk pages of such editors, and is an easy way of telling them what they need to be told. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted some negative BLP from one of these accounts about the personal life of a staff member of one of the politicians that was in no way related to the politician's career. That was the sort of editing about a public figure that could significantly harm the encyclopedia. All edits from these accounts need to be checked again. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither the usernames nor the edits seem to me to suggest a class of students. It looks to me much more like sock- or meat- puppets here to promote particular political views. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this looks more like sockpuppets or meatpuppets, so I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bill922. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have come across a few more which I have added to the SPI, including User:Veto118 who was blocked for BLP violations so this appears to be block evasion. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Edit: Actually it's a lot more. There are at least 30 of these accounts. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Matt200055

Recently I removed inappropriate material (a list of 'evil users'[208] that clearly violates what is stated under WP:POLEMIC) from the User and Talk pages of Matt200055 (talk · contribs) after the editor made attempts to goad BlackCab (talk · contribs)[209][210][211] and SummerPhD (talk · contribs)[212][213]. (Previous content of the 'evil list' indicates this to be an ongoing pattern of behaviour.) After I removed inappropriate material from the editor's User and User Talk pages, he responded with imaginary 'conditions' for how I was 'allowed' to respond to him in future.[214] The user has subsequently vandalised my user page while logged out (i.e. as an IP user).[215] Comparison of the material added to my user page relating to A-Ha with the editing history of Matt200055 provides a clear link with the user, in addition to the obvious timing of the retributive action (separate action elsewhere by Favonian (talk · contribs) also confirms this). The vandalism was reverted by BlackCab (talk · contribs)[216][217], who was one of the editors previously goaded by Matt200055. The editor has never engaged anyone at any article Talk page to discuss any article content, instead choosing to make mild threats about his 'evil list' when content disputes arise. As the editor's behaviour appears to be escalating, it seems necessary that something be done to assist the editor to abide by Wikipedia policies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked at and reverted some of this editor's work--including removal of valid information and addition of unsourced information. They've not restored their silly list: so far that's the best thing they've done here. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Code of Conduct / Conflict of Interest

Editor JamesBWatson, aka JamesAWatson aka JamesCWatson (and potentially Bbb23) recently handled an edit for the CEO of WSO2, Sanjiva Weerawarana wherein the Orubel acct had placed ongoing legal issues where Mr Weerawarana had made statements against Mr Rubel's copyright and which Mr Rubel was enforcing and they were engaged in legal issues over. Mr Rubel had claims, common law copyright that predated anything they had, a working project, had done talks and conferences and a pending copyright; they had an article. Mr Weerawarana refused to acknowledge the copyright and remove the derivative work.

These statements, his statements in his companies ticketing system and the basic facts of the legal case were added to his personal page which caused a wiki war with him calling it as 'spam' while I tried to stick to the facts to avoid libel or any other issues.

The JamesBWatson acct recently removed the content from the Sanjiva Weerawarana page, blocked the Orubel acct and Bbb23 blocked the IP so no talk or edits could be done (except on my own talk page), and then decided to remove pages for copyrighted material that Mr Weerawarana also disliked.

This removal of the API Chaining and API Abstraction pages (or the tagging for removal) are a distinct violation of 'code of conduct' and 'conflict of interest' in that he showed favor to one party in what was stated in the removed content as a legal dispute. Te second party was unable to respond and/or edit (blocked and blocked IP) and they didn't read the notes about the legal issues or the references on projects and presentations.

API Chaining has references, is used in an project where it is cited, has been talked about at largescale conferences such as SpringOne (at publicly cited). API Abstraction has references, is used in an project where it is cited, has been talked about at largescale conferences such as SpringOne (at publicly cited).

Neither of these are worth considering for removal and the JamesBWatson was, at the very least, over enthusiast, with his attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.39.210 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• If JamesBWatson and Bbb23 were the same person their synergistic awesomeness would create such a burst of heat and light that the universe would implode.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Then again, Ponyo, it would help to explain some of Bbb23's penchant for secrecy. They won't even tell me what their favorite football team or SRV record is. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised you even know what an SRV record is. And I've told you what my favorite football team is.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Peroxwhyhalo

Over the past week this user has edit warred on Cedric Alexander and Matt Taven. Their talk page is filled with warnings from Ribbon Salminen, HHH Pedigree, bots, and myself; I personally have spelled out exactly what is wrong with their edits twice but the behavior has continued. A few days ago they admitted to their errors but quickly resumed edit warring regardless and have not tried communicating with anybody since. They also have a pattern of bad image uploads. Could we get some help? We've tried to settle this by ourselves but unfortunately that has not worked.LM2000 (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No ongoing 3RR (it looks like a violation on 2 November, but nothing active), but this does look like a slower edit warrior who needs a general {{uw-ewblock}}. I'll handle the situation and report back. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Block levied. Since it's a new editor, I left a custom message explaining the situation and offering to discuss it with him if requested; we can't just sweep it under the rug, but we ought not be as sharp as we would with someone who's previously been blocked for this kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Nyttend, I agree completely that this is the right route.LM2000 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Block needed, possibly revdel

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

IP's gone nuts and started spamming personal attacks against a user in their edit summaries for pointless edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not personal attacks when the edit summaries are all Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142#Result concerning Arthur Rubin wp:COI = Arthur Rubin Tea party movement Undid revision [number] by Arthur Rubin (talk). However, this guy was following Arthur around, undoing lots of his edits on otherwise unrelated pages; this is harassment, so I've levied a 24-hour block for it. Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the "Michigan kid". See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list and part of User:Arthur Rubin/watch for some history. No opinion on revdel; there was an ArbCom result; it's just that it is completely irrelevant to almost all of the edits, and irrelevant per clarification for all but one of the thousands. I believe I made one edit in violation of the topic ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of talk page by indefinitely blocked user Alexyflemming

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.

---

Alexyflemming was blocked indefinitely on 4 November 2014 for "not being here to contribute to build the encyclopaedia", after a discussion here on ANI, the fourth block in their short career here on en-WP, and has had two unblock requests denied over the past few days. In spite of that they continue posting walls of POV text on their talk page, and have today also posted an entire draft article there, which I see as inappropriate for an indefinitely blocked user. Thomas.W ^talk 14:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• The draft text has been removed by the user after I posted here, but I still see the continued bickering and POV-pushing as inappropriate, since blocked users, AFAIK, should only use their talk page for unblock requests and discussions directly related to unblock requests. Thomas.W ^talk 14:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocked users may only use their talk pages for unblock requests? Do you have a citation in policy/guideline for that? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• The draft isn't so much a draft, but a copy of the History section of Northern Cyprus. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Doing a cursory review of this editor, I find over 5000 edits made by this editor along with more than a dozen articles created. The idea that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia appears to be...lacking. I don't want to get too far down in the weeds on this; I really, really, really do not want to review 5000 edits nor get into lengthy debates about the value of his contributions. But, to indefinitely block him as not here to build an encyclopedia is flat wrong. Given what I see, including prior blocks for edit warring and a strong interest in Cyprus related edit warring, I would welcome discussion about a topic ban. But, to summarily block and dismiss the editor from the project? I don't see this as helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I suggest you look at the editor that is being discussed, Alexyflemming, instead of whoever you looked at, because Alexyflemming has only made 1,324 edits, not 5,000, and has been very focused on Cyprus, with very few edits outside that subject area. With edits that have been very one-sided, often violating WP:NPOV. Thomas.W ^talk 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get down in the weeds on this. I stand corrected on the edit count, but the points remain. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

They do, when you ignore my reply. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You said your 'points remain', without as much as acknowledging my reply to you below. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I was responding to Thomas. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Am I not worth your time? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I sent you flowers last week. Didn't you get them? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So you're my secret valentine. :-) 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, but it is 9 months after Valentine's Day. You do the math :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

ha ha, bummer, I've never been good at maths. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did first suggest a topic ban. Nobody responded, and he was indef blocked some time later. I wouldn't say that all his contributions were problematic, but, from what I've seen, most of them were. Isn't someone who on a pretty consistent basis misrepresents sources to advance his POV WP:NOTHERE? Also, I think it's rather doubtful that he'd be interested to contribute in other areas, so I think, in effect, it makes little difference. Finally, I don't think the topic ban discussion would've gained much traction; it'd be unreasonable to implement a topic ban when there's only like 3 or 4 voices. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• What was problematic was the POV pushing and the edit warring. They've been arguing (as far as I can glean from the seriously complicated and unclear walls of text) that they were right about the POV--that is, that there was no POV. Even if that were granted (I see no reason to grant it) they still need to address the edit warring. But, as happens so often, it's a package deal: someone has a POV and is convinced they're right and will edit war (against consensus, against multiple editors) to enforce their preferred version. That is seriously disruptive and until they address that, I doubt that any admin will grant an unblock request. Hammersoft, indefinite is not infinite, as you know, so while an indefinite block appears draconian it's not a death sentence. Far from it. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

He is still railing for WP:TRUTH: But, being against the mainstream for the sake of being non-blocked is not my way. I can neither be intimidated nor be purchased with warnings, block threats etc.! I say what is true, and in WP I defended and tried to protect the dignity and honor of History! See my 1st unblock request.. He shows no signs of understanding the disruption he has caused. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

See also here where I tried to explain this very plainly. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw it yesterday. It was a very well made point but as with every other explanation by multiple editors and in multiple fora it just went completely unnoticed by this user. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yup, I think we've said it all ad nauseam (our nauseam, that is). 213.7.147.34 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This kind of intransigence can be explained in a few ways, none of which is good. It is either extreme POV-pushing accompanied by a righteous attitude which makes him make misleading edits in articles and also make attacks against others based on false premises and without seeing the problems he creates even when explained to him by others multiple times, lack of competence, or problems with the English language. It could also be some combination of all of these. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I can not help to notice that for a POV-edit war, you need more than one party. I recently made the mistake to stray into the minefield named Cyprus and was soon attacked for choosing the wrong names. That is: Turkish names for settlements in (Turkish) Northern Cyprus. Even if Alexyflemming is POV-pushing, he was certainly not the only one. The Banner talk 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again... Nobody attacked you for using a Turkish name. You were reverted 'cause Greek names were the norm till now. You could've discussed the matter like a normal person would, instead of going around making a whole big drama out of it. I mean, honestly... 213.7.147.34 (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Is your memory that bad that you already forgot Karavostasi and the history? That is the reason that I have quitted that whole Cyprus thingy, because you two are all that innocent. The Banner talk 01:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about Karavostasi. Who's 'you two'? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Banner: Can you provide a specific diff of a POV-edit war as you describe it? And can you also provide a diff demonstrating how you were soon attacked for choosing the wrong names.? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

'Course he's not gonna respond, 'cause there was no 'POV-edit war', and nobody attacked him for that. The Banner, you're dealing with real people with real emotions here; will you stop lying about me? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And there is the attacking behaviour to deflect from his own action. Thank you, mr. IP. The Banner talk 01:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

My own action you've never been able to provide any diffs for? Is that the one? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Banner: Get back here and explain yourself. You're not gonna keep popping up causing a stir and ignoring calls to substantiate your claims. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Because up to now, you have ignored my arguments to push your opinions. Wikipedia would be better of with a topic ban for you and friends. The Banner talk 12:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Banner: Are you confused about the meaning of substantiate? What you're doing is casting more aspersions. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, what you say is just WP:IREFUSETOLISTENBECAUSEYOUROPINIONDOESNOTSUITME. Bye. The Banner talk 12:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit from bad mobile interface feel free to reformat) I've never understood the attraction of blocked users talk pages. Isn't the easiest way of dealing with wall o' text is to just not read them ? Unwatch the page. NE Ent 00:33, 8 November 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 editor pushing un-/poorly sourced fringe POV

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

IP edit warred against consensus to add material to Orion (constellation) using a source that didn't support the material, an outdated and fringe source, and two personal websites. They were asked every single time to discuss the issue, which they ignored completely. Once the article was protected, they proceeded to spam unsourced material claiming "Orion the sun god symbolizes Christ," and further claiming that Dionysus and Osiris were prophecies of the coming Christ.

Since they're on a static IP, they're in all likelyhood on a computer, so they should be receiving the messages. At this point I'm convinced that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia or edit cooperatively, they're simply trying to use use Wikipedia as a pulpit to preach their religious views.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Their edit summary here ("rv vandalism") indicates that this is not a new user at all. The IP should know better. His focus on Armenia and Orion also leads me to believe we're dealing with 66.214.143.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who had previously engaged in edit warring across a number of other articles to push un-/poorly sourced fringe OR across articles such Orion (constellation) and Hayk.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Both 66.214 and 76.201 are from Glendale, CA; both edit warred to make assertions that the constellation Orion was of some cosmic importance, and both showed prior awareness of Wikipedia lingo ("rv"). I don't know who it is, but I get the feeling we're dealing with someone who was blocked or maybe even banned before. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"they're in all likelyhood on a computer" Not quite sure what you mean by this bit, Ian.thomson. In the mean time, I've blocked 76.201.60.184 for 24 hours, since the edits to Christian mysticism violated 3RR. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cell phone IPs aren't static, so that leaves editing on a computer the most likely possibility. I've seen some cell phone editors who missed messages because the notification on the mobile site isn't as obvious, and seen that possibility raised when some other editors ignored messages. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, computer vs. smartphone; I see. I just wasn't sure how one could edit Wikipedia without a computer :-) I didn't check anything done by this editor except for the editwarring; the source usage isn't anything warranting a block, especially since the outdated source probably warrants something (e.g. "In the 1940s [or whatever the date was], it was suspected that Osiris represented whatever"), as we ought to study past ideas as well as current ones. However, there's no defending the 3RR. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The source usage actually is a problem The only really reliable source, The Oxford Guide: Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology, actually doesn't say what the text says about Orion being a sun god(said rather), and neither this dead link to a schools site[218] nor [219] meet WP:RS. The IP is also adding the unsourced statement "Orion the sun god symbolizes Christ." to various articles. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I see a prolonged edit-war along the same lines (Orion=Osiris=Ra=sun-god) in Dying-and-rising god back in 2012 that left the IP's (mainly 75.51.171.237) unsourced insertion standing[220] - until now. NebY (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple article edit war spanning months by two editors

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

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

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

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

why they are showing BLP issue?

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 reverted a content blanking in the article Ron Paul. Here is my edit [221]. But the edit summury for my edit is showing "possible BLP issue or vandalism". Why? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:HOUND & WP:DE by IP range

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

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

The IP user(s) continue to revert edits and tagging original edits as possible vandalism. User(s) are likely experienced WP editors based upon these talk page comments: [222] (responding to WP:HOUND allegations), [223] (knowledge of WP guidelines re: copyright). With one exception, IP user(s) are not targeting edits of users other than mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implied legal threat on Talk:Laverne Cox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unintentional Outing

Can I get someone to fix my screw up? I didn't think about my comment made here as a confirmation or denial but out of safety it should probably be revdel. [[224]] Apologies. My idea is that we delete the SPI page and repost in it's current format or completely revdel as needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)