Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843

Banc De Binary, HistorianofRecenttimes, Smallbones, Okteriel

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Smallbones continues to make claims, that I am a banned editor, and to delete my talk comments, despite warnings, a claim based solely in my interest in, and admitted slight bias in favor of, the subject of an article, that was originally created by Wiki-PR (that is, it's bias, at least compared to the editing by HistorianofRecenttimes). Historian, a happy SPA [see contribs anywhere], echoed the claim that I am banned, and reverted me on that basis; and, Historian's 20 edits yesterday evince a significant lack of interest in improving Wikipedia. It may be relevant that, in October, while Historian was getting autoconfirmed, Historian called another editor a criminal, to his wikiface, without conviction or proof, which is about the worst BLP violation one can think of (the other editor self-identified as the principal of the subject company). My pretty thorough spot-check review of all edits by Historian did not show any exceptions to the general principle of not improving the cyclopaedia; Historian typically engages in broad OR in talk for the whole last 9 months, which has a wearing effect on other editors, who begin to believe the randomly chosen, industry-specific negative statements, made about the article subject.

I have tried several other methods of dealing with this, but today there was another deletion of my comments on Historian's talk page by Smallbones on the same rationale [already linked], without asking Historian if the comments should be deleted (Historian has not told me to stay off his talk; Smallbones claimed to do so for himself or herself, but the claim itself was the only place I saw where I could possibly have been notified of Smallbones's desire.) I welcomed both editors, and thanked Smallbones for asking [see Jimbo's talk archive] whether I was a paid editor, to which I responded at length; seeing that, I have received information from the article subject that could be used to improve the article, I decided in the hostile environment to let myself be treated as a COI, "just to make it fair", and, thereby, decided not to disclose or reveal personal details further than that statement. (The logic could be inferred that, to Smallbones, because I know who Morning277 is, my denial of being him or connected with him, proves I am him.) I told Smallbones that such desire to revert project and talkpages should compel Smallbones to start a community ban proposal on me, and, if I am approved to do so by this thread, I will start such a proposal myself, if it would not be dramatic. I think, the community would recognize that, without evidence, to ban a person solely for interest and favor toward one topic, is complete chilling of speech, rather than good additional Wiki-PR bounty hunting. (Did I mention, I despise Wiki-PR, if that is not a biased statement?) Please give advice to this situation, unique to English Wikipedia, as to how I should interact with these editors to improve the full-protected article. I have asked admins for advice but have met silence.

I have an appointment today, because I am trying to make my vacation time, which is ending soon, only 90% Wikidrama instead of 100%. I have a moment to respond right now, and I will be adding links to the above. Okteriel (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC) In reply, Smallbones just repeated himself not recognizing that my putting ANI notice on his talkpage is required. Also please note significant canvassing issues by Historian. GTG, please handle in my absence. Okteriel (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at your editing history, I can see why others might be concerned. As someone who has blocked over 300 sockpuppets/meatpuppets for User:Morning277 in just one sitting, I can see several familiar patterns. That alone isn't a guarantee you are him but I can see why they are suspicious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dennis Brown! Sure. How can I distinguish myself from those familiar patterns and do the task I set out to do, improve the article? You would probably have good advice. All I can guess is that improving other parts of the cyclopaedia would give me a little credit to fix this God-forsaken (?) mess of an article. Anything else? Okteriel (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your editing history indicates that your account was dormant for three years and then was reactivated. You have a COI disclosure that beats around the bush. Yes, you do seem to be a sockpuppet and yes, it was justified to delete your comments. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm a user accepting being treated as a managed COI. If you're saying my account is indistinguishable from a sleeper, how should I distinguish it? Should new editors be prohibited from improving important topics? How should my disclosure read in general terms? Isn't socking judged on edit quality and not interests alone? Okteriel (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your account is indistinguishable from a sleeper (your term, and accurate). No, you can only distinguish it from a sleeper by going back in time and not acting like one. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm back now. OK, good, so I really am a WP:SLEEPER, good, because I thought it was a negative term. But, then, why can any random user or two delete my comments completely, and charge me as an agent of a company, that, it is widely known, had the means, motive, and opportunity to break undisclosed advertising law, solely because of my topic interests? Is it because I asked the company for information to complete their article with? I know some topics are more sensitive, but none are regulated beyond autoconfirmation and protection, unless, subject to, e.g., ArbCom proceedings. And, I know the Community may make judgments about all people involved in the thread, and, I only ask that they make judgments about all people involved. It's mystifying to me that Historian's behavior has not been objected to, before, not with more than templates. Okteriel (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You had only three edits in 2011 and then reactivated the account for the purposes of COI editing. You are knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and are obviously abusing multiple accounts. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, that's it? What abuse of multiple accounts means is, if I'm abusing this account, or another one that ties to it, or the combination thereof. Why is it so obvious, what is your evidence? The only evidence I can see is interests. Should I back off from the page for a little while maybe? I have other ideas for Wikipedia, it's just that this keeps coming up on my watchlist and notifications.

Also, I really did mean it, what should I disclose? I started to edit my disclosure, but would it help me any? Does my knowledge of another language's Wikipedia rules get me in trouble? I guess I do have a second account, in another language, I wasn't even thinking of that as a second account, but wouldn't that just be a legitimate alternate account? I don't mind being in the hotseat, but just don't make me guess what you want, and make sure all the editors are in the hotseat in turn. I came here to voice my suspicions about unannounced COI SPA behavior, and I sure don't want to project same myself. Okteriel (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Other language versions guidelines and policies are irrelevant here. Socking is not judged on quality of edits. I'm as concerned about Historian as I am about you. One word of advice - don't even hint at a real person's name, see WP:OUTING. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As a bit more context, Banc de Binary came up on WP:COIN a few months ago as promotional, and I did some work on it. The article has one self-identified COI editor, BDBJack (talk · contribs), and a long history of SPAs and anons making edits to remove negative information (typical example [1]). The negative information comes from the the US SEC and CFTC (Banc de Binary operating illegally in the US), Canadian securities regulators (same thing in Canada), the Better Business Bureau, Forbes, the Financial Times, the London Daily Mail... The COI editors generally remove that negative information and prefer sources from BdB itself or generated by BdB's extensive PR and affiliate operation. Banc de Binary is actually one of 200 brands connected to a company called Softoption, in Cyprus. Those brands in turn recruit affiliates by paying them for new account signups. So there are a large number of web sites devoted to making BdB/Softoption/related binary option companies look good. Because the COI push has a lot of effort behind it, we're now at full protection. We now have extensive wikilawyering in response to that. The last time full protection was released, the article was rapidly changed to something much more favorable to BdB. This is starting to look like an effort to wear down editors trying to stop promotional editing. Full protection is a good temporary measure, but a long term solution will be tougher. Anyway, that's why we're in this mess. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you were to differentiate between the behavior of COI-declared editors, lest it seem like an accusation of Sock-puppeting / Meat-puppeting. BDBJack (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@DougWeller, thanks. Reading the rest of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okteriel (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a very different summary of the situation. The article relies heavily on extremely low-quality sources like court documents, press releases from the SEC, and Investopedia, but efforts to focus on reliable secondary sources have largely been thwarted. We have two COIs that are both disclosed and both mostly sticking to the Talk page, but exaggerated claims of poor COI conduct have been effective as a POV railroading tactic to protect an attack page on a marginally notable organization. You have an involved admin that seems to have negative personal opinions about the company adding article-protection to preserve an article written by an SPA who engages in personal attacks against the company and its reps and who is canvassing editors with a non neutral notification.

However, given that there is emerging consensus to keep the version of the article that is filled with junk sources, I don't think there is anything anyone can do... CorporateM (Talk) 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, didn't see that consensus yet, just a protection on the "wrong" copy after 3RR and nearly 4RR by Historian. Others, note, both CorporateM and BDBJack favor shorter versions, but I understand if you discount my or their views. Black Kite has been very involved, and I don't think he's trying to protect any particular version, but again this thread is partly about the various behaviors. Uh-oh, who do I need to notify of this discussion now? Anyway, Black Kite said, focus on resolving both behaviors and content. I think if the community has input here on behaviors and at article talk on content, we will make progress. Okteriel (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone explain why the obvious paid-editor sock is being allowed to drive this process, please? Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. The answer appears to be "because nobody has stopped him." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite and Figureofnine, if you have any evidence of socking beyond what's hinted at in this thread please let me know. I'm actively investigating but not coming up with anything convincing yet. I also don't have the experience with this farm that Dennis Brown has, but I've been going by what I see here for now. If you want to email me rather than posting something here or on my talk page feel free. The same goes for anyone else who has concerns. -- Atama頭 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I, unlike the editors in question, am not being paid for my time, so I'll decline your gracious offer to waste time picking through account histories to prove that an account that registered in 2011 to edit basically nothing, than disappeared for three fucking years, till they showed up to fake-edit their way to autoconfirmed and then jump headlong into an article plagued by paid editors to advance the cause of said paid editors, with massively advanced understanding of the structural and cultural nuances of wikipedia is obviously a sock of a paid editor. SHIT! I just spent the time I promised not to spend! Ahh well! Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I concur at least that Okteriel isn't a newbie, though that doesn't preclude some previous editing as an IP, or that they had a previous clean account that was abandoned. I can't block someone because I have inconclusive suspicions. -- Atama頭 21:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a more tangible problem. BDBJack (talk · contribs) proposed some changes to the article on the talk page, and invited discussion. Various people put up "support" or "oppose" notes. When the results were not favoring BDBJack's position, he refactored the talk page so as to close the old discussion, effectively throwing out all the old votes, and started a new vote, with his vote first.[2] This is an attempt to manipulate the process and wear down other editors for whom this isn't their day job. John Nagle (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nagle: I'm sorry if my "reorganization for clarity" is not viewed as appropriate. However with all of the concurrent separate discussion threads, even I (as someone who is active in the discussion) am having a hard time understanding the difference between positions and unrelated chatter. This was not meant as an attempt to manipulate the process, and in fact I have been doing my best to clarify the user's positions by placing them in easily read tables, segregated between "neutral" and "biased" users. BDBJack (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As an involved editor with a declared COI, it looks really bad. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Noted. I will refrain from making such edits in the future. I would like to note though that the section in question is at least 2800px high (on my 1920 x 1080px screen). This action was meant (on my part) to help focus the discussion, not to make any unintended changes. If someone thinks that the edit that I made does not accomplish this, I will be more than happy to assist in reverting back to a previous state. BDBJack (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time for you and the other COI/SPA editors to bow out of the discussion on that talk page. You've made your point. You've done your work. You can report to your bosses that you gave it the old college try. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Figureofnine: I will gladly "step out" for the time being, however I request that you hold other SPA/COI editors of the opposing bias to the same standards that you are holding me to. BDBJack (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I said all SPA editors regardless of inclination. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we've found something we can all agree on: the 3 SPAs all stay off the article and talk page forever. That's 1) Okteriel, who's getting off damn easy, but blocking or banning him in general doesn't make that big of a difference, because he's already been banned and blocked many times. 2) BDBJack, who is an admitted employee who has been blocked before for the same stuff he's doing now - major disruptions and putting in promotional material, and 3) Historyofrecenttimes, who is an SPA, but as far as I can tell has only made a few newbie mistakes. Yes, this is unfair to History, but I'll just encourage him to accept this because without the 2 others we'll be able to get a fair article. If BDBJack and History accept this (indicate below) we're on. If Okteriel doesn't accept it, I don't care, I'm sure the community will stop the disruption. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the last few minutes we have BDBJack trying again to introduce three sources, two of which are explicitly BdB press releases, and the third, while in a nominally unaffiliated publication, reads like one.[3] (This is from someone who previously insisted that the financial section of the London Daily Mail isn't a reliable source.) If there is not to be a block, could we have something comparable to 1RR, limiting the usual suspects to one edit a day? Watching an article being edited by a full-time COI editor is a full time job. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okteriel and BDBJack are gaming the system blatantly and need to be off that article pronto. BDBJack claims that there is another SPA that is a thorn in his shoe, but only these two are creating difficulties at present. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is enough to tell who is arguing for discipline based on behavior, and who is arguing for discipline based on content. Figureofnine's adoption of a position is also rather sudden. The content discussion block is not due to content disagreement but to behavioral challenges with setting up harmonious discussion. In most articles the various views on a segment can be easily separated and resolved (as BDBJack is attempting). In this one it took several days even to obtain agreement as to the correct name of the subject company and of its CEO due to (government-sponsored) misconceptions, and now people can't even come out and have a friendly discussion about whether we should build from a short article or trim from a long article. Aside from BDBJack's work, there's no agreement about how to even decide the question. Please help us out, thank you. Okteriel (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The two editors I wanted input about have both been quiet now, which might mean no result arises from here, but I'd really appreciate advice as to what to do if the problem recurs. But maybe I should AGF. Thank you. Okteriel (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary proposal

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.

---

• Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BDBJack (talk · contribs)
• Okteriel (talk · contribs)
• HistorianofRecenttimes (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia's open-door procedures can be exploited when there is sufficient motivation. Rather than requiring volunteers to spend hours debating with SPAs, why not decide that this case warrants an unusual resolution? How about a topic ban for the known SPAs which I believe I have listed above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban for BDBJack, a BDB employee, and for Okteriel, who has in effect admitted his COI and is trying to dominate the talk page. Though HistorianofRecenttimes is an SPA and a newbie, I don't see anything serious enough for a topic ban. I'll suggest he voluntarily step aside however, just to make things easier. Given the $10,000 bounty offered by the BDB owners (apparently documented by admin @Bilby:, with Okteriel stating that he has had an email conversation with the owner about it (see User:Okteriel/Five figures), something has to be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This is hardly a valid proposal, especially when modified by the idea, that Historian has done nothing serious. Historian is the one who called the CEO of BDB a criminal, in article talk, an outright BLP violation, and whose talk and editing is full of OR (do you need links?), for nearly a year. I can understand asking me and BDBJack for a topic ban, but neither of us have been accused of behavioral issues. But, in theory, if some topics are just so sensitive that a new user who edits on one side of them is automatically topic-banned, then this is no longer a forum for free discourse in the area of those topics. I am trying hard not to be a SPA. The case warrants a usual resolution, namely stubbing. Historian is the one who has prevented stubbing all along and has continued BLPGROUP violations by edit-warring as per his talk. Smallbones is the one who has been deleting my comments prematurely (which he should not do unless I were separately community-banned, so, topic ban would mean nothing to resolve what may be a personal attack on me).

I'm not sure it would even help to answer the question, now. At first, I said it would make a difference if I stood on my honor and personal privacy, to not answer. But it would hardly make any difference to certain editors if I said either "yes" or "no" now, because, e.g., Smallbones has already denied the validity of my earlier denials. I was told to fill out a SPI on Historian and Smallbones, and the fact that only one of them is very active at a time might warrant my doing so, but that would hardly help either. I came here for advice. I can hardly believe that the Community has topic-banned new compliant editors solely because the topic area is a spur of a previous problem. Okteriel (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, isn't this the kind of thing ANI deals with? Did I come here to get more of the same? Is that how WP works today? Is there an uninvolved editor who is willing to deal with the BLP, or will the BLP remain because the only people, who care about BLP, anyway, end up disqualifying themselves by getting info from the subject? The article is a WP:ATTACK and should be stubbed and rebuilt by consensus. Okteriel (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I just removed a BLP violation by Nagle. This is essentially identical to the BLP violation by Historian some months back. Should I include Nagle in a SPI? It makes no sense that we should go to SPI over this. Okteriel (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I really didn't want to check but forced myself to. I know this kind of analysis suffers from imagined patterns, but here it is. Lately Historian only edits on weekends. On the 8th, between the two, we have H 11:30-11:50 (5); S 12:52; then H 15:14-15:15 (2), S 15:37-18:12 (10), H 18:47-20:22 (7), S 20:32. After that we have a lot more alternation such as would be normal for unconnected editors. But it's those two long edit runs of 10 and 7 that are very interesting because they each overlap with a long break in the other account. I told you I didn't want to do it, because I might just be imagining something. Can anyone comment? Okteriel (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your refactoring the talk page comment by Nagle was for no valid reason, no BLP violation whatsoever, and is one of the reasons why you have to stay off the talk page and leave it to editors not paid by the company. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support with ammendment - While I do not think that a blanket "ban" is either required or necessary, a block requiring us ( the mentioned SPA's as well as any others ) to use the Talk page to gain consensus and edit requests to implement those changes would (in my opinion) bring order back to the page. It will allow the process of editing to include the opinions of editors who have both experience and information on the subject to contribute without fear of their biases "taking over" the article. On a personal note, I am sorry that if my presence on the talk page for the article about the company that I helped to build has offended anyone. I have endeavored to the best of my ability to follow WP:COI policy, and any breach was not intended, but instead just a misunderstanding on my part. That being said, I would like to ask the following questions:

* smallbones (talk · contribs) is it possible that you too have COI due to your involvement in a financial investment scheme? ( See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernard_Madoff#JPMorgan_settlement )

* historianofrecenttimes (talk · contribs) can you please elaborate on your connection to Banc De Binary, professionally and personally

[[User: |BDBJack]] (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:the questioning of my motives by Okteriel and BDBJack above. Okteriel is accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Please check my user page for details on my long history of contributions to Wikipedia. Then if you want to go to SPI, be prepared for the rebound.

BDBJack mentioned something on Talk:Bernard Madoff - it's a stray footnote from somebody else of the type that shows up when you try to document something on a talk page. I can assure you that me or my family never had any investments with Madoff or related companies. I will say that when I created the Madoff article, I did have some (distant) professional knowledge of his previous non-criminal ethical challenges, the same as I have some professional knowledge of the type of operation BDB conducts. Including that material without standard RS would however be considered WP:OR here so I didn't include them in either case. I do think though that editors do not fully understand the seriousness of BDB's legal situation and what the continuing legal complaints entail (e.g. 3x return of the proceeds in the CFTC complaint). If for no other reason than the continuing legal situation, BDB representatives must be excluded from any influence on the article. As far as some other editors referring to BDB as "crooks", it is completely understandable, but not in Wikipedia's tradition. "Legally challenged individuals" might be better - and do note that when they were challenged legally, they appear to have waived their day in court by not showing up. If BDB wanted to sue for defamation in the US on this, they would be laughed out of court. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thank you for clarifying the nature of the statment from the Talk:Bernard Madoff page. It makes more sense now in context. I cannot speak for Okteriel (talk · contribs)'s actions, in refactoring another user's comments, but as stated above, my "refactoring" was not meant to disturb the nature of the conversation, but instead to focus it. The previous thread had (in my opinion) gone out of control, with a thread that was over 2800 pixels long. Please note that I did not move / change any user's comments (with the exeception of Mike V, who I had received permission to do so from him), nor did I edit the tables of "positions". Please remember that I am NOT paid to edit Wikipedia, I am paid to do my job ( I am a programmer ). I have very little previous experience with Wikipedia policies, and I would appreciate if you were to treat this lapse as a "newbie" mistake (see: WP:DNB). In most cases, I've asked for others with less interest in the subject and more experience in Wikipedia policy (such as Huon (talk · contribs), Pinkbeast (talk · contribs), and GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) ) for guidance and direction. In any case, were all things equal here, I would have received a warning for re-factoring the talk page, and allowed to continue contributing my opinion (without making any direct changes to the article) on the talk page. (Such as in the case of HistorianOfRecentTimes (talk · contribs)). I don't expect a level playing field especially since I am both a COI editor and an SPA, however I did not willingly make any changes that were in violation of Wikipedia policy knowingly, and I would appreciate guidance and assistance in continuing to do so. Blocking me from allowing to contribute my opinion (as long as I do not violate Wiki policies) would be (in my opinion) counter productive to Wikipedia in general, since I have considerable resources available to me in providing relevant encyclopedic information. The fact that I have chosen to attempt to debunk myths and reduce the negative bias of the article is both a "rookie" mistake, and an "ego" issue. I realize that it does not excuse my behavior, however I do not believe that it makes my point(s) any less relevant. BDBJack (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Restrict SPAs to talk page in the first instance. Tis is our recommended mechanism for conflicted parties to interact with the project. There may be valid complaints or the concerns may be querulous; if they are, then we can record the fact that they have been reviewed and rejected and then we can restrict further. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, including the talk page, for Okteriel and BDBJack. The problem with Guy's suggestion is that that these two COI editors behave tendentiously on the talk page. Okteriel just refactored another editor's comment as a supposed "BLP violation," when it simply states in plain language what regulators on two continents have said about this company. BDBJack, an employee of the company, has also refactored the talk page, as described above, just a few hours ago. It's inappropriate for paid editors/employees to so completely dominate the talk page of the article of their employer. Okteriel is an undisclosed secondary account and apparent WP:SLEEPER based on his behavior and contribution history (three edits in 2011 and the rest in the past few days). Historyofrecenttimes is an SPA but doesn't hold a candle to these two in aggressiveness, tendentiousness and WP:OWN talk page behavior. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with sam reasoning as Figureofnine, above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban I for one am glad they brought this attack page to the community's attention and at least one of the three sources provided recently are useful. But overall History has engaged in some pretty awful personal attacks, edit-warring, canvassing and POV railroading. The paid editors are pouncing on every comment everywhere, voting in discussions and filling the Talk page with too much "stuff" that causes disruption because nobody can have a discussion with walls of text from them jumping at every corner. A permanent ban would prevent them from speaking up about being treated unfairly and irresponsibly on Wikipedia, but a temporary (say 3 months) would allow disinterested editors to discuss and wait for their input after things have settled. I do see that the article has attracted quite a few editors now that have strong negative views towards corporations in general and PR participation in particular and by being so aggressive they are only digging themselves a bigger hole anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll request that this be closed - the outcome is clear.

Failing that I'll request that any admin can take the bull by the horns here and end this right now under the terms of WP:COI

Legal

If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case.

and from the introduction (2nd paragraph)

"if it (COI editing) causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked. "[M]isrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use."

Note that the terms of use are automatically WP policy and this refers to the current TOU, not to the upcoming change which will almost certainly be stricter.

There is certainly COI editing from folks with a close relation to a litigant (a BDB employee and another who admits to contacting the owner about the $10,000 bounty on the article). I included the last sentence in the quote because User:Okteriel has an editing history that cries out "misrepresentation" and at User:Okteriel/Five figures addresses the question of him being paid with misdirection piled on top of confusion piled on top of plain old BS. "Misrepresentation" would be a nice word for what he states there.

One way or the other, it's time for an admin to step up to the plate and enforce the rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I can close this, but do you mind waiting another day for more opinions? These discussions should take at least 24 hours for a conclusion anyway.

I also agree that the refactoring of Nagle's comment by Okteriel was wrong. Suggesting that an organization has violated US law is not a BLP violation (see WP:BLPGROUP) and even if it were, completely redacting another editor's comment is a pretty extreme measure. If someone else hadn't undone that redaction, I would have. We can argue about the accuracy of Nagle's statement, but it does not have to be removed. -- Atama頭 16:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If waiting for 24 hours is what you need, then go for it. But from Coretheapple's comment below and his link to the SPI, I don't think you need to wait. Note the same modus operandi there that Okteriel used. You can block him as a sock, you can close this topic ban, or you can enforce WP:COI (somebody needs to!). All the same to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Smallbones, and join him in urging immediate administrative action, which is overdue, to put in place appropriate blocks and permanent topic bans on all of the COI, paid editors and SPAs. Just to recapitulate: this article originally received attention on Jimbo's talk page when an uninvolved user discovered that this company was offering a five-figure payment in return for reverting to an earlier, whitewashed version of the article. At the time, people said "Gee, that's ridiculous. Obviously this is an outlier, a company that will stop at nothing to push its POV." That's precisely what it is. The talk page is the worst paid-editing fiasco that I have ever seen, both in the sheer brazenness of the paid/COI editing behavior, the sleaziness of the subject of the article, and the lengths to which the editors employed by this company have gone to get their way. This company has tried literally everything. They've unleashed sockpuppets on the page. They have an employee acting like a discussion moderator. And then they have this latest user account, who seems to be following from "the best defense is a good offense" sock playbook, who responds with wall-o-text rants and open contempt when asked simple questions like "are you paid by the company?"

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Notsosoros/Archive, which is the relevant sockpuppeting case. Seriously, guys. Look at all those socks! I counted 38, but admittedly I may have miscounted. This company and all of its representatives should be permanently blocked as meatpuppets and, at the very least, topic banned, permanently and forever and until hell freezes over. Talk page too. No, talk page especially. If they have a beef, they can write to the OTRS system. The bans should relate to all COI editors and all SPAs, including any and all anti-Banc de Binary IPs and socks. While anti-BdB socks and IPs are not the nexus of the problem, that is necessary in fairness and because we don't know if they may be bad-hand socks. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: THANK YOU. No, nobody has yet brought up that sockpuppet case. The only sockmaster that anyone mentioned that I've seen was Morning277, but I couldn't find any connection. I think I'm going to take this to SPI after I do a little checking to see if the evidence is there. But I suspect that there's enough to justify CU, and given that the last CU was about 3 months ago the info should be fresh enough for a check. -- Atama頭 17:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly welcome. I would be surprised that they won't pass a CU with flying colors, given the resources the company has delployed to own their article, and I believe BDBJack was explicitly exonerated by CU. I was putting it out there just to illustrate the utter unscrupulousness of this company in its Wikipedia image-management. In my opinion there is already ample evidence to take action based purely upon behavior, with the SPI factored in of course. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to block Okteriel. I believe that this editor is Notsosoros. What I find to be the most damning evidence is how Okteriel made 12 edits to articles that had nothing to do with BDB, then jumped right into it. That is exactly what the other Notsosoros socks did (either 11 or 12 edits, then right into BDB articles). I also notice some linguistic similarities between the way Okteriel speaks and the way the previous socks spoke, I don't want to get into it with too much detail but if you look at how the other socks spoke on article talk pages and user talk pages (including a fondness for "quoting" particular words, rapid-fire short sentences one after another, and so on) it feels like the same editor. The motives are the same also (whitewashing BDB).

I don't get the same feeling about BDBJack. Jack was open from the start about his affiliation with the company, and he doesn't communicate the same way, nor is his editing pattern similar.

I'm not going to bring this to SPI. The evidence is strong enough for me to block Okteriel. This discussion would then concern what restrictions BDBJack and HistorianofRecenttimes should be subject to. -- Atama頭 18:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about the "$10,000 bounty" until today. That helps to explain the level of effort being devoted to this issue. As for my comment on the talk page, about BdB being crooks, while I would't be that informal in article space, it's not wrong. The US SEC and the US CFTC got injunctions against BdB operating illegally in the US, and BdB agreed to get out of the US rather than be prosecuted. Although BdB claimed to be located in the US, they didn't really have any staff in Chicago or New York as BdB had claimed, so the US regulators lacked a US target for criminal prosecution and had to settle for barring BdB from selling remotely into the US. Coverage in The Wall Street Journal [4], and a more colorful article in the London Daily Mail [5]. I recommend the Daily Mail article for a good overview on BdB. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate Atama's swift action, and I just wanted to address the remaining two editors. As was just pointed out to me, the declared corporate employee User:BDBJack has been "SPA tagging" User:HistorianofRecenttimes, a corporate critic who has been frequently and negatively editing that page. Apart from the propriety of the subject of the article making edits like that, we also have the WP:BATTLEFIELD issue. That's why I think that it is incumbent that all SPAs, both for and against the company, be topic-banned from the article and its talk page permanently. I think this also is a very good illustration of how paid editing can result in battlefield situations such as this. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for being late in... I wanted to make a few points, firstly it is true that I have mainly if not completely always edited Banc de Binary, but mainly for time reasons and it's now based on stuff I can find good links to online. I focused on a page I learnt about as it developed. There's nothing good you can say about Banc de Binary and the comparison to Bernie Madoff is fair, it's just a giant scam. I'd love to write something nice, but with thousands of victims it's a bit hard. Just because I added negative aspects doesn't mean I have COI, that's just a reflection of the facts about them, try finding something positive about the company in any serious newspaper or in the long US charge sheet and I'd the first to stick it in the article.

The company has tried everything to attack my writing and research, including opening two investigations into my writing, which you can see online, both went wrong as various editors came in and pointed out my links were all good. The company then tried twice to delete their own page, that failed. They then offered $10k to anyone to edit it, quite clever really. Wikipedia is a money making thing to lots of paid editors and CorporateM duly popped up almost immediately. It must be obvious to anyone that CorporateM is a paid editor, they even write about doing work for various companies on their own wall. Look at the companies that CorporateM have written about, not exactly the most thrilling list of jobs, but I admire their business sense. My edits were piece meal and over months, I'd like to add more when it is possible. For example, I added the very recent fine by Cysec, hardly controversial, but CorporateM removed it, why? They've even suggested today that the amusing European CEO article about Oren Laurent is 'tall, dark and handsome' could be anything else but a shameless paid for advert. Either CorporateM is terribly naive or it is their job to be so and they are more than a COI, but a professional one.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM is paid to edit certain articles, but he has a history of being very transparent about it. He maintains a list at his user page of articles that he has a COI at (and it's a large list). He's also a frequent contributor to WP:COIN, both in disclosing his own COI at particular articles, and in assisting other cases where an editor has a COI. He knows how an editor with a COI should behave, he has been at Wikipedia for over 5 years, with over 25,000 edits, and yet has a clean block log. Throwing around accusations like that look like an attempt to deflect criticism away from you, and it does you a disservice. -- Atama頭 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Atama, one interim step that would be useful, and I was going to raise this at RPP but I guess I should here, is to semiprotect the talk page indefinitely. I see that IPs have arisen very recently,since you blocked Okteriel, for the purpose of screaming "Criminal!" and they stink of "bad hand" "Joe job" socks. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

An admin has applied semi-protection to stop that. Thanks. That IP spamming, with different IP addresses in the same IP block, was just lame. It looked like a toddler having a temper tantrum. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really participate at COIN that much, but I do spend a lot of time removing weak or primary sources from company articles, where editors tend to find weak sources that support their views (mostly cleaning up promotion though). I find it unlikely that the article you're referring to is sponsored, considering publications are required by law to disclose when/if content is sponsored and there is no reason to believe that this is the case here. Using primary sources editors can make a company look like a saint or a villain. Company articles tend to be a magnet for weak sources used by the company for promotion and by brand antagonists for attacks. Often the two are trying to balance each other out and it results in poor articles like this that are half-promotion and half-attack and all poor-quality sources. CorporateM (Talk) 22:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This really belongs on the article talk page, and it's been raised there twice already by BDBJack. The source CorporateM is supporting here is European CEO magazine, which has a laudatory article on BdB's CEO, starting by calling him "tall, dark, and handsome".[6] (For comparison, Google image search for pictures of CEO: [7].) It also has the claim that Banc de Binary was "headquartered at 40 Wall Street", which the SEC later discovered to be false when they went after Banc de Binary.[8]. European CEO seems to have a mix of well-written neutral articles and obviously promotional ones, not distinguished in any clear way. The current issue [9] has a promotional article for Jet Logic private jet rental on page 50, and a full page ad for them on page 65. We are not in reliable source territory here. Tag-team editing? John Nagle (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree that this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Also agree that the articles stink of sponsored content. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this [[10]] is relevant to the discussion specifically, but since it's related to me, BDB etc. I think i'll put it here. I don't know who's idea it was to post that, but neither funny, nor does it really help at the end of the day. I've "abstained" from making edits even to the talk page (despite even being baited to reply). I've tried ( previously ) to gain consensus on a page that the only other "contributing" editor is an SPA, I've turned to admins seeking assistance and guidance, and I've tried to be as civil as possible while doing so. What have I gotten in return? I've been chased off, ignored, and called a crook. Not by all. That's for sure. There have been some notable exceptions. However I have found it VERY hard to "play by the rules". Based on what I saw here: [[11]], and in the previous edit on my talk page, and on the IP Vandalism, someone has a bias against BDB. I don't know who. I don't know why. You can say that we're scams, frauds, crooks etc., but if your only evidence is a single case from the SEC and the CFTC, then we're actually cleaner than most of your local banks. That being said, I don't want to know who did it. I don't care. Whom ever it is should be ashamed of themselves. BDBJack (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Those vandals have "Joe job" written all over them. First you guys deploy sockpuppets as if they were going out of style, then your employers try to corrupt Wikipedia by offering a five-figure bounty for whitewashing the article. Now this. I think you guys have wasted the time of the unpaid volunteers of this project more than enough. Time for blocks/topic bans/whatever is necessary to deal with this situation once and for all. Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you say you "play by the rules." That is debatable. Your behavior on the talk of the article is the worst I've seen of any declared corporate editor, tag-teaming with a sockpuppet and using every trick in the book to get your way. I just noticed this: In this edit at 21:44 8 June, NeilN correctly deactivated your request to revert back to a whitewashed version, saying "First get consensus, then make the request." 25 minutes later you reverted that deactivation, saying there was "evidence of consensus." At that time there was not even discussion of your request, much less "consensus." You call this "playing by the rules" but I call it gaming the system. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm going to close this discussion. I've already blocked one of the editors originally covered by this proposal for being a sockpuppet, so this proposal now only covers BDBJack and HistorianofRecenttimes now. Nobody in this discussion objected to at least having some restrictions, even the editors who would be subject to them. I see a few suggestions to extend the ban to the talk page, and suggestions that the ban should be temporary, but what I see an overall consensus on is an indefinite topic ban for matters related to Banc De Binary for both editors in the proposal (not to extend to discussion space).

If more sockpuppets appear at the article, they should be blocked when identified. The talk page is semi-protected for another couple of days, if IPs resume disruptive editing there after it expires then the semi-protection can be reinstated for a longer time. There is still an unresolved debate about the content of the main page, and until that is resolved nobody should be editing the article directly, so the full protection should not be lifted until a consensus is reached there.

@BDBJack: For the moment, this means that you will continue to have input at the article via the talk page. Please don't misuse that privilege. You've been open about your COI and I believe that the community has really given you the benefit of the doubt, considering that you initially came to the project using an IP address previously used by a large sockpuppet farm (which was blocked about a week before your arrival). In the short term I'm going to try to keep a close eye on the talk page of that article, and if there are any personal attacks against you, or unwarranted disparaging remarks about individuals who work at BDB then I'll enforce our policies. But remember that you work for a company that is embroiled in controversy, and so it is inevitable that there will be negative aspects of your company in discussion. Your continued involvement at the article will require you to do your best to remain objective, and try not to take such discussions personally. That may be difficult but you'll need to make your best effort.

@HistorianofRecenttimes: You said before that your narrow focus on this article has been "mainly for time reasons". The ban that is in place only restricts you from this topic, if there is anything else that holds your interest or where you feel you can contribute you are free to do so. You also have the ability to contribute to the discussion page for the article, but I'm going to give you the same caution I gave BDBJack about objectivity. You feel that Banc De Binary is "a giant scam", and you have a passion to reflect that in the article. Passion can be a good thing if used constructively, but not when it leads to attacking other editors. Collaboration is necessary for establishing consensus. Try to stay calm, if you can back up criticisms of the company's practices with reliable sources, then that's all you need. Let that speak for you. An even, rationale, and concise argument is a hundred times more effective than the most vitriolic statement you can make.

I'm going to work on the formality of implementing the topic ban and archiving this section, and I'll see if I can find the time to also help moderate the current dispute at the article talk page so that development of main article space can resume. -- Atama頭 17:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Conduct of William Pina

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.

---

William Pina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user originally added an external link with a personal opinion. It got reverted by Jeh. He then added it again, and it got reverted by Jeh again. He then posted an angry comment because he was reverted. He also posted an angry comment because Jeh edited his user page to reply to his comment.

This user also created many implausible redirects, all of which were deleted. One of them redirected to his user page. He removed many speedy deletion templates (sorry I cannot provide any links, but the pages are deleted). He then got angry at B because he deleted one of the redirects. Finally, he urged me to stop modifying his redirects without his permission (I simply restored a speedy deletion template)

He also got angry over edits made to the Black Screen of Death page and some of his images (which appeared to be copyright violations) getting removed.

Finally, it should be pointed out that while he asks us to be polite when we post on his "notification center", he isn't very polite himself.

--TheMillionRabbit 00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to start this until a few more levels of template warnings had built up, but since we're here now:

I would note that my second "revert" to Blue Screen of Death was not exactly that. I originally deleted the link William Pina had added, as the page it links to is very amateurish and hasn't been updated in a long time. William Pina reverted that deletion, rather than raising the issue on the article talk page. As a compromise I then deleted only the highly unencyclopedic comment that went with the link.

William Pina's response is here. This and many of his other responses after being edited indicate that he has a clear feeling of article WP:OWNership. A message on his user page, " I don't like it when someone modifies the pages I edited", is consistent with this.

I answered but to my recollection he has never given any sign of having read any such answers to his bitter complaints about being edited.

William Pina added a re-creation of an NT4 BSOD to Commons, claiming it was his own work, and placed it on the Blue Screen of Death page. However this image was clearly a simple copy of one from the BSOD web page he'd linked to. I deleted the image from our BSOD page. I also put a copyvio notice on the file at Commons, with the URL of the original image. His response and my answer. Again he made no further comment.

I corrected a grammar error of his on Black Screen of Death. Again, his response was anger at having his work be changed.

As TheMillionRabbit states, William Pina has created a large number of redirects (and notices of redirects and DA pages), some of them bizarre. These include:

• ErrMsg: redir to Error message. CSD R3.
• ZSZ: original contents unknown; this was CSDd, he subsequently re-created it as a redirect to the Main page (wth?). CSD R3.
• V Inc: redir to Vizio. This one is at least defensible as Vizio Corp. indeed originally called itself "V Inc", but they changed their name many years ago, but today it is highly unlikely that anyone looking for Vizio would type in "V Inc" (exactly like that). He also placed a note on the Vizio page warning not to confuse it with Microsoft Visio. CSD R3.
• PPKA and EWQ: both redir to Xbox 360 technical problems. CSD R3.
• My first time: redirected to a section of his user page. That's right, a redir in mainspace with the target being his user page. CSD R2. His response and B's answers. Oh, hm, I see he did respond to a reply to him in that one case.

In at least two of these cases he attempted to stop the deletion by removing the speedy deletion tags from the redirect pages. One of these was to My first time. He was warned about this. He did it again to the EWQ CSD.

After encountering admin B (talk · contribs), who had deleted one of his redirects (and posting the usual "how dare you" notice to B's talk page), William Pina noticed that B had no user page other than a simple redir to B's talk page. William Pina decided to add a redirect/disambiguation notice template on B's talk page. B soon deleted it. William Pina added it again in a different form. TheMillionRabbit noticed it and deleted it. This resulted in a by-now-familiar response.

He wrote a section on his user page that mentioned me, and I wanted to respond (thinking that he might have a better chance of reading a response if it was on his talk page). At first I posted my answer on his user page, but thought better of that as he said he didn't want anyone editing it. So I copied his text and then added my answer onto his talk page. Again he was furious that I had dared to answer something in which he mentioned me.

In summary, William Pina (talk · contribs) seems to me to be:

• Completely unfamiliar with or unwilling to accept the notion that Wikipedia is edited collaboratively.
• Unwilling to participate in discussions regarding his edits. (He complains, someone responds, but he's only replied once to any such response (here), and that one wasn't particularly showing a willingness to learn.
• To have a very strong sense of article WP:OWNership.
• Unfamiliar with conventions of polite discourse.
• Unable or unwilling to learn from previous reverts, CSDs, and comments - he just keeps doing things in the same vein.
• Unable or unwilling to write at a high school competency level of English ("in saying" for "insane", "you didn't have your permission" instead of "you didn't have my permission", etc.)
• Perhaps eleven years old.

I think that covers the whole of my experience with this editor.

My opinion: his edits are disruptive, he doesn't seem to be here to participate collaboratively in building the encyclopedia, and even if he were, he doesn't seem to be competent to do so.

I was going to raise an RFC/U, but it says there that this should be reserved for those with at least a couple hundred edits; he has fewer than 100. I don't know what to suggest, but I do know I'm tired of seeing ridiculous edits and redirects from him in pages I watch and having to fix them up. It was a lot of time to gather this info, but perhaps it will save work in the long run. Jeh (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Three letters: C I R. Ansh666 04:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. WP:NOTHERE and best for all that he doesn't stay here. DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. I think they've been warned sufficiently. Yes, competence is required, and outrage when inappropriate actions are reverted won't fly. And look at this, just in, after the above posts, after the various warnings on William's page, and after the alert about this ANI discussion by TheMillionRabbit. At a guess, it was a sort of response to the alert (?); as you can see, there has been no other. The user may be well-meaning, but they're incompetent and huffy. At an admittedly cursory overview of their contributions, I can't find a single useful edit. Blocked indefinitely, encouraged to appeal. If they do, and are able to show some understanding of the problems with their editing, I'm all for an unblock. Thank you for the complete reports, MillionRabbit and Jeh. Bishonen | talk 08:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

• Unfortunately an excellent block based on well-established evidence the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment from one of the reporters: Most of his redirects were merely nonsensical (abbreviations for his personal use, maybe?), but redirecting another user's talk page to somewhere else is just malicious. I always groan when I see a new editor following the incompetent, WP:OWNership, not-WP:CIVIL, WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT path. (Not to mention malicious.) Fortunately they are (in the very small set of pages I follow) not at all common, but when they do appear the result IME has always been the same: a progression of warnings on their talk page, culminating in a couple of people spending a significant chunk of time putting together ANI reports and a block. Nobody seems to have come up with warning templates or any other phraseology that helps. Thank you Bishonen, thank you to TheMillionRabbit for starting the ANI, and thanks for the support EatsShootsAndLeaves, Ansh666, and DeCausa. Jeh (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• The user hasn't requested unblock or otherwise edited their talkpage since the block so far. I hope that doesn't mean we're about to see an, uh, new user or IP making similar edits. If you should happen to see something like that at the pages you watch, TheMillionRabbit and Jeh, the simplest thing might be to alert me on my page, since I already know the case. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

All right, now he has edited his page. Still. Is it possible that he didn't even notice the block message? Bishonen | talk 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

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

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania was disruptively edited by a number of sock or meatpuppets in April/May 2014. A brand new editor (created today), User:Factcheckll1, reverted the cleanup of the article by admin User:Eustress through a long series of reversions. I reverted back to the edits by Eustress, which were proper, and then Factcheckll1 reverted my edit here. A look at the content Factcheckll1 is adding is a lot of the same boosterism that was there when the article was disrupted earlier. I could not find an SPI case from the earlier issues, although all the users were blocked. I am concerned that the same disruptive activity will occur and ask that an admin block Factcheckll1 for inappropriately using multiple accounts and semi protect the article. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, along with a couple of others. No need to protect, I wouldn't think -- it's real obvious when this person is repeating their annoyance, and easy enough to RBI. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a situation here

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.

---

TranquilityTranquility (talk · contribs) is a likely sock of blocked editor CensoredScribe (talk · contribs). I apologize for not filing an SPI but I am heading out the door and this new user is already doing damage that will need fixing. Any help that any admin can give will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not CensoredScribe. It's Dragonron, a.k.a. Wiki-star, who has taken to "impersonate" CensoredScribe as he used to impersonate Zarbon. An SPI has been open for weeks but it hasn't been touched for some reason, and there is a known IP range that he is operating from that has a block expired.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Ryulong. Looks like he has already been blocked. I wish that the SPI had been acted on and I am sorry that your page was redirected by this troll. MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

This edit has to be struck

This is the edit [12] and it violates several policies and guidelines. The content added to the article is fine but I would revert it as it translates to "Crystal Myers Japan", but it's the user "outing" and legal statement made in the edit summary that are the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• RevDel'ed, warned, reported to OS, and oversighted. Normally, it is much better to report direct to oversight WP:OS, as too many eyes are here at ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor has subsequently requested that [13] be RevDel'ed as well, and the subsequent revert of that content. While we've got the big eraser out, [14] is probably a good candidate as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I've passed the edits on to the oversight team. Please, please, please send any similar edits to the oversight team directly via this this page. It ensures that it's handled as privately as possible. Thanks! Mike V • Talk 00:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to remember. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Question: I see he has had three more edits oversighted after he was given a clear final warning. I don't have access to oversight, and no warning was given afterwards. Can an oversighter review this for a possible block? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd support a block. [15] and plenty of other edits by the same editor at the time has some serious but wacky (wacky enough that I'm not going to bother to request suppression but anyone else is welcome to) accusations. The editor seems to self identify as the person making the accusations via this upload File:Krystal+Meyers+Norman.jpg (incidentally the details in the accusations strongly suggest the editor isn't the copyright holder so I'll be nominating it for deletion if someone doesn't get to it first). I don't know what precisely was in the new edits but the target's suggest to me it's more of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Image listed at PUF Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#June 12. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Coronation Street characters being moved

Look at the history of Carla Connor, for instance, or Gail Platt--and the associated articles. I can't really figure out what's going on or who is doing what wrong, but it seems to me that the boldness is getting out of hand. So, without incriminating anyone, I'll just state that Bitbopbo is moving stuff around, ThisIsDanny follows on their heels, and Fortdj33 is involved as well (and should be banned, ahem, according to Danny). I don't know if these moves broke the GDFL, or who did what appropriately or inappropriately--I'd like someone smarter than me to look into it. Will notify. There may be more editors involved, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's perfectly possible that Bitbopdo doesn't know what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In hidden messages on List of Coronation Street characters it says the link must match the article, and he keeps changing the link so I keep reverting it. He has now changed the name of the article to prove that what he is doing is right, but now the whole thing is wrong as the page names don't show the character's most common name. And when I revert them back to what they originally were other people keep reverting my edits as if I'm the one who's doing the disruptive editing. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Side note: I have no opinion or knowledge of or on anything. What I'm saying is let the moving and the copying and pasting stop, and let this be figured out before some poor admin has to unfuck things up. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've tried to fix the various mad moves and double/triple redirects, please someone let me know if there's anything more that needs my "fixing". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Bitbopdo made a mess of things when he moved those articles, but ThisIsDanny doesn't seem to know what he's doing either. According to him, Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt, Leanne Battersby and Carla Connor are the proper names for those characters. I'm not doubting that, but any changes should be made to the original articles, and not to the redirects. Therefore, we should be dealing with moving the articles Rita Tanner (Coronation Street), Fiona 'Fiz' Stape, Gail McIntyre (Coronation Street), Leanne Tilsley (Coronation Street) and Carla Barlow to the proper titles, because that's where the edit history for those articles is. I only used the "Coronation Street" disambiguation, because I couldn't move the articles back to the original names, but ThisIsDanny only made things worse, by trying to redirect everything back to the cut and paste versions. I don't claim to know anything about those characters either, but in order to sort things out now, a history merge will need to be made for all of them. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I only cut and pasted everything and changed the redirects to get the original page back. I didn't know how to merge articles or delete the ones that Bitbopdo created. The names of the articles should be Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt, Leanne Battersby and Carla Connor. Which is what they've always been and don't need changing. I agree it's gone out of hand, I was just trying to get things back to normal. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Please now don't "copy and paste" any article from one to another. There's going to be some issues to be resolved around the licensing arrangements we have when we submit stuff to Wikipedia (even this post I'm writing now) so someone clever is going to need to find out exactly what's happened to what articles and fix it. Can you help with that, can you describe exactly what's happened? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look at all the articles/moves/redirects in question and it looks like this is sorted out from an attribution/history perspective. The only thing I would suggest is moving disambiguated names to non-disambiguated names where they are the only topic (I see at least two), but that isn't a discussion for AN/I --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

They look right to me too. User:Anthony Appleyard histmerged three of them (contribs, logs), requested by {{histmerge}}. Fortdj33 and Drmies reverted the other two. I added {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User is continuing with lots of page moves Special:Contributions/Bitbopbo. No response to comments on their talk page or here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seconding that this is still a concern. I don't know enough about the topic to revert the most recent moves; is Gail McIntyre (Coronation Street) under discussion somewhere? but have added a further note to Bitbopbo's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User is still moving pages and refusing to discuss changes. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bitbopbo has been indeffed for sockpuppetry - this can be closed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Resuming an old edit war at Satanic ritual abuse

IPs involved: 207.118.90.156, 174.125.115.111.

I originally came across the satanic ritual abuse article a year ago because of a dispute/edit warring. One of the questions was about mentioning Janet Reno as involved with one of the cases (before she was attorney general). I didn't have a strong opinion at the time, but had/have a problem with the tendentiousness of the editors intent to add it (editors that had other clear problems with POV on the page). After several bouts of edit warring and lengthy talk page discussions, it remained at the consensus version since February. Today one of the editors (a dynamic IP) has returned to restore precisely the same material without presenting any new arguments.

• I reverted
• The editor reverted me with edit summary "I am well aware that some editors don't want her name mentioned in this article. I have explained my reasoning on the talk page, and will take this to arbitration if necessary."
  • This was followed by a talk page message which addressed the addition by saying "I have re-added the note, as the participation of an extremely notable and controversial figure in national politics is definitely worthy of inclusion." (effectively, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the previous talk page discussions).
• I again reverted.
• IP a third time restored the content with edit summary "Reverted until you address my concerns on the talk page. Please do not arbitrarily revert edits without discussion. I'm on freenode #wikipedia-en, nick EGNT if you'd like to chat."

As there aren't any new concerns on the talk page and this editor seems intent to edit war, I'd rather not take this any further. There's not been any WP:3RR violation, and the problem has more history than an isolated edit warring incident, which is why I'm here rather than at the edit warring noticeboard. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking a little closer, this is nearly identical material, wording, sourcing, and similar edit summaries to those used by Jimjilin, the user who had edit warred over this last time around. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not doing the editing though someone ought to change that article it is VERY biased.Jimjilin (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

user 174.125.115.111 here (finally made a new account after years away from editing). Came across this article the other day, and was disturbed to notice that it lacked many important facts that were included in discussions of the panic in college, where I fist learned about it. Checked the history, and saw that three or four users had been on a major purge to remove references to non-fundamentalist participants in the accusations, as well as the therapists whose "repressed memory syndrome" theories enabled them. This article compares unfavorably to the Salem Witch Trials article, which includes historical and cultural context, and explicitly notes the involvement of historically significant figures such as Increase Mather, while also explaining the use of pseudo-'scientific' evidence in the trials.

I currently lack access to a decent library, so won't be able to improve the page significantly for another few weeks. But I would eventually like to expand and clarify a number of sections in this article.

Unfortunately, I suspect the three editors who have the page on lock-down will not appreciate me playing on their turf. Eggonought (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you did not know, this is not the place to discuss content disputes (only conduct disputes), so if you have something new to discuss content wise (such as the "references to non-fundamentalist participants" issue above), please take it to the article talk page. Ignoring consensus is your reason for being here. HelenOnline 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ana Xsosta: uncommunicative and competence issues

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.

---

Ana Xsosta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user (about two weeks old) who has thus far caused nothing but issues with her editing. Examples include mutliple copyvio file uploads (see User talk:Ana Xsosta) and more recently changing of wikilinks. These change result in links to disambiguation pages, redlinks, etc, etc, where previously the linkwere valid, working ones. Examples include [16] (F5 is a dab page), [17] (Dirty Deeds is a dab page), [18] (a leglock is not the same thing as cloverleaf), and [19] (killswitch is an article on safety mechanisms, and nothing to do with pro wrestling). Multiple editors can attempted to communicate with this user, but she has zero user talk or talk page comments. Can she be blocked or something until she starts explaining herself please? NiciVampireHeart 15:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

All I am seeing is a whole lot of templated warnings - I would not blame them for simply ignoring them all as it is quite overwhelming. I have removed them. I'd like to note that when you are accusing new editors of being incompetent, it may not lead to a positive response (or any response at all in this case). I think a block is premature at this stage, but if they still fail to communicate then action may be taken. —Dark 15:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The templated warnings to which you refer were -- with the exception of an invitation to the teahouse, a disambiguation link notification and one on using reliable sources -- due to problems with files that the user uploaded. They have uploaded 17 so far, 16 of which have been deleted; the remaining one looks set to go the same way in seven days time. The attempts to discuss Ana's problematic linking have been done via written messages; I had a go myself today, but, in repeating problem edits, they have shown no sign that they've understood the objections to their edits, or even read them. --VeryCrocker (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that after I have cleared the templated messages on the talk page that Ana would proceed to read the comments. If she does and stops making the edits, then I see no reason to take further action. However if she continues to edit rashly and fails to communicate, a block would be in order. —Dark 18:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Although the user is new, I'd say that 16 or 17 template warnings should be enough to show them that they're not doing something right. Template warnings aside, we've reached out to discuss these issues with Ana but never received any response. In case that isn't enough, Peripitus has written a warning out for them already. I just tagged a new photo of theirs for copyright violations a few minutes ago meaning that none of these warnings registered. They show no signs of cooperating, at what point do we take action so we don't have to cleanup more of this users' unconstructive edits?LM2000 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've applied a 3-days block for copyright violations. Let's hope Ana takes this time to educate herself on how Wikipedia works. De728631 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable block. I was unaware that the user had continued to edit after I cleared the talk page. —Dark 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, quite reasonable. Hopefully now Ana can take the time to smell the roses.LM2000 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I just extended the block to indefinite on the basis of at least 3 sock accounts (see the list on the user's talk page). Same accounts have been blocked on Commons (see here)- Peripitus (Talk) 12:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Seems like I'm late to the party due to Wiki-break. NiciVampireHeart, thanks for informing me. VeryCrocker, good work on the research on Commons. Peripitus, M7md eltb3y is a known sock puppet of User:7alawa el3antbly, actually. starship.paint "YES!" 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Olympic Stadium Adem Jashari/ Trepča Stadium

The Article Olympic Stadium Adem Jashari was moved to Trepča Stadium unilaterally by User:Nado158 without the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. I for one contest User:Nado158's reasoning. It is important that we move pages via the proper processes with a consensus. I am now unable to restore the status quo as it says "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: A page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name". Can someone please sort this out? Kind regards IJA (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@IJA: This is not an appropriate place for discussing such page moves. If Nado158 had moved something per WP:BOLD, you can discuss with the user about the move. Have you tried? First reach to the agreement that why user has moved the page, once you would know the reason, you should evaluate that whether his decision was correct or incorrect. If the user disagrees, you can open a page-move request. If Nado158 reverts against the consensus, then you may inform. But at least for now, there's long way to go. OccultZone (Talk) 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a one-off; there's this move too, where Nado158 disagreed with the closure of a requested move, and simply moved the page back to their preferred title. To go back to disruptive moves so soon after coming off a block for editwarring is not a good omen. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: I agree that his behavior has not been changed. In my opinion he should be given another chance. You can check here, consensus is going against his change already. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a good rule. "Another chance" is all very well for some new editor making changes which we think are misguided, but when somebody makes disruptive changes again, the next step is to undo it, not to let them have their way in article-space have another ineffectual talkpage conversation which they have already said they will ignore. Sairp (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a pattern of disruption from Nado158 where he is going against the more common Albanian language names of football articles in Kosovo across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Catflap08 edit-warring/POV-pushing on Kenji Miyazawa

A few months ago Catflap08 (talk · contribs) made an unsupported claim[20] that the subject of the Kenji Miyazawa article was a "nationalist", based on the fact that the subject was a member of a religious group some sources have characterized as being nationalistic in nature. Almost no sources actually refer to the subject as a nationalist (as I've demonstrated on the talk page, this is a WP:FRINGE theory).

Last Friday I removed[21] the claim before being quickly reverted.[22] I encouraged[23] Catflap08 to discuss on the talk page, but he outright refused, making only short, irrelevant comments.[24][25][26] Still refusing to use the talk page, he immediately took the dispute to AN and insisted that I was the one who was edit-warring. He was promptly told to go back to the talk page and discuss with me. He then, still refusing to read my comments or interact with me directly, posted[27] an RFC with somewhat biased wording. I presented more evidence[28] that his view of the subject was incorrect, and one other user weighed in[29] on my side.

Despite utterly failing to gain consensus for his view, he proceeded to re-emphasize[30] in the article that the subject was a member of a "nationalistic" group. Since the group's founder was already referred to as a nationalist in the same sentence, and since Catflap08 has already been given ample evidence that the subject was not a nationalist, this edit seems highly inappropriate. He also marked the edit as minor, even though he had every reason to believe it would be controversial. I reverted[31] earlier today, only to be re-reverted[32] with an almost incoherent edit summary.

Catflap08 has never contributed anything to the article except to add the WP:FRINGE theory that the subject was a nationalist. It's clear that he doesn't have any real interest in the subject, and only came across the name "Kenji Miyazawa" in an essay on the group in question. I'd therefore like to propose a WP:TBAN on "Kenji Miyazawa". I don't know enough about the various Nichiren sects he generally edits in (he appears to have stumbled across the Kenji article through one of these) to say whether his other edits in this area have been disruptive, but the Kenji Miyazawa article at least does not benefit from his presence.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please do yourself a favor and drop all the personal observations when filing a report, and just stick to the facts. What I see here is an old fashioned content dispute. You've already had a 3rd opinion filed by Catflap (which he ignored, but it isn't binding) so the next step is WP:DRN. Either way, we are not at the stage that a topic ban is due. Lastly, I would remind Catflap08 that the WP:BURDEN is on him, so according to WP:BRD and general consensus on how to be a good Wikipedian, the "nationalist" claim should be left OUT until DRN or another consensus of peers decides otherwise. Continuing to add contentious and undersourced facts when there is a dispute might be seen as disruptive, so don't do it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that interpretation of the dispute, and I appreciate your advice, but I'm always reluctant to go to DRN, especially when (as here) the problem is that one of the parties is completely unwilling to discuss the dispute. The fact is that DRN has something like a 5% success rate, and that's when all parties are actually willing to come to the table. Catflap08's talk page activity (or lack thereof) implies he is not. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, you don't have to. As I've explained to him, the WP:BURDEN is on him, not you. If he does, I would recommend you participate. As with any dispute, sticking to the facts gives you a higher success rate, keep personal opinions to the side. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks! :D 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh I see now that that guy can not be called nationalistic the nationalistic organization he was a member of is not nationalistic anymore … interesting to say the least that is. That is why references on that organisation are given--Catflap08 (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Catflap, please understand that it's not about what "can" be said, but about what usually is said. If a significant number of reliable sources referred to Kenji the way you do, your claim would not be controversial. My life would not be any better or worse if Miyazawa Kenji was found to have been a nationalist, and I don't see why you should be any different. I have read an awful lot about Miyazawa Kenji -- it's part of my job -- and never heard him called a nationalist except on Wikipedia. You can speculate all you want as to the reason for this, but as long as this is true you can't add the claim in question to the article. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• No permanent damage, lessons learned, best to just move forward... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User Keeps Removing Useful References Again

Previously, I've posted about Macaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before (see archive).

I asked to have an admin clarify to Macaldo that secondary and tertiary sources are preferred over primary sources and an admin has respondes (see here).

However, Macaldo still removed two of my edits, here and here.

He states that (spam, we have the link to the patent with the same infos, so this has no value) even though it was pointed to him that secondary and tertiary sources are valid. The link to the USPO filing is very hard to understand and both articles break it down into digestable means.

In addition to this, he commented that Searchengineland and Searchenginewatch are two content farms which are used to put lot of useless links on Wikipedia in the SEO articles. SEW is used to add useless and irrelevant sentences in the article just to add a link to their site, as a reference. SEL has a different technique, they publish a short article to echo each announcement of Google and put a link on Wikipedia to these short articles. These statments are false since Search Engine Land and Search Engine Watch are authorities in the niche and their updates are industry updates; their news websites and are doing what news sites do.

He goes on to say have read and studied the ~30 pages of the Panda patent. Not a a single reference to machine learning. I studied each formula, each algo (there are just some lines of code). Zero machine learning here. So your "SEO authority" looks as a joke. Remember these sites are filled by contributors with various levels and backgrounds. For the others arguments above, they have the same quality. He speculates I am new to SEO because I removed links to SEL that is a sort of God in his mind. I know this site for years and I saw how a quality site turned into a content farm over time. But, a simple Google search shows that "machine learning" and "panda update" are highly correlated and is the predominante view in the industry. Macaldo has no references or proof validating his opinion. Until he shows proof that his opinion on how Google Panda works is cited, it is just his private opinion and not the view of the SEO industry.

Because of Macaldo's lack of sources backing his opinions and his defiance of an admin, I'm asking for: this edit to stay and Macaldo to stop editing Google_Panda. Can an admin please enforce this, I'm tired of having to explain everything while Macaldo just removes stuff without proper explanation. The burden of proof should be on his end, not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedora2014 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 June 2014‎ (UTC)

I have answered on my talk page and advised this user to propose links in the talk page of the article at first. His "contribs" have been deleted by other users too. Macaldo (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Gregbard

• Gregbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm just stopping in to report that I have indefinitely blocked User:Gregbard pending any kind of credible assertion that he understands and will comply with our copyright policies or other community recommended handling. When Greg seemed to be unhappy that his CCI (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330) was not complete after more than a year on the lists, I took a look and found some open issues. I thought to help knock it down more quickly, but as I often do did a check of more recent edits, only to find more blatant copy-pasting in just the last few months. Greg has been receiving warnings from both bots and humans since 2006 - two human warnings: 2006, 2010 - and should certainly understand that our copyright policies prohibit copying from external, copyrighted sources since the launch of his CCI. Two examples of copying are given here and here. I bring this here in case others would like to review. He indicates that he is being cooperative (and he certainly isn't being hostile), but in my opinion persisting in violating the same policy repeatedly after warning is not cooperation we can rely upon. I can certainly see that he's dedicated, and I'm sure that he's done a lot of good work, but I myself do not believe that we can trust his contributions until we understand why he continues to violate this policy and have some confidence that he will stop. So far, his response has not shown any awareness that his behavior is a problem; he simply indicates that we should come to him when there are issues, so he can fix them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My last comment on his talkpage sums up my opinion the panda ₯’ 22:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

His recent comments do seem to be of a "tell we what specific content I've erred at so I can fix it" nature, rather than of a more useful "tell me how I am violating policy and guidelines so I can not do so in the future" kind. Statements of the latter kind would definitely be more useful and a better indicator of Greg perhaps avoiding such problems in the future, and I regret to say that not seeing them until, perhaps, after this comment is made here is troubling. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even worse, in my mind, is his most recent comment essentially saying "Yes, I thought about the copyright policy and found it wanting". You can obviously have a different opinion on how copyright should be enforced.. but what you can't do, after you've been warned (repeatedly) how WE enforce it on the English Wikipedia, is refuse to follow it. James of UR (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A minor problem, done repeatedly becomes a major problem. Being advised about copyright infringement as far back as 2006 and 8 years later there are still the same issues. His responses don't really suggest that he is contrite, only saying whatever is necessary to be unblocked. The accusation of bullying by the blocking admin is absurd. Based on the discussions at the talk page, I feel the indef block is warranted. Neuraxis (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've been poking around, as it is an established editor with 90k edits and no prior block for copyright, but after looking at the whole picture, I have to endorse the block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am very troubled by the attitude which comes across as "I may actually know more about copyright than you". What he seems to be missing is that Wikipedia Copyright policy is different—deliberately different than copyright law. For example, I just reviewed Jachin Gregory, which had a number of issues.

Source	Source text	Article text
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=37663428	In 1697, he was part of a group of inhabitants who petitioned the court to purchase land north of Norwalk to create a plantation (north Redding).	In 1697, he was part of a group of settlers who petitioned the court to purchase land north of Norwalk to create a plantation in Redding

My guess is that a legal claim of copyright infringement would fail in the courts, for more than one reason. However, what he missed is that we tell our readers that editors create the content, using reliable sources. We tell them it will be written in the editor's own words, except when quoted exactly, in which case it will be in quotes, or when identified as coming from a suitably licensed source. Copy-pasting, and changing one or two words is not consistent with our mission. It is irrelevant that this editor may know enough about copyright law to know this close paraphrasing won't cause a legal problem, it is relevant that we have clear instructions not to do this type of thing, and it is being done, even after warnings.

(As more than a trivial aside, the article claims Jachin Gregory was a deputy to the General Assembly, but the cited reference is about James Olmsted. It appears that Gregory was a deputy to the Court, not the General Assembly.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Findagrave.com is a good source for locations of graves and pictures of tombstones. Even forgetting copyright issues, it is not a valid source for text, because it's based on user input and could come from anywhere (even from Wikipedia, for example). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point, BB. I was focusing on the close paraphrasing, without even considering that the source is not valid for its use.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Greg claims here that it is Findagrave.com which have copied Wikipedia, not vice versa. Would this be a valid defence? --John (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The Findagrave page was created in 2008, and the Wikipedia page was created in 2014. Mogism (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Good enough. Endorse the block. --John (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see anyplace in John's diff where Gregbard claims that Findagrave copied from Wikipedia. It just says "the original text is quite ancient", i.e. that Findagrave copied from some even older source. My guess is that it's adapted from a geneaology book or site. Of course someone could always ask Gregbard if they think it matters. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Assuming good faith, this user does not understand Wikipedia copyright policies. Until they demonstrate that they do understand them and will refrain from problematic editing, a block on "competence" grounds is needed. Sadly, the violation of free content principles and cleanup time cost outweigh the benefit to the project of the user's contributions. WJBscribe (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Accidental editing

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

---

Hi, I've accidentally edited with my Wikimedia Commons account on English Wikipedia, which has a username which is prohibited according to the English Wikipedia username policy (but not on Wikimedia Commons) - I keep a separate account on Wikimedia because that's how I want my photos attributed. I obviously don't want the account removed from Commons, but is it possible to remove it from enwiki only? Or should I just let things be? JPNEX (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like I can block it, if it would simplify matters for you. There is no real way to 'remove' accounts though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be possible to link the accounts, so I don't have to log in and log out when I switch? Also what does blocking entail, exactly? Would there be a big "this user is blocked" thing on the userpage? THanks JPNEX (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You might wish to check at WP:BN, but I think due to WP:SUL issues that's not possible, unfortunately. I would block you, but you could simply make a blank userpage, and it wouldn't appear. I would make the block reason something explanatory. I certainly dont' need to block it though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! So it'd be enough if I were more careful not to edit under that account in the future?JPNEX (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be fine. If you know you should avoid editing with it that should be enough, per common sense. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, then I know! I'll be careful. Thank you. JPNEX (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User: 86.174.240.211 at it again under different IP addresses (86.174.240.214)

The IP user that I had dealt with in May, is obviously at it again, making arbitrary edits to start edit wars with people. He has been caught using other IP addresses, including 86.174.241.37 and now 86.174.240.214. How do I know? His edits are exactly the same as the other mentioned IPs, reverts without providing any edit summaries and likely will go at it and leave personal attacks once more as he did with the two previous other IP addresses. He has already been blocked on those two others, and has likely using a third different IP address. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Blocked 86.174.240.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of 86.174.240.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to semi-protect the article as a result of this, but it gets barely any attention from anonymous vandals so it seems like overkill. Not that it hasn't gotten any (and it wasn't just the "Envoy of the King of Spain" causing problems either) but the volume has been pretty light so it doesn't seem worth it. The Filipino peoples article is still on my watchlist in any case. -- Atama頭 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:GadgetsGuy

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

Involved in a conflict on LG G2 and LG G3, where he argued that we could not use CC-licensed images sourced from LG's Flickr account because there is a separate copyright for the contents of the screen contents depicted that are not part of the CC license grant. In turn, he replaced the images with self-made versions. Although a deletion request was closed as a Keep because "it is entirely safe to assume that the release covers both the copyright for the photograph of the device and the copyright for the image on the device", he still reverted the image on LG G2 back to his own version (and also restored an edit that changed a reference to link to a spam website) because of comments I made that only applied to the G3 image, and a continued assertion that there are two seperately copyrighted works in such images.

User has a history of misunderstanding and using strict interpretations of licensing policy, and when asked to provide references to the discussions where his alleged claims are sourced from, he did not. Presumed to be a disruptive editing practice. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

...and this is blockable? the panda ₯’ 00:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing against consensus is disruptive and disruption is blockable.--v/r - TP 00:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

My argument is simply that my image is better than that the old one. Im not going against the consensus, and there is no consensus either that the old image is the one to be used for the article. The only consensus was for the item to be kept no more, no less. So therefore if there is a better image for the article, then isnt it not allowed for it to be replaced? Plus is it right for one user not to notify the other party that a new discussion for deletion was opened? The item was closed without giving the slightest chance to hear the other side again. Plus about the spam link, that was an oversight and not intentional so dont make a big deal about it. Plus I think that a talk is not disruptive right? I presented an evidence but it seems that he does not simply like it.

So like what I did for the LG G3, I opened another talk page for the LG G2 to ask for a true consensus on what image is better to be used for the article and not merely use a "consensus" for keeping or deleting the image passed of as consensus to be the one used in the article. GadgetsGuy (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's your argument, then I support a block. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an acceptable reason to not follow WP:DR processes, and you simply blindly reverted to prove your personal WP:POINT. Now you have the guts to defend it. Does your explanation not look dumb now that you put it it writing? I would have thought a light would have turned on over your head once you typed that the panda ₯’ 09:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it that doing a talk page is the right thing to do? I merely voiced out what I think also and I think that does not do a merit to block like what you say. Prove to me that asking a consensus for what image is to be used is blockable then. Also with such foul mouthing of another user, who do you think deserves to be blocked now? Im sorry but im doing such in a diplomatic manner so I guess you could also do it in the same light? Plus I did not say I did not like it and he was the one who did not like the initial source that I gave to him in which I clearly stated in our talks before it fell down so WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply to me as i did not state such but I just stated that if there is better image, why not allow it and to solve that problem or disputes, I chose to open a talk page heading so that it will be justified by a consensus which is also the way that WP:DR states to solve it correctly. Lastly, I just reverted the image once after he single handedly decided on such matter and I to adhere to the policies, I even stopped reverting and created a heading in the talk page to ask for a consensus, so again WP:POINT is not applicable to me. Respect a user please? Being a administrator does not merit you to foulmouth another user Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct so please tone down your arguments. GadgetsGuy (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"My argument is simply that my image is better than that the old one."

• Then try to convince others that it's better. Don't replace it because you think it's better.

"So therefore if there is a better image for the article, then isnt it not allowed for it to be replaced?"

• Not if it's only better in your opinion. You don't have a super-opinion that trumps others' opinions.

"Plus is it right for one user not to notify the other party that a new discussion for deletion was opened?"

• It's considered polite to inform potentially-interested people in a neutral manner (in other words, not canvassing) but not required. The assumption on Wikipedia is that if you care about a page and want to keep track of it you'll add it to a whitelist and you'll be notified when the deletion template is added to it.

I'm not advocating a block here. There's a discussion here, why can't people just come to a consensus there and then settle it? It seems that if GadgetsGuy was once arguing that there was a licensing problem but isn't any longer, and is now only arguing that it's a more appropriate image. There's no current edit war, so I don't see what is actionable at this point. -- Atama頭 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the deletion discussion he mentioned here was on Commons, not here. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Then in that case his complaint about notification is not relevant. If someone is upset that they weren't informed of a deletion discussion on Commons, take it up with admins over there. This board only covers misbehavior on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related

Neither Theopolisme or Wolfgang42 have responded to my concerns with WP 1.0 bot. Please either block WP 1.0 bot or protect User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a nobots template to the page. Let's see if that works. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That did not work, so I have deleted this as a useless redirect. Let me know if this causes any unexpected problems. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The bot recreates the page. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying protection; the bot is not an admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If the bot refuses to obey {{nobots}} then we have a bigger issue on hand because we have a non-compliant bot. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Juddieeee

Yesterday, this IP constantly added "satirical" content to the Britain First article, and reacted by vandalising my user space for not tolerating it. The smoking gun is that this user credited a lame joke to an "Ed Judd", before instantly removing that source. By constantly reverting this editing, the page was fully protected for "edit warring" rather than indefinitley semi-protected for IP vandalism. Today, a user by a name similar to that vandal was inserting the same WP:OR non WP:NPOV WP:SOAPBOX whinging, which to me adds up that this user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute to an encyclopedia. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

After the message on your user page, the disruption from Juddieeee appears to have stopped. New accounts (Kappser, Kreepsa and Fubritainfirst) have vandalised the article by changing the external links, and there has been vandalism from other IPs, but there's insufficient evidence to say any of these are the same user as Juddieeee - more likely there's a reason for this being targeted for vandalism by several users. There's a request at Requests for page protection but no admins are active there. Peter James (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

We have an edit war of vandalism between a fake user and an I.P. at Gluten Trackinfo (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blockhammer to the face applied in both cases. However, the correct noticeboard for this sort of tomfoolery is thataway... Yunshui ^雲_水 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, this is "thataway". Did you move this? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

He means thataway. Looks like somewhere in the world there is a classroom of bored kids. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I did indeed mean thataway and not thataway. I suppose I should now head thataway... Yunshui ^雲_水 12:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason I asked is because this was a problem with TWO editors reverting each other in a problematic way, I kind thought ANI was the right place, but maybe there is more or less to it than I thought. (and here is your mini-trout ;) <((()))>< ) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is suitable for such a discussion (or you could go to WP:AN3), but WP:AIV is also suitable. WP:BURO in action: you don't require that you alert us at exactly the right spot. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

More possible sock puppetry related to Jazzerino

Based on similar types of edits (tedious grammatical changes), to same articles, and timing of account creations and activity (how they often parallel or follow after Jazzerino's block resulting from this ANI discussion a week ago where his attempt to evade a block with another account was detected... I suspect other socks of his to be:

• Harmelodix (talk, contributions)
• Jazzman49 (talk, contributions)

...the latter of whom might have been the original sock master of Jazzerino (talk, contributions). Jazzerino and Jazzman49 accounts were created and started editing between 23-24 March before they both entered a period of no edits. Jazzerino returned to edit on 6 June til his block on 8 June, when less than a few hours after the block Harmelodix was created and their first edit was to Ornette Coleman, the article that was the last edit of Jazzerino before he was blocked. Harmelodix also continued where Jazzerino left at Free jazz immediately after the block with this and subsequent edits to that article, as well as at Dark Magus ([33]) the day of. Jazzman49 resumed editing the following day. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The editing quacks a great deal, but respective geolocation of the two accounts (and Jazzerino's) make them  Unrelated on a technical basis. — Coren ^(talk) 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Same obsession with pronouns ([34], [35], [36], [37]) Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sock of anyone, but I did contribute as an IP for a couple of years when I lived out East, so why does Dan56 keep on reverting all my edits? What's wrong with this edit, which reduces the repetition of using the word "confirmed" twice in the same sentence? What's wrong with this edit? You can't have an "it" that refers to nothing! It must refer to a noun, which hadn't yet been established in the paragraph, so your preferred version is ungrammatical. Can someone please explain to me why Dan56 keeps reverting my edits? Is this proper procedure? Jazzman49 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is bizarro bra, Dan57 is paranoid about socks? Hey Jazzman, its good to be socking with you man! What a joke! Dan, please stop making reversions of all my contributions (that are improvements)! Why are you a cop or something man because you seem all hostile and shit. Harmelodix (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Abusive and disruptive static IP needs blocking

Can someone block 76.94.140.31 please to put a lid on their abuse and disruption. The IP appears to be static. The block should probably be indefinite. For evidence, pick pretty much any of their edit summaries or talk page soapboxing from Special:Contributions/76.94.140.31. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a (wo)man with a worldhistorical mission to save us from ourselves, and see 'Islamic' 'antisemitic' cockroaches everywhere on wikipedia and just needlessly coerces editors to waste time reverting the nonsense, or replying to vile innuendoes. Worst of all, (s)he has zero knowledge of wikipedia policies and the subject matter, and there is no sign (to the contrary) that tolerance will eventually lead to some change in attitude.

• 'Sorry I forgot that only Musoims ar e allowed to improve aricles'
• 'Sean hoyland anisemite who thinks he rules wiki' WP:AGF
• 'far-left nutjob' WP:BLP
• 'Police confirmed it was a jihadi cockroach'
• The most distressing thing is that the editor's fingers have an aleatory relationship to the characters on the keyboard, and those of us who suffer from apoplexy at orthographical lapses are sorely tried while most editors have to google desperately to figure out who 'anisemites' and 'Musoims' might be. Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you two be banned for your anti-Jewish propaganda. You have no knowledge of Jewish history. Talkpage soap boxing, I asssume you mean responding to and countering anti-Jewish propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The above message suggests an imminent change in behaviour is unlikely; blocked for one week. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

 – This comment on 76.94.140.31's talk page seems to have been missed: Let it be known that legal action will be taken soon.--Auric talk 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep that's an unequivocal legal threat.(see below) A longer block would be warranted, though likely not indefinite: according to the geolocation tool the IP is at least part of a dynamic pool. I also think we're close to where revocation of talk page use would also be warranted (diff, diff, and maybe this diff which refers to an editor's religion, evidently as a factor in declaring his edit to be vandalism). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, look at the block log. That legal threat already netted the IP a week-long NLT block. Anyway, I think revocation of talk page access (which also happened with the last block) is still warranted. Possibly consider extending it to a month in light of the other diffs I presented above? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access due to the continued racist attacks and extended the block (hope that's ok Yunshui) to one month as the IP appears static and there is zero collateral.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections here; good call. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone was wondering, this IP is User:JarlaxleArtemis. I've extended the block. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki:, are you able to have a look at Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:1968:5CD3:258F:1558 and Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:819A:D74A:3062:DBE6 who appeared just after 76.94.140.31's block to see whether they are also JarlaxleArtemis ? I'm not sure whether the use of html encoding (e.g. [38]) is a clue. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• They are, and it is. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki:. He's back, Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:14EE:70C7:8203:47DC Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Coming in from multiple IPs.... Zero^talk 13:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

He's back again, check my contributes for a list of IPs to block. Sepsis II (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Would a range-block work? Sairp (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, 190.74.2.191 , Sepsis II (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Visakha veera adding non-free images to templates

User:Visakha veera is adding non-free images to templates, such as {{Andhra Pradesh}}, despite me telling the user that the use of the images does not comply with WP:NFCC#9. See discussion at User talk:Stefan2#a bout ap logo. What to do next? I'm not sure if the user knows exactly what "non-free" means. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Mr Stefan2 is psycho his brain is not working ! if it is non free why it will be in Wikipedia first delete it! why you interfiling in Indian topics? if its non free images first delete it! we don't want to dispute with others! (Visakha veera (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC))

• Visakha veera, you may want to read WP:NPA. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Also read WP:NFCC which was linked above which explains why we may have some non free images in some places, but disallow them in others. After that, you're welcome to read File:Official Emblem Of Andhra Pradesh.jpeg, which confirms the file in question is marked as non free. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If that image is no free why you guys are not uploading free images! your work only deleting and disturbing! i don't know some users in Wikipedia is behaving like this! if you really contribute good information in Wikipedia first upload non free images of those state emblems! don't delete like this ! first upload non free images! (Visakha veera (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC))

Have you read the non-free information on the images? Basically, there is no non-free version of the seal available. You cannot just make one. We allow very limited use of non-free images under very specific terms. These are outlined on the the WP:NFCC page you've already been directed towards plus on the non-free image information on the image page itself. Have you read those yet? Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Also do understand that in cases when we are sure free images can be created at this moment (or already exist) which can sufficiently replace the non free ones for whatever purpose they are being used for, the non free ones will need to be deleted ASAP. We don't wait for the free ones to appear or be uploaded to wikipedia/commons before we delete the non free ones. That's also outlined at the NFCC page. To be clear, this doesn't apply here since as has been stated, the seal itself is copyrighted and non free and so there's no way we can create a free version of it. (You would need to convince the copyright holders of the seal/logo, I presume the Andhra Pradesh government, to release it under a free licence.) This means the seal can be only be used in very limited circumstances on wikipedia, as I mentioned earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and the user User:LardoBalsamico

I need help with this user and this article about an issue that has been going on for a long time. Here's the situation; It all started on February, I read this article, 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and after reading it found out that it lacks a neutral point of view. So I started to edit it and after doing it, wrote every reason for my edits on the main editor's talk page, who is Lardo Balsamico.

You can see them here: Special:PermanentLink/595294983#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article

As you can see LardoBalsamico replied with only one sentence and didn't answer my second question. Then, I made my case to the NPOV board:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 45#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article

It didn't get ant reply so it got "backlogged." Then I made my case to the dispute resolution board:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 87#2011 Turkish sports corruption

Firstly, it was denied because my case was already on the NPOV board but then;

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 89#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal

The case was closed because user LardoBalsamico didn't join in the discussion. Then I made my case to request for a comment section, it stayed there for 22 days (got no reply) then as suggested by wikipedia help line I moved my case to the NPOV board now which is there for 2 months.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article (you can also read my case about the article lacking neutral point of view here)

As you can see, I went through all the dispute resolving solutions but the user LardoBalsamico didn't join in. Now, please, take a look at these links.

1)Talk:2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal#Recent edits

2)Talk:List of Turkish football champions

As you can see, every time I try to reach a consensus with LardoBalsamico, he doesn't write back, and if he does he's just stating a rule and not leaving any room to discuss his edits as you can see from this link;

User talk:Rivaner

Another issue with this user is while his edits are always perfect, the edits that doesn't fit wih his ways is either "vandalism" or "misleading info" Just look at the history of this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal&offset=&limit=500&action=history

If you look at a more recent edit, which done by him on 18:37 6 June 2014, he deletes a referenced part from the article by saying that it is misleading info even though it is from one of the Turkey's best selling newspaper! Another interesting thing about this user is, if you look at my contributions page:

Special:Contributions/Rivaner

You will see that on May 25,2014 I wrote a reason for my edit stating that the user has no reason to write about this article everywhere but after just 1 day he wrote it again to two different articles. What's more interesting about this user is; through my research, I found out that exactly the same thing happened to another user. As you can see from this link;

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31#Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal LardoBalsamico did the same things to another user.

So, it is really clear that he lacks a neutral point of view about this issue and also it is very clear that he is "gaming the system". I need your help with this user because, as you can see, I have ran out of options to deal with him. Thanks for taking the time to read my request, and if you have any questions about this, I am always ready to answer. Thanks.Rivaner (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC) I have notified the user about this but he blanked his talk page, here you can see my notification:

Special:PermanentLink/612602385Rivaner (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Today, user LardoBalsamico escalated the issue to personal attacks by calling me a "fanboy" and also suggesting me to "get a life". You can see this from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milli_Küme_Şampiyonası&action=history

As you can see the more civil I try to be, he is doing the exact opposite. Also he posted some warnings on my talk page as well:

User talk:Rivaner

I read the warnings and it is very clear that these warnings can also be posted on his talk page as well. To stop edit warring, I made a decision not to revert any of his edits untill this case is closed here. Again, thanks for taking the time to read my request and if you have any questions, I am always ready to answer.Rivaner (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nichiren Shōshū

Nichiren Shōshū (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could anyone PLEASE prevent Noisemonkey (talk · contribs) from continuously deleting an image relevant to the article? Also note the lengthy debate. Sick of it.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Noisemonkey notified of this thread. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And he has also been advised of edit warring over the article here, which he has now reverted twice in the past 24 hours. Y'know, considering this is now summer, and a lot of young very earnest adherents of various religious groups have more time to edit, and that so far as I can tell many of the Nichiren groups have made strong statements to the effect of their way being the only way, I wonder if it might not be a good idea to consider a quick-trigger on full protction for a few months on their main articles to prevent the young, earnest adherents from wasting our time and theirs with pointless edit warring on these topics. Just an idea, of course. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections from me on that, especially if it will stop more messes like this one. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Considering it's now summer"? Well, I guess that makes sense. The Football World Cup is usually played in winter, but if it's summer now in Brazil, it will be great weather to go to the beach, so the <redacted!>an team can practice their diving. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asked Catflap08 to post a neutral source to this picture but there isn't one. http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Gohonzon/DaiGohonzon.html is the only one available under which the commentary is by a Nichiren shu priest known to be critical of Nichiren Shoshu which contains original research as he signs the post: "My thanks to Senchu Murano, Jackie Stone, Bruce Maltz, and Chris Holte for providing all this information." Also see articles on his blog http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2012/09/28/three-divergent-doctrines-of-nichiren-shoshu/ and http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2012/09/28/the-fuji-lineage/ I have also requested that he show that that the depicted Gohonzon contains the following inscription which is mentioned on p116 on the Basics of Practice http://nst.org/Articles/BasicOfPractice.pdf which reads as follows : There is a supplementary inscription on the Dai-Gohonzon

− which reads: “... with great respect for the petitioner of the High

− Sanctuary of the Essential Teachings, Yashiro Kunishige and the

− people of the Hokkeko-shu.” but as yet have received no reply. All that can be verified is the picture is of a temple Gohonzon and that the book which it is allegedly from does exist but nobody seems to have a copy or translation of the page that this picture is from. Noisemonkey (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A free photograph does not need a reliable source or a "neutral source". If the image lacks a copyright that is all that matters for Wikipedia and the Commons. It seems you belong to a group of editors who have fervently attempted to get the image removed from Wikipedia pages on this topic as well as from hosting on the Wikimedia Commons. Twice. Drop the stick already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection at Talk:Gaulish language

Admin User:EdJohnston semiprotected Talk:Gaulish language yesterday, apparently in the mistaken belief it was being hit by a persistent pattern of vandal sock edits. In reality, only one IP edit had been that of a vandal sock; besides it there had been frequent activity by a legitimate anon contributor from various dynamic IPs (who unfortunately doesn't want to create an account). As there seems to be a current need for further discussion with that anon editor, and EdJohnston is unlikely to be back online for the next few hours, can we consider it uncontroversial for one of us to lift the protection? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Now unprotected as you requested. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli ignoring active topic ban notice and removing it from his talk page

• Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Georgian alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Georgian scripts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jaqeli (talk · contribs) was topic banned on January 5th[39] from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia, such as for example the history of the Georgian alphabet. He removed the ban notice a couple of weeks later[40] after he had been blocked for a week for violating the ban, and when I replaced it twice today he reverted me both times. Our guidelines make it clear that active sanctions cannot be removed from talk pages - WP:BLANKING. Whether or not he is now violating the ban itself I'm not sure, although he certainly was in March with edits such as [41] and [42] which were about the history of the Georgian alphabet, now renamed Georgian scripts. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can edit the Georgian scripts everywhere but the only section where I am topic banned there is the origins sections. So, no, I haven't violated anything for sure If you're concerned about it. Jaqeli (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get that interpretation? As far as I can see, you indeed are banned from any edits whatsoever in the topic, except for reverting basic vandalism (e.g. someone replaces the Georgian alphabet article with obscenities) and from discussions about the ban itself, such as here. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And he's trying to convince us that he can edit to do with origins so long as he doesn't edit the origins section. The 2 diffs above are about origins/history of the Georgian alphabet/script. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, do you even know what my TBAN actually is? Jaqeli (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me: "You are topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia, such as for example the history of the Georgian alphabet" (emphasis mine). Not: "You are topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from [editing only] the history of the Georgian alphabet" (interpretation... not mine). Yunshui ^雲_水 12:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Actually, fair enough - Sandstein's wording is easily misinterpreted. You are topic banned from areas which relate to Georgia and Armenia together, not "areas which relate to Georgia" and "areas which relate to Armenia". I would still say that Georgian scripts as a whole meets that criterion, and topic bans are usually supposed to be broadly construed, but I see where you're coming from. However, this thread was started with relation to the blanking of a message regarding an active sanction, and that definitely isn't allowed under the current wording of WP:REMOVED. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I admit I originally hadn't caught that myself, and only brought him here after he twice reverted my addition of his topic ban to this talk page, despite my edit summaries saying it should not be removed and a subheading to that effect. He has been editing material to do with the history of the Georgian language and he is specifically banned from that. If you look at earlier version of his talk page you will see him arguing about that it includes and he seems to have been trying to exclude as much as he can. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be worth having @Sandstein:, @Callanecc: or @EdJohnston: make a comment here to properly delineate what the topic ban encompasses. As it stands, it could be read as a topic ban from all Armenia and all Georgia related articles or a topic ban only from articles which involve Armenia and Georgia together, but exempts articles that are solely about Georgia or Armenia. Blackmane (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I can confirm (as a follower of both Sandstein and Jaqeli's talkpages) that the topic ban is ONLY related to topics where Georgia AND Armenia intersect. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Based on the discussion that took place at the time, I think Sandstein intended the latter - but yes, it should be clarified. It should also be visible on the talkpage... Yunshui ^雲_水 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And that includes the history of the Georgian alphabet - that was added specifically. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:UP#CMT, I have restored the AE notice. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As did User:Avpop, but he removed both yours and Avpop's. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I restored it too, but he promptly reverted me: [43]. Mdann52 has now warned him for edit warring. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And of course he is not allowed to remove it at all. He's removed it 6 times now. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

How often is that really enforced though? Technically, shouldn't everyone with an active sanction on WP:RESTRICT have their sanction notice on their talk page? Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably. Topic ban notices are important and trying to hide them tendentious. It's been suggested that ban notices should be archivable (although he is actually deleting) but that's gained no traction at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?. Any editor who looks at another editor's talk page should be able to see the ban notice - how else are they supposed to know that an editor is breaking a ban? Sure, experienced editors know where to look, but would most of us even do that? Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• He has now removed it again, stating that it's in his archive (it is). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And they are not a 3RR exception: "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

reported to WP:AN3. I have better things to do than deal with this... --Mdann52talk to me! 16:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And he's reverted again: [44]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for edit-warring - he's clearly past 3RR and not following user page guidelines. He's been told someone might unblock him if he adds a link to the topic ban on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that the ban covers only topics related to both Armenia and Georgia, which is ... well, exactly what it says. I have no opinion about the ban notice removal issue, except that from an AE perspective, removing ban notices should not be a problem, as AE sanctions are centrally logged. Generally, topic ban violations should be reported at WP:AE, not here.  Sandstein  17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And the main reason for reporting him here was not a topic ban violation but removing the topic ban. The average editor should not be expected to even know about central logging of AE sanctions, which is in part why the guideline is important to enforce. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• You know, I started playing around with a concept that maybe I should continue with, regarding restrictions and sanctions:

1. an editor who has formal restrictions (AE, unblock conditions, etc) would have a subpage created (such as User:DangerousPanda/Restrictions) that formally lists the restrictions and expiry dates, plus link to FORMAL place where it was enacted and/or listed in the case of WP:RESTRICT, AE, etc.
2. that page would also categorize the person as "editor under restrictions"
3. a centralized list would exist based on that category that makes it easy to find by users/admins
4. the page would be full-protected to avoid someone screwing with it

Thus, we wouldn't care if the editor removed restrictions notices - it would be centrally-managed/listed the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruption by Rayayala17

Rayayala17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier in the week, I was in a minor argument with Rayayala17 over the translation that Wikipedia had been using on the article Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger that I acquiesced on (it was part of an old thread on the talk page here. He decided that he was right and the translation was wrong proclaimed he was going to change it and threatened to edit war over the "biased interpretation of the word" as well as falsely claiming I was blocking his edits (I was simply using the text replace tool in Twinkle) again referring to the translation as a "opinionated interpretation" and then after I explained my position, he began a new thread that skirted on a personal attack that I removed from the page and simply acquiesced to his request because I had found evidence to suggest his position was right.

He made a similar set of edits to Seijuu Sentai Gingaman that I also reverted, as I had not seen any evidence to that matter. He began a thread on the talk page, pointing to an illegally hosted YouTube video of an (official) English rendition of the TV show's opening sequence, that I originally did not notice had an English narration as well. I pointed out my position from the other page that Wikipedia needs a reliable source that has the English text within a Japanese context, and he responded by saying he did not want my opinion as he did not ask for it and referring to consensus and implying a childish laugh which has become his new motif. I responded again, reiterating that he is not in charge of that talk page, he responded by repeating the narration, performing a borderline personal attack, and then proclaiming that he would change the text in the article and ignore my opinion on the matter. After I said that he has no right to ignore my opinion on the topic, he told me not to respond to him again and threatened that he would game me into edit warring with him over the translation. I informed him that he would not have consensus, and again he essentially told me to shut up. After informing him that if he does not want to abide by the rules and etiquette of the website he can leave, he removed everything he and I have said within the past hour or so (I've just reverted).

I can see a history of him acting without any prior discussion or consensus (all of these page moves and relatively little talk page discussion), and it is only because I have begun to challenge him that he is acting incredibly inappropriately, making childish retorts to me and threatening to edit war and ignore my opinion because he does not want my involvement.

I do not think that Rayayala17 has the maturity or competence to participate in this collaborative project if he takes to being challenged like this on talk pages with childish insults, threats to edit war, and threats to game another editor into edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to cause problems on this site. And I did not say I was going to "game" Ryulong into anything, nor did I tell him to shut up. Ryulong is clearly exaggerating to make my words seem harsher than it really is. Also, I have seen no consensus about calling Seijuu Star Beasts in the article's history. All I can say is I have as much right to contribute to Wikipedia as the next person.Rayayala17 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You do not have "the right" to edit here, none of us do. Wikipedia is a privately owned website, and we each edit by the consensus of our peers and by the grace of the Foundation. Saying things like "Unless I asked YOU specifically for your opinion please keep it to yourself..." as well as "By the way, Ryulong, that's up to the consensus to decide and not YOU. tee-hee~!" are not going to endear you to the community. It is required that you work with others and do so in a mature fashion as we are a collaborative project that seeks a collegiate environment. If you can't work with others in a mature fashion, then this isn't the hobby for you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Then for the sake of peace on Wikipedia I will collaborate with Ryulong and get consensus as well.Rayayala17 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Dennis' splash of Wiki-culture has opened Rayayala17's eyes. I think we should close this and see how things progress from here with no opposition to the same issue being brought up again later if this doesn't fix it.--v/r - TP 23:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  And I think Dennis might have coined a new catchphrase - "By the grace of the Foundation" ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  I threw up just a little when I wrote that, to be honest. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

WR227

WR227 (talk · contribs) has been updating dead-links (which is good), but insists on converting them from in-line citations to external links (which, in my eyes, is bad). As part of that process they also occasionally delete perfectly valid references completely from the article (which is definitely bad). I've tried talking to them at User talk:WR227#May 2014 (which includes relevant diffs) but they continue their behaviour (diff from last night) which I view as disruptive. Is this actionable or am I simply over-reacting? GiantSnowman 08:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if they continue despite having their errors pointed out then it would eventually become actionable. One must not confuse a lack of competency with intentional disruption, but if it did continue despite several messages then it might become more actionable. I'll try to add to your message to see if it makes a difference. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! GiantSnowman 15:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User has apologised and promised to adhere to INCITE and other policies. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Germany

Hi I would like admins to take a closer look at the article on Germany. There is a user who consonantly deletes the image of victims of the Buchenwald concentration camp and replaces it with a picture of Berlin in ruins. In my opinion the user in question has a problem with showing the image of concentration camps per se. I and other editors have pointed out the this image is clearly related to the article. I guess its time now to have a admin look at the issue. [[45]] Please also look at the lengthy debate and survey taking place. [[46]] In the mean time I added the Buchenwald picture and kept the ruins picture in the article as well – just in order to end the constant replacing of one with the other.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and there is an RFC already on going. No need for admin action.--v/r - TP 23:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note that Horst-schlaemma has used Twinkle in a content dispute, which I believe is something that admins can do something about. Also, in a more general sense, neo-Naziism and pro-Nazi historical revisionism has a very strong online presence, including here on Wikipedia. I don't think it's a good idea to wave off such problems as "content disputes", since there is a movement behind them, and we need to be on our guard against their influence. I would be much more comfortable with the notion that our admins were taking an activist stance against this pernicious philosophy, rather than the idea that they were dealing with it as "business as usual". BMK (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The only way to stop someone from using Twinkle these days is to block them. We can take away "rollback" if they have it, but we can no longer take away Twinkle the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to call editors to also delete the Berlin in ruins picture until the matter is settled!!!! It kind of disturbs me that revisionist tendencies do seem to get a hold here in Wikipedia. BOTH pictures are in use within Commons so the only reason NOT to include the Buchenwald picture which has CLEAR relevance to the respective section in the article can be of support of revisionist views.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the Germany article for five days to stop the edit warring that was reported at WP:AN3#User:Horst-schlaemma reported by User:Mostlyoksorta (Result: Article protected). There is no obvious policy reason to exclude the picture of a pile of corpses at Buchenwald, so I guess there is no further need for admin action. Probably there are more or less tasteful holocaust pictures, but that's for editors to decide. We should wait for the RfC to reach a conclusion. I hope that the participants will manage to avoid personal attacks in the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bandana_man95 and the philosophy meme

68.97.21.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bandana man95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP and editor (one in the same) have been making spurious edits to the first linked word in several articles in what seems to be a campaign designed to break the "Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy" meme. Most of these edits have been swiftly reverted, but I feel like this might be a single purpose account created to make a point. I gave a standard welcome and request for them to cite sources, but I think they may need some other attention if they persist. --Netoholic @ 21:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP and editor haven't done anything since not long after this report was submitted (no blocks were issued). It does look like Netoholic is right insofar as something fishy is going on with respect to Getting to Philosophy. There are good edits mixed in with the questionable though. To me, this looks mostly harmless... potentially how a truly new editor might get experience, by editing in topic area of interest. And we have good, experienced contributors who had much rockier starts. I think the best option here is to keep an eye on things, give warnings as needed, and if disruption continues blocking may be warranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IP anti-science troll

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.

---

217.208.57.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has admitted that he's not interested in contributing to articles. He's WP:NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia, but spam anti-science rants (even vandalizing templates to do so), at this point assumably to troll. Even if it's in earnest, it's not needed at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Science is open (uncensored) objective enquiry - Individuals such as yourself insist upon closed (censored) militant defence of the status quo.217.208.57.69 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

217's telling another editor to "go sod yourself", or calling the same editor a "sniveling bedwetter" does not suggest an intent to contribute positively. Same for the subsection below, which 217' seems hellbent on maintaining as having a level two heading (when to be honest, the heading should just be stripped off). This removal of a comment of Ian.thomson's here at ANI does not bode well either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And just in case it needed greater prominence, this diff alone ought to be enough to make out a prima facie case that 217' is WP:NOTHERE: "Wikipedia belongs to the world - It is not the private Despotarchy of Ian Thomson". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

He continues to delete my comments here. Troll, vandal, or WP:TEND, he doesn't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And 217 is now eligible for AIV. I've reported him there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked, for 1 week. GiantSnowman 16:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Science Pro-Censorship Authoritarian

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.

---

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appointed himself WP administrator and censor. User has made repeated false accusations and ad hominem attacks. Attempts to erase and conceal statements contrary to his own position.217.208.57.69 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Provide diffs for your unevidenced claims. You're the one who tells users to go climb a rope, comparing everyone you disagree with with Mussolini and witchhunters, and vandalizing user posts and talk page templates. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

User:Gsbahia

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.

---

Back in March, User:Gsbahia created an article on Stark Security Services, an Indian security firm - by copy-pasting an existing article on the Garda (security company), and editing the name. No evidence whatsoever was provided that Stark had any connection With Garda, and nor can I find any such evidence through a websearch. Accordingly, I stubbed the article, and tagged it for proposed deletion as lacking evidence of notability. Meanwhile, Gsbahia has repeatedly created articles (under slightly different names) for Gurdeep singh bahia, a supposed Indian songwriter and poet - and supposed propriator of Stark Security Services. The latest incarnation of the Bahia article has for some days been marked for deletion as an unreferenced BLP - only for Gsbahia to finally add a 'reference'. [47] The supposed reference [48] however fails entirely to make any mention of Bahia, and accordingly, I removed it, and warned Gsbahia that any further falsification of references would result in me calling for a block. [49] Since Gsbahia immediately restored the bogus reference, [50] and since it seems self-evident that Gsbahia is only here to engage in self-promotion via bogus references, I have to suggest that an indefinite block is the only appropriate course of action here, as repeated dishonesty on this scale cannot be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I just A7'ed that company article. The autobio (because that's what it is) should be AFD'ed probably. I can find no sources for the claims in there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the autobio shouldn't be deleted as unreferenced - but my reason for posting here was to ask for action to be taken against Gsbahia, who has repeatedly posted misleading material, and is clearly a liability to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the autobio can probably be deleted as a copyright violation - much of the text is copy-pasted from our article on Debi Makhsoospuri. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for self-promotion, article creations nuked. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive comments by Horst-schlaemma

There has recently been a discussion in the Germany article over the inclusion of a picture for the Holocaust in the section for the Third Reich. Horst-schlaemma's contributions, have consistently included discouraging of any discussion on the matter and personal attacks to other editors. This behaviour is certainly not helpful and only creates problems to the discussion. Here are his contributions:

1

2

3

4

I suggest that he is immediately blocked. This is an ongoing discussion, that has recently gotten to RfC level, and its civil development must be safeguarded. Nxavar (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I need to get blocked immediately, not a single doubt left about that. It's clear we're talking with several sockpuppets of another user here, see identical writing style and discussion fallacy. The change of the photo was a purposeful provocation to the main editors of the Germany article including me. It didn't happen with any consent in such a sensible area, nor was it necessary. I'm not even opposing to including a related picture to the article, but it needs to serve the purpose of the former. The former pair of Hitler<>destroyed city (cause<>result, beginning<>end) was long established in the article and served its purpose very well. And I pointed this out. Volunteer Marek and his "fellows" again are just trolling. The current image selection wasn't put in question during the FA-process either. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Looks like over-reaction. While I think User:Horst-schlaemma would be well-advised to tone down the rhetoric, I see zero warnings on their talk page, and you want to jump to a block?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing actionable here. Without making any comment reagrding the RFC in question, none of Horst-schlaemma's comments rise to the level of a personal attack. They're hardly polite, and I'd caution H-s to remember that we're trying to create a collaboration here, but he has just as much right to contribute to the discussion as anyone else. Certainly there is absolutely no justification for a block. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for my sarcastic tone, but I'm seriously annoyed of this "bunch". It's pretty obvious it's one or at best two users heading at different nation-related articles to mess things up. I observed it several times now and am too annoyed to even consider argueing with "them", as it virtually never leads anywhere. There's several IPs that indeed could need a good block now. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoting:

"User Volunteer Marek is on a constant mission to butcher Germany-related articles. I wouldn't give a flying f* about what he has to say on the topic.(...)"

"Your knee-jerk reactions only tell me how I'm right about the monologue part."

If that is just "hardly polite" then I am desillusioned about the standards of civility in Wikipedia. In anycase, I suggested a block, you are free to choose a milder response. Nxavar (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And I've done so - I choose to respond by reminding H-s that he's editing in a collaborative environment, and that civility is one of our guiding policies. Beyond that, there's really nothing more to be done. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Since history of events is important, if you believe that Horst-Shlaemma acted innapropriately, you should place some warning or notice on his talk page. Nxavar (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

H-s just said this. Undoubtedly aggressive. Nxavar (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Horst-schlaemma comes out of nowhere, says he's one of the long time page editors and enters into the discussion when its in the final stages of being resolved. Then he reverts the photo on the page and starts throwing around accusations of sock puppets? He's clearly disrupting the decision and voting process. In fact, in the voting process there were 5 votes for the new photo and only two or three against, one of which was made by an IP address user whose sole edit had been to comment on the page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

He also removed some of his comments, which constitutes vandalism. He may as well apologize and "take them back" them if he feels they are inaproppriate. Nxavar (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, that is not vandalism, according to WP:REDACTED. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Only to the extent that it doesn't make replies look out-of-context. This is why in my revert, I sticked to restoring removed comments, and I did not revert the small edits to aggresive expressions. Nxavar (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'll point out that in your revert you also removed one of your own comments, an action you previously identified as vandalism. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment was somewhat aggressive and no replies were made to it. Nxavar (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Continued unconstructive edits by Horst-schlaemma

In a recent thread I mentioned Horst-schlaemma's unconstructive contributions in the discussion The Buchenwald concentation camp photograph: really necessary on an overview page for Germany?. No administrative action was taken.

In this recent edit he once again resorts to personal attacks. I think this time a warning is appropriate. Nxavar (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you are an adult person, but you should already be able to distinguish "personal attacks" from the reasonable ground for suspecting. Now stop this farcical raid on me, please. Thank you. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly accusing others of sock-puppeting constitutes personal attack. If you think there is such a problem, notify the administrators. They are the ones with the access to evidence and the authority to make such conclusions. Nxavar (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have combined this thread with the previous one, Unconstructive comments by Horst-schlaemma, since they are obviously on the same topic. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind advice. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if Horst (and his friends) quit trying to insinuate that I am sock puppeting or somehow connected to some other users. I have no idea who the users commenting above are. Nxavar or G S Palmer or whoever else. I'd also appreciate it if he just refrained from making ridiculous accusations directed at me in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Wait - has he implied that I'm a sockpuppet of yours? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

TekkenJinKazama socks and Ravensfire

I somehow stumbled into a seeminly long-running dispute between Ravensfire and socks of TekkenJinKazama. First, I will start by pointing out that an editor using IP address 42.104.3.81 has been making personal attacks and threats [51] towards Ravensfire and admits to block evasion and should probably be dealt with. That said, Ravensfire has been indiscriminately reverting every edit made from this IP address[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62], which he admits[63][64] is designed to harass that editor into changing his behavior or leaving Wikipedia, and has stated that he intends to keep on doing so[65]. As a result, many constructive edits from the IP address are being reverted, which seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I understand that TekkenJinKazama has been a problem user here before, but this doesn't seem to me to be the correct way to deal with the issue. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ahecht:Ahecht, I wish you bothered to dig a bit deeper into this before running here. @Atama: who's been handling most of the SPI's for TJK and I have tried extensive discussions with this user to get them to change. Nothing works. Jin does not care about Wikipedia policies. Jin does not care about actually working with other people. They have been indeffed (twice, actually) for copyright infringement. They don't understand sourcing, often using no sources or unreliable sources. This is not the editor that Wikipedia needs. Jin uses very consistent IP ranges (42.104.0.0/22 is the primary) that are mostly their edits but are fairly broad so a range block really isn't viable. Honestly, I'd really prefer a month-long range block as that might finally get Jin to change his ways. But to your complaint, this is not harassment in any way. This is reverted a blocked user who is evading the block which is allowed. Ravensfire (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, contrary to what Ahecht boldly claims, I do not "indiscriminately" revert edits. If I'm not convinced the edit is from Jin, regardless of the IP range used, I do not revert it. If I am convinced it's Jin, I revert the edit. If a named account is used, I report it to SPI. If it's an IP, there's simply no reason for it. It's a mobile phone IP range so Jin can easily go through 4-5 IP addresses a day that might repeat every three months. Ravensfire (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, forgot - a link to the SPI is probably nice to see the scope of Jin's efforts. It's pretty impressive for a fairly short time period. Ravensfire (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of quite a bit of the history, which in ran into with the Assassination of Theo van Gogh article last month. While I agree that this is a problem user who, in many cases, has ignored Wikipedia policies, many of the edits you reverted were adding sources or properly sourced material (hence my indiscriminate claim). In addition, Wikipedia policies don't say that we should be indiscriminately reverting edits because of who made them (Ad hominem), except in a few cases where there has been an ArbCom or similar consensus. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahecht, what Ravensfire is doing is in compliance with WP:BMB. TJK at this point is de facto banned (where they are indefinitely blocked and no admin is willing to unblock). Therefore, per policy, "bans apply to all editing, good or bad" and any edit from one of TJK's socks can be reverted. As our banning policy states:

A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

Also, per WP:BANREVERT, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Furthermore, "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."

I have also reverted edits from TJK's socks, more-or-less indiscriminately. That's not to say that I'll revert any edit that he makes, but I'll only let an edit stand if I think it's too harmful to revert it. I've also left edits in-place if other editors in good standing have built on what the sock has added, and reverting the sock necessitates reverting the good faith edits from other people (in whole or in part).

Now, let's say, hypothetically, that Ravensfire, myself, or someone else reverts an edit from a sockpuppet of TJK but you feel that the edit was a good one and want it to stay. You can reinstate the edit, per WP:PROXYING, if you "are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive" and if you "have independent reasons for making such edits." So keep that in mind as well, your hands are not tied in this manner. We aren't absolutely required to revert all of TJK's sockpuppet edits. But any edits can be reverted, and enforcing policy in this matter is neither harassment nor disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. -- Atama頭 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

At what point does this become disruptive? When an editor is using API calls to monitor the IP range of the largest mobile network in India and is reverting constructive edits because they were made to India tv-related articles (which is entirely plausible for an Indian IP), it at some point becomes less a WP:BANREVERT and more a witch hunt. Edits like [66][67][68] and [69] are perfectly legitimate for an Indian IP user to be making. The block revert policy specifically stresses "Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation to any victims of mistaken identity" and "Maximizing the number of editors who can edit Wikipedia", which preventing users of a large Indian ISP from editing India-related articles seems contrary to. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the ban policy states that "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons," which many of these reverts have done. I'm not going to debate this further, as this is the Admin Noticeboard and not the editor debate board, and I have done the due diligence in leaving notification that I feel Ravensfire has gone too far in enforcing WP:BANREVERT, but I'll leave it at that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you are making sweeping generalizations without providing diffs, while Ravensfire and Atama have outlined exactly how policy is supposed to work. If a revert has introduced a BLP violation, then you should tell Ravensfire at that time, politely, on his talk page. Or just revert it back in. Politely, with a good summary. There are exceptions to all rules, but it seems like Ravensfire has done everything to work with the editor. "Good faith" isn't a suicide pact, and this sock has used up more good faith than he deserves. That said, if the edit actually improves the article, leaving it in is also perfectly fine. Reverting isn't mandatory. We shouldn't be vengeful or hateful in dealing with him, but reverting and blocking is pretty much what is expected. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal reversals being re-reversed

Hello, I am user BDBJack (talk · contribs). I have been posting to the talk page for Banc De Binary. However do to a recent ANI proposal which was approved, there have been some limitations placed on my account. I am still unsure of the full nature of the limitations, and I have posted some posts to the talk page which, after thought, I removed because I was not sure of what I am allowed and not allowed to do within the restrictions placed on me.

I would appreciate the following:

1. An explanation or links to documentation which I can review in order to better understand the restrictions levied against me.
2. To have this revision: [[70]] re-reverted as I am still unclear on the policies, and I would rather hear from a neutral user who can explain the situation clearly than a user which (from how I see it) is attacking me in the process of explaining things to me.

Thank You BDBJack (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not attacking you, just commenting on the lack of good faith shown in your response to my suggestion that you issue a press release responding to the SEC and CFTC lawsuits. I think that following the rules, and doing stuff like issuing a clear response as I suggested, would serve your company's interests a great deal more than wikipoliticking, serial sockpuppeting and offering five-figure bounties, as your company has recently engaged in. To be frank, since your company has not disavowed such actions nor indicated that you will not repeat them in the future, I think that it is extremely generous that you are permitted to contribute to the talk pages and are merely topic-banned from article space. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering your response to me on your talk page, and the fact that you reposted a comment on mine which I reverted due to personal reasons, I find it hard to assume good faith. However, I am willing to look past these if you are willing to change your tone with me. I do not mind a challenge on factual basis, in fact I welcome it. However I do find your tone to be hostile and offensive. I will (after sufficient research and validation) be posting materials which I would like to see contributed to the article. I would like to see the zeal that you apply when reviewing the current sources applied also to these sources as well. BDBJack (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point: I restored your comment because you weren't sure whether it was permissible, and it clearly was. I did want to respond to it because I will be away for a few days and I assumed it was going to be restored pretty soon. However, if you've decided that you don't like your comment and want to remove it, that's your right and you can remove it, and you can remove my response as well as it wouldn't make sense responding to a blank space.

However, I think that it would be more constructive if you instead would reflect a bit on your company's actions, the serial sockpuppetry by and/or on behalf of the company, the ridiculous five-figure bounty offer, and in particular the disruption caused by the recently blocked sockpuppet User:Okteriel. It would be nice, by no means required but nice, if you would at least acknowledge that there has been disruption, that it has been caused by the company and persons acting on its behalf, and pledge on behalf of Banc de Binary that you acknowledge that you have violated Wiki policies in the past, have wasted volunteers time, and will desist from such actions in the future. It would be awfully nice if we could see a shift in attitude away from the aggressive tactics that we've seen employed on behalf of your company toward an attitude that is respectful of Wikipedia policies and its unpaid volunteers' time. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, there was an edit conflict and I didn't see your remark at 15:07 when I posted three minutes later. Please read and reflect on my suggestion that you give some consideration to your company's actions. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, the statement attributed to management here is helpful, but I am unclear as to whether we can use such statements in the article under WP:SELFPUB. If so, I see no reason why it can't be used in the article proper, once protection is lifted. Be that as it may, I think that your company should be restricted to one account to represent your interests. Creation of a new account (User:BDBIsrael) at this time is counterproductive if it is to be used in tandem with "BDBJack." Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I received an automatic notification of this thread. I will repeat my remarks posted to another thread. I believe it is Wikipedia policy that our company should be restricted to zero accounts. BDB employees and contractors edit Wikipedia individually and independently. In my position I am aware of undisclosed employees and contractors who edit Wikipedia who have no interest in editing articles related to binary options. Wikipedia does not restrict personal editing, but editing against its interests. Jack and I are not editing to represent BDB's independent interests, but only to represent its interest in Wikipedia compliance. I have already recounted our history, which the Board has considered in making its decisions, and I trust the Board's request for me to interact with Wikipedia editors personally is not ill-advised. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Coretheapple: I have experience with you, and your take on good faith editors who have a COI is militant and hostile and I have no doubt that BDBJack and BDBIsreal have good reason to be weary of you. My experience with you shows a willingness to interpret ambiguous rules as authoritarian. @BDBJack: Primary sources are not altogether banned from Wikipedia. There are several uses for primary sources. They are the only source for a person's identify, such as what nationality they choose, which religion they choose, what their sexuality and gender are. In addition, primary sources can be used for non-controversial facts such as "Our company was founded in 2014" ect. The other use for primary sources is what Coretheapple is asking for here. We can use primary sources to make source-attributed claims. So if the SEC says X and you company says "No, Y", and we have a press release of your company saying that, then we can say "The SEC said X, but in a follow up press release the Company asserted Y." BDBJack, I believe that Atama has sufficiently answered your question, but your restriction comes down to this: You cannot edit the BDB article at all. You can't touch it. You can talk about it on the talk page, you can talk about it anywhere in fact, you just can't edit the article. This is covered under WP:BAN and Wikipedia:BAN#Topic_ban.--v/r - TP 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Thank you for the clarification. I believe that this will not differ much from the policies which I must abide to under WP:COI, but I will also review the additional material to ensure that I am in compliance with it.

• NOTE: I am an employee of Banc De Binary, and I have declared a conflict on interest in such a way that it be clear throughout any attempted contributions which I attempt to make. That being said, I have limited authority to make statements on behalf of the company. I am NOT the official Banc De Binary representative, I am simply an employee who (hopefully like most) enjoys and loves my work and my workplace.
• @Coretheapple: I realise that you may not get this due to your leave of absence, but I would like to address your comments since your last query was much more respectful. While I understand that as am employee of the company I am the most likely point of contact for the WP community as to complaints of poor behavior, I would like to reiterate the point that I made above. Due to my employment, I MUST make it clear that I am an employee, and thus have WP:COI, and yes, I have been (up to this point) the sole representative from my company who has been able and willing to accept responsibility. That being said, I can acknowledge actions taken by the company, but as I am NOT the company, nor am I the owner, nor the board of directors, nor senior manager, nor someone working in any capacity to make policy in the company at large, I doubt that it will really satisfy your request. Believe it or not, I too would like to contribute my knowledge and experience to Wikipedia, and in my free time I have often browsed through articles in the technology section which are stubbed and require more information. However I have yet to find a subject which I am both sufficiently experienced in and sufficiently interested in to contribute to. ( I must assume through good faith that HistorianOfRecentTimes is the same ). I will say for my own actions that, yes I personally made mistakes which were interpreted as an attempt to control the discussion on how the article should be re-written. While justifying those actions is a moot point, I will say that they were done out of anger and frustration with the complete lack of civility in the discussion, as well as seeing an "encyclopaedic work" which aimed to destroy my own livelihood. I do not fault you for your hesitation to rewrite the article, especially given the history of whitewash, sock-puppets, edit wars etc. However I do feel that you are also missing the other "human" side of the story. I am not the company, I am another human being. Please consider that as well. BDBJack (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a significant different between WP:COI and WP:BAN. Per WP:COI, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article. Per WP:BAN, you must not edit the article or you will face a block.--v/r - TP 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

i still view them as one and the same for me. I had been advised against making direct edits to the page due to the amount of conflict and the level of my Coi. The ban just makes the suggestions more... Official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDBJack (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Spinster

Persistent warring, with a series of single purpose IPs pushing for a poorly written and poorly sourced lede. This ought to be resolved through talk page discussion, but that's not working. I've requested page protection, and would appreciate some assistance. Thanks, JNW (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@JNW: This is not yet up to ANI level (it appears)... try proceeding with the steps at WP:DR. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This user, JNW, continues to add bias to the entry on spinster and now wants protection from it. She/he claims the term spinster is a "controversial" term subject to debate. There has never been any controversy or debate about the meaning of this term which has only evolved over time. She/he has bumped down well-sourced information that does not support her point of view and introduced large amounts of content that supports her/his view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8180:E85:8876:CC95:3BE3:5C99 (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, thanks, but it looks like a sock and ownership issue, with edit warring and a pointed intro. The IPs are not invested in resolution--if that were the case, they would have taken the time to read the article's talk page, rather than misrepresent my intent. Thoughtful intervention is necessary. JNW (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Town of Menemen

There are problematic edits made in Menemen page by User:Alexikoua. I wrote on its talkpage but no result only I am accused. Removes academic sources by calling them "povish". Even non-controversial items such as date of occupation is replaced with a unsourced broken sentence. Someone should have a look at this.Dunderstrar (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Is engaged in a biased revisionism of Menemen massacre. 1. edit [71] Adds part about atrocities against Greeks. The changes the main article link of Menemen massacre into "mutual excesses" in disregard that multiple Western sources named it "one sided". 2. edit [72] Removes Greek atrocities against Turks, rewords sentences in disregard of the sources used. Dunderstrar (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As we don't deal with content issues, could you explain how you've fared following WP:DR processes? the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to distort the article, but there is no discussion on the article talkpage. That should be the first step. Sairp (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we only discussed the edits on its own talkpage . Dunderstrar (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User is still continuing revisionism on the Talk:Menemen. Dunderstrar (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to follow wp:HISTRS. To sum up: secondary academic level references from institutions such as King's college (Un. London), in this case, can't be so easy considered biased. I would suggest you take it to wp:RSN. Alexikoua (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, still continuing the same behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you give the exact dif where I say that "an academic reference is povish"?Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrote here "fixing severe pov issues",[73] while totally removing the source [Rethinking Violence, Erica Chenoweth]. Now Alexikoua wants me banned, Someone should warn it for this behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Simply, bad faith accusations, since the pov mentioned was about the way the new version was written (repetition of same events in pov fashion). I suggest you follow wp:NPA. Running straight in here and accusing editors of something they didn't claimed before even posting in the corresponding talkpage isn't a right approach in general, as you have been instructed by other users.Alexikoua (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User continues revisionism. It now claims that two different sources refer to the same event while adding more text about Greeks getting massacred. Shows revenge behavior. Explained on talk page the seperate events, its futile. Someone should look at this uncontrolled biased behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretending that someone's "behaviour" is biased is a very serious accusation and off course wp:NPA breaching. This combination of excessive trolling and wp:BATTLEGROUND by a (supposed) brand new user is, is described in this sockpuppet investigation in detail.Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Again repeating. I asked why it made problematic edits on its talkpage. I asked to put events in context. User refuses to put events in context. Does revisionism. Removed even non-controversial items such as date of occupation with a unsourced broken sentence. Then I corrected and complained here. Itd didn't start using talkpage till mentioned here. Adds massacres committed on Greeks, tries to reword/remove events on Turks, shows one sided revenge behavior. Now wants to ban me so imagining none will oppose its edits. Dunderstrar (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Found another problematic edit by Alexikoua at Menemen massacre [74] removes location of the town. Adds broken sentences to remove the word "occupation"? Dunderstrar (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User insists in another massacre article putting a casualty number of 35 in detail. Does this in disregard of the multiple western sources which give the total victims above 5.000. Its first addition didn't mention that the inquiry is based on 177 people. Is repeatedly rewording sources in different meanings. Problematic behavior goes way back in time. Removed in 2012 the link to the town in the Menemen massacre. Can this behavior not be sanctioned? Dunderstrar (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet one more evidence for the sockpuppet investigation of DragonTiger23. Sockmaster shared the same obsession. It will be a matter of hours to close this case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Threat of violence

Hi please see below diff of a threat of violence - it appears to be aimed at someone (and it appears to be unacheivable) but am unable to figure out who,

Can it be looked into asap please, [75] Have reported it to emergency@ to be on the safe side,

Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Know your memes.- MrX 18:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Assumed was something as such, good to know. Amortias (T)(C) 18:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism. Reporting to emergency@ is always the best thing if you aren't sure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Jd344

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.

---

Jd344 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As suggested by Ronhjones, I report this case here from WP:AIV. To better explain the case I'll copy quite all the text of my previous report:

• AIV March 2014 - Actions indicate a vandalism-only account. The user has a long list of speedy deletion and PROD tags about strange articles: Thechristianbros002 was deleted as test page, List Of Dates Of TheChristianBros002 Episodes was deleted per A1, TCB002 per A1, List of PlushUniverse Episodes per A3, List Of The Spies Episodes was deleted because Can find no evidence that this series exists. And now again List of The Spies Episodes, tagged for speedy deletion as hoax by me. Well, searching on Google, The Spies (note: it is not an article here) seems to be only a 1966 tv series, but the article talks about a 1st season started in 2013. Christian Bros 002 produces no "real" results. Plush universe seems at least related to anything else than a YouTube meme. Ah, btw, this is a vandalism. Finally warned, IMHO is a vandal-only account with an attitude to the inclusion of hoaxes. Note: into his sandbox it is wroten about "LODO Johnathan Episodes"... no results, neither as "Lodo Jonathan" or else...

After that notice, when it was decided to wait before a block, user was stale for 2 months. On 30 may he edited (creating it again) his sandbox with a "List of The Colorful Trucks Episodes". Searching on Google "The Colorful Trucks" they were no results about this series. Same thing searching for "The Colorful Trucks episodes". At this point, before to wait the creation of The Colorful Trucks article, and spend time to search, delete etc... I request the indef ban as evident vandalism/hoax-only account. I can remark that 6 articles created by JD344 were deleted, and one was deleted twice. IMHO the user was sufficiently warned (9 times in March). Thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: normally I would not think to report here a case of vandalism for some fantasy edits in a sandbox. Of course, this is due to the overall situation explained above. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I remember this editor having done something like this before (Christian Brothers sounds very familiar) last year, so they know much better; they just changed the title of their fantasy hoaxing and got a new username to throw others off track. Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And I do remember now; the editor has their real name on their userpage, leading to this, a YouTube page where someone has 'Mario episodes' with their dolls. We have deleted stuff with their self-produced videos before, though I'd have to go deeply into my contribs to figure out when and where, but yes, I've known about them in the past. Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Okay, something needs to be done about this...

About a month ago, I reinstated the episode summaries at List of Code Lyoko episodes, and just this morning, an IP (24.47.68.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) began reverting the summaries, stating that they were unnecessary. I replaced them, and he reverted again. An edit war ensued, and he began harassing me in the edit summaries. I put in a request at WP:RFPP, and the article was full-protected, but he began taking his shenanigans to the article talkpage. The protecting admin left an explanation on the talkpage, to which I responded, and when the IP responded to me, he did so by first removing my comment, calling it an "invalid argument". I replaced my comment and replied to him, and he has taken to removing both of my comments, calling them "invalid" and "useless". I tried to warn him on his talkpage about the original edit war, but he blanked my warning. Any attempts to reason with this IP have been fruitless on my part, and I've turned not only to WP:RFPP, but to WP:ANEW and to WP:HELP in an attempt to seek help on the situation. I have no idea where else I could turn, but I need help on this NOW. I know I'm part of the problem (having engaged in the meaningless edit war myself; I've been warned about such in the past, so block me if you wish), but something needs to be done about this NOW. Diffs of original reversions:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]

Diffs of talkpage reversions:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]
6. [85]

Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP editor for removing the talk page content and general disruption, aka trolling. Huon (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected indefinitely under the version created by the blocked editor. I think it should be changed since I see no reason to reward this disruption. Also, is there any reason that full protection is being used here since it seems excessive?--69.157.253.74 (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Because I was part of the edit war. And I agree that it should be changed, but I'm hesitant, even though the article is full-protected, since I'm pretty sure the blocked IP would just revert it again once he's unblocked. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 13:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I unprotected the page since the IP was blocked. bibliomaniac15 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I readded the summaries since adding summaries are common for these types of articles and it seems that no one other than the IP in question has opposed the summaries.--69.157.253.74 (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help in this matter. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 03:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and the User:LardoBalsamico

My original request got archivied. The case was not solved, that's why I am copying it from the arcihives. Hopefully, this time it will be solved.

---

I need help with this user and this article about an issue that has been going on for a long time. Here's the situation; It all started on February, I read this article, 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and after reading it found out that it lacks a neutral point of view. So I started to edit it and after doing it, wrote every reason for my edits on the main editor's talk page, who is Lardo Balsamico.

You can see them here: Special:PermanentLink/595294983#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article

As you can see LardoBalsamico replied with only one sentence and didn't answer my second question. Then, I made my case to the NPOV board:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 45#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article

It didn't get ant reply so it got "backlogged." Then I made my case to the dispute resolution board:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 87#2011 Turkish sports corruption

Firstly, it was denied because my case was already on the NPOV board but then;

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 89#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal

The case was closed because user LardoBalsamico didn't join in the discussion. Then I made my case to request for a comment section, it stayed there for 22 days (got no reply) then as suggested by wikipedia help line I moved my case to the NPOV board now which is there for 2 months.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article (you can also read my case about the article lacking neutral point of view here)

As you can see, I went through all the dispute resolving solutions but the user LardoBalsamico didn't join in. Now, please, take a look at these links.

1)Talk:2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal#Recent edits

2)Talk:List of Turkish football champions

As you can see, every time I try to reach a consensus with LardoBalsamico, he doesn't write back, and if he does he's just stating a rule and not leaving any room to discuss his edits as you can see from this link;

User talk:Rivaner

Another issue with this user is while his edits are always perfect, the edits that doesn't fit wih his ways is either "vandalism" or "misleading info" Just look at the history of this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal&offset=&limit=500&action=history

If you look at a more recent edit, which done by him on 18:37 6 June 2014, he deletes a referenced part from the article by saying that it is misleading info even though it is from one of the Turkey's best selling newspaper! Another interesting thing about this user is, if you look at my contributions page:

Special:Contributions/Rivaner

You will see that on May 25,2014 I wrote a reason for my edit stating that the user has no reason to write about this article everywhere but after just 1 day he wrote it again to two different articles. What's more interesting about this user is; through my research, I found out that exactly the same thing happened to another user. As you can see from this link;

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31#Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal LardoBalsamico did the same things to another user.

So, it is really clear that he lacks a neutral point of view about this issue and also it is very clear that he is "gaming the system". I need your help with this user because, as you can see, I have ran out of options to deal with him. Thanks for taking the time to read my request, and if you have any questions about this, I am always ready to answer. Thanks.Rivaner (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC) I have notified the user about this but he blanked his talk page, here you can see my notification:

Special:PermanentLink/612602385Rivaner (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Today, user LardoBalsamico escalated the issue to personal attacks by calling me a "fanboy" and also suggesting me to "get a life". You can see this from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milli_Küme_Şampiyonası&action=history

As you can see the more civil I try to be, he is doing the exact opposite. Also he posted some warnings on my talk page as well:

User talk:Rivaner

I read the warnings and it is very clear that these warnings can also be posted on his talk page as well. To stop edit warring, I made a decision not to revert any of his edits untill this case is closed here. Again, thanks for taking the time to read my request and if you have any questions, I am always ready to answer.Rivaner (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Thanks for taking your time to read my request.Rivaner (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu (self imposed)

The last AN/ANI issue that involved me dates back to this community unban in relation to this appeal which I originally agreed not to edit tokusatsu articles. As suggested by Penwhale an administrator can hold a user to a voluntary restriction, which I have seen many users in the past impose voluntary restrictions on themselves and violate those restrictions and an administrator block them by the violation.

I quote from that appeal (note the emphasis on the topic ban)

If allowed back, I do not intend to return to the tokusatsu articles which I had edited during my first tenure. For my second tenure, I will make efforts to balance out my time as an editor with that of the janitor (but first, I must start off as merely the editor). I will not go off on every single instance and say "hey man, I really think you shouldn't have done that" nor look for every conflict on Wikipedia and get involved for the sake of getting involved. I will turn more attention to my work rather than caressing the details regarding the actions of others.

The original topic ban was imposed as an enforcement provision pertaining to this gratuitous mention of Ryulong who I edited the topic area with which I felt at the time because I struck the comment when asked meant no further action was needed which as all a part of my mechanical interpretation of policies/sanctions I maintained at the time. Looking back now out of all the "examples" I could have chosen, I took to bringing into an inappropriate unrelated venue the one user whom due to our past history I'd have no business commenting on regardless of the rights/wrongs of such a mention.

At the time of my unban I re-imposed that ban on myself as a means of further assuring there would be no return to "old habits" as it would give me time to develop interests outside of the tokusatsu articles and unobsess myself from Ryulong and ease back into the project for a fresh new start. Now, having had unfinished business to attend to the topic area as I still have yet to help produce the guideline I was advised among the other participants of the WikiProject to produce. In response to this ANI discussion and this clarification request, the arbitration committee passed a motion basically barring me from verifiability/reliable sources polices unless comments about said policies were used toward the production of the advised guideline. I intend to use that opportunity to show that I am here to work collaboratively, but also to experiment with new approaches/ideas/tactics toward my current approach as opposed to my old so called "general approach".

Since my return a year and a half ago (which I was semi-active up until May 25, 2014 by the way), I have edited almost exclusively in the article space. Most of my work is still very much janitorial, but the difference between now and then is I don't let that janitorial work get in the way of the purpose of building an encyclopedia and maintaining the upkeep of the enyclopedia.

Based off of the agreement not to edit tokusatsu set forth in my unban appeal and the consensus for my unblock whilst acknowledging my intention not to return to the topic area, I shall submit myself to the community to review the self imposed topic ban. —Mythdon 07:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really against lifting the ban, but I do have to wonder why you felt the need to first bury your talk page history to where nothing links to it anymore, right before making this request.--Atlan (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Those were just edits only by myself on an essentially empty archive so was just moving that empty history. For some odd reason I forgot to re-add the talk page header and archive search box once my talk page was recreated which I've just done now. —Mythdon 10:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not crazy about the idea of enforcing self-imposed bans (rather than treating the unceremonious breach of such commitments as evidence that the next time, voluntary restrictions might not be obeyed). I also think the limbo that could come up with stuff like this is yet another reason to disfavor indefinite editing restrictions (as opposed to ones with renewal provisions). Interestingly, another way of looking at this discussion is that a negative outcome (that is, the voluntary restrictions are not lifted) would have the effect of converting the voluntary restrictions into involuntary restrictions. I'm not sure what a "no consensus" outcome would do... probably the same. While I support allowing Mythdon to stop following the voluntary restrictions, I express no opinion on whether involuntary editing restrictions should be imposed in place of them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC) (see below)

Okay, I need to clarify my point. I misread the history here and mistakenly assumed that this was a totally voluntary "self-ban", in the sense of, say, walking away from a problem in order to keep it from escalating. While I still support my opinion above in the factual scenario I wrongly believed existed, Mythdon's case is significantly different enough to require some more consideration.
Mythdon was subject to an indefinite block following a ban of six months, and requested an unblock. Part of the bargain in securing that unblock was an agreement to stay off the toku project's turf. Furthermore, the unblock was attained not by a passing admin giving Mythdon another chance based on those assurances, but following a consensus developed at the AN discussion (though admittedly, it was a fairly short discussion). I would not call this a "voluntary" or "self-imposed" ban any more than I would call the prison sentence imposed following a plea bargain "voluntary confinement". It would be more appropriate to look at this as a condition of the unblock.
Under normal circumstances—that is, where a single lurking admin saw an unblock request promising a condition, and the admin conditioned his unblock on that promise—I would say it falls to the unblocking admin to decide whether the condition is still necessary. Here, on the other hand, we have the AN consensus. That complicates things a little. As such, I think a reframing and reproposing of this discussion might be in order, asking instead whether the conditions of the unblock were still binding, and if so, whether they could be lifted. As to that question: whether Mythdon's unblock conditions should be lifted... I will say that Mythdon was unblocked in Nov. 2012 and has not been blocked since, which is a good sign. On the other hand, Mythdon has had fewer than 500 edits since then (out of a total of nearly 9000 including deleted contribs). While I am perfectly glad to assume good faith and argue that reblocks are cheap should Mythdon's behavior in tokusatsu articles become problematic... the fact that this has already had to be arbitrated once is enough to give me pause. The paucity of edits since the unblock in particular weighs on my mind. As such, I cannot support a lifting of the unblock conditions at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:You are right that pleading and then going back on unblock assurances is something that is to be decided by more extensive discussion, which is why this thread was put forth in the first place, my previous commment below (the striked one) was merely based off the assumption that because of yours and Atlan's consensus that when bot closed the ban would be defacto lifted. You are also right that the "voluntary restriction" goes more along the lines of "condition of the unblock" which I'm more comfortable with that summary as I come to think of it I should have used that summary in the first place. As to a reforming of this discussion, maybe better to just call this matter closed for me (for now) and call the ban in still place and continue to go about my non-Tokusatsu business which in a later discussion can be put forth toward good behavior in Tokustatu which is why I set forth that ban on myself in the first place—to relearn the ropes of the project while not immediately outright diving in headfirst to the root of all my old problematic behaviors so as to further improve myself following the realizations set forth in my unblock, I'd liken it to self therapy–on that same note, the self topic ban was always meant to be temporary (which again is the crux of this discussion). The lacking in number of edits since November 2012 can be chalked to the fact that I no longer go around trying to fit everything exactly within my perceptions of policy (that is my 9000 edit count would be cut down to close to nothing if you took away the policing edits, the rollback warnings and all). But I've been more actively actually trying to contribute and focus more on the encyclopedia (especially since May 25, 2014 when I started editing regularly again). And while the community would have undoubtedly acted on my request topic ban or no topic ban, it does help to topic ban yourself to further assure there will be no allowance for a return to "old habits" so nothing went wrong not making myself clear at the time I meant it as temporary. But I will continue to follow the ban pending any future discussion (actually for real discussing an appeal, as this discussion has become more a precedent than an actual appeal discussion). Therefore, any block for a violation of that topic ban is preventative in the sense of enforcing those assurances rather than punitive in the sense of enforcing those original intentions just for the sake of enforcing them. If only I can make my above statements clearer for this once, I'll use that as a precedent toward a future "unblock conditions appeal" discussion. So as community time wasting as the first discussion may seem, they can use it as a lowdown of events that led to the original topic ban and then the "unblock conditions appeal" discussion can be more focused on my comments regarding my improvements since the unblock and since this discussion. —Mythdon 08:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong Any particular reason or just going for the !vote argument? Hasteur (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where this discussion is going, going by a consensus of two editors. As one is simply not against it and the other supporting on the notion that a future involuntary topic ban can be put in effect (however no discussion is taking place). Maybe the community doesn't want to discuss it or maybe people don't have the time to go over the links or maybe this isn't an ANI matter and should have been put on AN or maybe its just voluntary restrictions of my sort aren't enforceable afterall.Seeing as only three editors have commented and there has been no discussion in more than 36 hours, if at this state of the discussion it still stands as is once bot archived, I'm going to assume this is de facto closed with consensus to lift the voluntary sanction. Then to all who have read and commented and the fellow participants at the WikiProject can expect to see me back on its pages shortly. I guess we can call this resolved in the dead horse sense of the resolution. —Mythdon 05:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave this to a later discussion; Mendaliv is right. —Mythdon 07:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 81.144.225.196 vandalism

IP blocked by Dennis Brown. De728631 (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Multiple incidents. User has been warned several times by other editors: 81.144.225.196 talk page. Recently did another unconstructive edit on Saint Vincent (island) despite being being warned about previous edits to same page. Farolif (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:BsBsBs -- POV, incivility, wikilawyering

In 2010, BsBsBs very aggressively advanced his purist definition of "city proper" in Talk:List of cities proper by population. While I understand and respect his point of view, he was frequently very uncivil during the discussion, engaging in extensive wikilawyering, mocking other users, and even suggesting that I not edit Wikipedia.

The end result of the discussion was that he created a separate article, World's largest municipalities by population. Although this was suggested (and I agree with the suggestion), the article was (and still is) quite opinionated, with a long explanation preceding the list that makes an extensive use of the term "city proper" and backing of his definition of it, in direct conflict with List of cities proper by population. (He also rewrote City proper to advance his point of view.)

The article he created was nominated for deletion a long time ago, with the result “merge or redirect.” BsBsBs obstructed any further decision making on the talk page, reverted any edits to the page targeted either at implementing the decision or removing the POV sections, and is continuing to prevent any major changes to the page. He often referred to such constructive edits as “vandalism.” He is the only major contributor to the page, and seems to be acting as if he owns the article.

Here is a list of some edits he made that illustrate my points:

• [86] incivility
• [87] [88] etc.: major edit without consensus, leading to edit war shown below
• [89] edit war
• [90] edit war; wikilawyering in summary
• [91] edit war
• [92] incivility
• [93] incivility
• [94] incivility
• [95] straw man arguments, mocking, general incivility and accusatory tone
• [96] mocking
• [97] mocking
• [98] wikilawyering
• [99] blatant disregard for consensus in the name of personal perception of fact
• [100] mocking
• [101] incivility
• [102] [103] second edit war; edit summary incivility (“I don’t think you would intentionally commit fraud”)
• [104] [105] [106] personal attack; mocking
• [107] referring to constructive edit as “gross misrepresentation of verifiable facts”
• [108] incivility
• [109] more incivility
• [110] straying completely from the content
• [111] referring to constructive edits as “misrepresenting facts”
• [112] incivility
• [113] incivility
• [114] abuse of {{vague}}
• [115] [116] edit warring
• [117] [118] abuse of {{or}}
• [119] mocking; incivility
• [120] edit warring over tag abuse
• [121] wikilawyering
• [122] personal attack
• [123] evasion of explanation
• [124] personal attack / incivility
• [125] incivility (“your renewed attack in apology’s clothing”)

• creation of POV fork
• [126] maintenance of ownership of POV fork
• [127] [128] [129] reverting POV removal
• [130] [131] latest edit war

From his contributions, it appears that this topic is not the only one that he is passionate about, but that in all cases he makes edits of the kind displayed above; highly opinionated and sometimes uncivil.

I hope that you will help me resolve this situation. Someone the Person (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Someone the Person's assessment, and would like to add that BsBsBs is one of the most disruptive editors I've ever interacted with. He habitually floods talk pages with repetitive walls of text, making nonsensical arguments that virtually nobody agrees with. See example threads here, here, here, here, among many others. Below are a few quotes of what other users had to say about him during the discussions:

• "Note that BsBsBs seems to actually have no idea what he's talking about with regard to Chinese administrative divisions. [...] This article has been held hostage by BsBsBs's ignorant verbal diarrhea for way too long. Beyond the obvious content fork he's now in the process of creating [referring to World's largest municipalities by population), we ought to take a look at city proper, which he has created and filled with confirmation of his POV." - John K

• "You, my friend, are quite literally insane and shouldn't be editing much of anything. You're sitting up here making all kinds of dubious claims and conspiracies for no reason. I will request that this page be locked so that you can't keep abusing it." - Criticalthinker

• "BsBsBs, my entirely good faith advice to you is to leave this issue for a little while. [...] For your own mental and physical health, I suggest that you drop this for a little while and take a break." - PalaceGuard008

When he couldn't get his way on List of cities proper by population, he went ahead to create the content fork World's largest municipalities by population. After Jeppiz initiated an AfD for his new creation, BsBsBs heaped abuse on him, forcing Jeppiz to file a complaint on ANI titled Continued disruptive behavior and personal attacks by BsBsBs. Honestly, I've never seen anybody who so consistently rile people who have the misfortune of having to deal with him. -Zanhe (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Now that we've also added false accusations of vandalism to the list, I've indef'd. It should be noted that "indefinite" is not equal to "infinite", especially in this case. The level of WP:BATTLE, incivility, personal attacks, and a whackload of other behaviours is just too numerous and too much to ignore, and the protection of the project and its editors is neccessary the panda ₯’ 10:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious - how is it that the name was found acceptable? It very much looks to me that the name itself is saying BullshitBullshitBullshit, which probably isn't acceptable John Carter (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If one assumes good faith, then a reasonable explanation is at User talk:BsBsBs#Username. If one does not AGF, then we've all been pwned for the past 4 years. Meh, my guess is somewhere in between. Rgrds. --64.85.215.17 (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think even if it was intended to mean "bullshit bullshit bullshit", it's more chuckleworthy than offensive or disruptive. I would tend to agree with 64' above; as the explanation on the user talk page states, BsBsBs has used his initials in a somewhat punny fashion prior to editing here. I don't have a problem with it. Anyway, BsBsBs just posted a new unblock request that sounds pretty sincere, and agrees to a topic ban as a condition of the unblock. My "(Non-administrator comment)" would be that the unblock should be granted, with the topic ban as a condition thereof. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Now unblocked by JamesBWatson. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Russavia socking

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.

---

Havig just had two socks blocked Russavia appears to have just created another, would someone be so kind as to block. And all of his socks edits need to be nuked. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Endless bureaucracy on the encyclopedia anyone can edit being more important than actually creating free content. Nick (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

+1. Indeed. Endless bureaucracy. :/ --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. His fake German moustache was rather annoying too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

... And only minutes after I blocked that one, another Flugzeigbilder (talk · contribs) turns up... Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I know all about denying blocked editors and why we do it, and if the community says Russavia isn't allowed to edit then that's the way it has to be. But at the same time, it seems to me there's something very wrong with our processes when they lead us to spend time fighting to prevent people making our encyclopedia better. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• +1. Hell, +1000. We don't have the manpower to deal with Russ, Kumioko and to contribute content. I'd unblock both of them, but I realise certain sections of the community come here to fight and block anybody they can, rather than contribute content, I realise those people would be upset if they didn't have content contributors like Russavia and Kumioko to run around blocking for the next decade. Nick (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Russavia isn't banned right now but having just had his unblock request turned down by the community its fairly obvious that he has decided that he no longer wishes to play nicely. I think this has be the final straw of very close to it. I realise that some users do believe that producing content excuses any kind of unacceptable behaviour but this is clearly not the community consensus for how we should deal with this user. I'll do some digging into the socking and then think about putting something up for discussion at AN. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  "Hard-working content contributor disobeys order to stop improving our encyclopedia!" - yes, it's quite disgraceful, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  (And yes, I know we have no real alternative but to enforce the community's desire to stop Russavia's good work on our articles - at least, not under the current governance system. I'm just sad that we so often get these cases where intransigence on both sides leads to the loss of a good editor - nobody wins in such cases, and we're all the poorer for such an outcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

  It is unrealistic to expect us to be the only side that bends and if by Hard-working content contributor disobeys order to stop improving our encyclopedia!" you mean "Editor who was blocked for using wikipedia to perpetuate harrassment of another member asking for the 23rd time to be unblocked without anu guarantees that this time they really mean it" then I guess we are in agreement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  No, I don't mean that - I mean what I wrote (which is why I wrote it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  And as I say, I accept that we have to keep Russavia out - because that's what the community wants. I'm not arguing against it, I'm just expressing sadness that "crowd rule" so often ends in this kind of uncompromising confrontation, which skilled managers often have the ability to avoid. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• What is your problem with Russavia, Spartaz. Nick (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  You mean when did I stop beating my wife? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Earl King Jr.

More problems at our troubled article on The Zeitgeist Movement - but this time from a SPA 'owner' of the article clearly determined to include as much barely-relevant negative material as possible. To be specific, User:Earl King Jr. is simultaneously arguing that it is undue to include comments made by Peter Joseph, who's movies led to the foundation of the movement, on the basis that "Since the movement has no leaders according to Peter Joseph, why emphasize Mr. Joseph as an authority on it anyway", [132] while at the same time filling the article with as much negative material on Joseph's movies as can be cobbled together. These antics are bad enough, but Earl's latest effort involved a blatant copy-paste of the source cited, with only minimal editing (compare [133] with [134]). Needless to say I reverted this copyright violation, with an edit summary making the problem clear. [135] Earl's response was yet another personal attack, with no pretence at civility, no acknowledgement of the copyright problem, and no effort to conceal his blatant POV-pushing: "An editor is editing with zeitgeist supporters and removing cited information and wikilinks, revertUndid revision 612955979 by AndyTheGrump (talk))". [136] This latest episode comes on the heels of Earl arguing that the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan would constitute valid sources on TZM, [137] and after a long run of soapboxing on the article talk page that led to a long discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [138] - note admin Darkwind's closing comments.

Given the difficulties that we have had with TZM supporters trying to skew the article their way, it is anything but helpful to have Earl pulling it in the other direction - and since he is self-evidently incapable of contributing in a neutral manner, or of avoiding casting aspersions at all and sundry when he doesn't get his way, I have to suggest that it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia for him to be topic-banned from all articles relating to Peter Joseph, his movies, and The Zeitgeist Movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy is a difficult person and his block record shows that. The article is designated controversial. I have done my best to edit the article neutrally. That sometimes includes adding sources such as the Michelle Goldberg piece that he is objecting to which cites the John Birch Society and other things in the edit he is discussing above. It is sourced and cited information in regard to the historic origin of the Zeitgeist movement because the movie uses information from that source. If Andy construes that I somehow insulted him or was rude to him I apologize for that. I go out of my way to not do that but possibly he misconstrued me pointing out that he was editing with the Zeitgeist supporters, which he has been recently against consensus from the talk page, he might feel that way. I am not a single topic editor. I edit at that page mostly because the article was so terribly bad a year ago. I rewrote almost all of the article but I do not feel possessive about it and do not feel that I have contributed negatively to it. My edits also have support on the talk page and on the article page. I re-edited the material that Andy complained was copy-vio immediately whether it was or not is another question. I am not pro or con Zeitgeist. Andy and some others on the talk page of the article are extremely aggressive in their view and very quick to draw attention to other editors instead of content and going where the sources take us. There is no doubt that now a lot of Zeitgeist supporters will show up and say some things about this. I hope perspective is kept on that account. Many Zeitgeist supporters watch the articles like a hawk and no doubt there will now be a litany of complaints, since Andy has announced this on the talk page of the Zeitgeist the movie article [[139]]. I would add that generally my edits have been discussed and in general accepted for the article by talk page discussion consensus. I also find Andy temperamental and contentious often with his approach of calling other editors out by characterizing other editors contributions as bullshit a term he used last time here to describe my editing. I would add that there may or may not have been a copy vio. I changed it so it was not a copy paste as said. It is also true that Andy very seldom edits the article but often reverts things. It would have been simple for him to re-edit the information. The information itself from this source is good [140] and its the information that counts and its neutral presentation. 02:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The above comment was posted in three edits by User:Earl King Jr. BMK (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A little cognitive dissonance here, I suspect - Earl claims to be 'neutral', but had no difficulty in accusing me of "editing with the Zeitgeist supporters", rather than actually dealing with the copyvio. But don't take my word for it, take a look at Earl's posts on the talk page, his edit summaries (where being a TZM supporter, or editing like a TZM supporter is sufficient grounds for revert...) and his editing history on the Peter Joseph/TZM-related articles. It should be self-evident that there is nothing remotely 'neutral' involved - Earl has systematically cherry-picked sources for negative comment, used talk pages as a soapbox , and generally made it his task to portray this rather insignificant 'movement' in as negative manner as possible. His claims to be "not pro or con Zeitgeist" are simply untenable, given the copious evidence - he has accused TZM/Peter Joseph of engaging in "brainwashing", [141] "meme control" (whatever that is), and "neuro linguistic programming" [142] on the talk page. He has used the talk page as a soapbox for his pet theory that Joseph concocted the entire TZM thing to make money [143]. His default reaction to any edit he doesn't like is to label it 'pro-Zeitgeist', as if that was all the justification needed to rule it out. This is not 'neutrality', it is demonstrably partisan editing, and it needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion that I have cognitive dissonance but this is probably not a good way to present me. I think you often use Wikipedia like an angry personal blog and insult people a lot with your way of editing. Your block record reflects that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, was it me, or was it you that decided that an article talk page was the appropriate place to accuse someone of "brainwashing", "meme control", and "neuro linguistic programming"? Was it me, or was it you that decided that speculation about Peter Joseph founding a political movement for personal profit was appropriate on the talk page? Just who is using Wikipedia as a blog here? And as for my block record, since you have failed to provide the slightest evidence that I've done anything wrong (other than failing to be appropriately anti-Zeitgeist according to your dubious 'neutrality'), I fail to see the relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You already said that. I discussed some issues on the talk page mentioning that further research could be done in that regard. So what? I did provide some evidence that you called my edits 'bullshit' in the past and like I said you have proven to be a tendentious editor that is highly insulting in your style which your block record shows. Facts are this. My edits have passed muster on the page by consensus maybe not always but that is what is striven for by me. They are there because they are agreed on. Fact is you could have edited out a copy vio if there was one. Lets not resort to cherry picking a couple of comments on the talk page of the article as being so super inappropriate and make a federal case of that. So, sorry, you can bait, call names, and misrepresent or mis-characterize all you want. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Earl King Jr.: If you have to refer to someone's block log to counter their argument, then you've already lost. AndyTheGrump may be a jerk sometimes, but he is rarely wrong. You'd be wise to actually address the issues he has raised instead of making a counter attack on him.--v/r - TP 04:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I will keep that in mind, and add that it is not fun having someone be a jerk if you are the object of their jerk-hood, if that is a word. I hope I have answered his arguments above. As to him being seldom wrong, I find that doubtful. He is a human. His edits like everyone else sometimes pass consensus and sometimes not. Often not on this particular page, so lets not glamorize him. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure. I've been the target of Andy's jerkiness once or two and I'm sure I dished it right back at him. I get that. But let's be honest here, is everyone you've ever met in your life super-happy 24/7? Andy is Andy. He's not overly attackish, he's to the point and doesn't have a lot of tact. But that's not unreasonable. You're going to have to get used to dealing with certain personalities. But, besides that, attacking someone's tone or traits about them like their block log are not valid arguments on Paul Graham's hierarchy of argument. You're at a DH1 and DH2 level. Actual valid argument starts at DH3 (Contradiction) and good argument is DH4 (Counter argument) and above. You need to stick to DH3 and above arguments on Wikipedia. As for being seldom wrong, Andy has been here a very long time and he's very - and I mean very - familiar with policy. He doesn't just know policy, he knows the reason we have the policy. Especially BLP policy. Andy is one of our most experienced editors and he knows the nuances of policy better than some people, and I include myself here, could ever hope to be. People like Andy can teach new editors a lot of things, but you can't get bent up over his personality. Anyway, could you please address Andy's concern that you are overly focused on adding negative material into the article?--v/r - TP 04:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Go to the article talk page and see for yourself about the quality of arguments Zeitgeist Movement. The article previously was a sing song of FAQ's material and snippets of interviews from iffy sources by Peter Joseph mostly stating what he believed. Now it is more neutral presenting a more rounded history of this group. Andy apparently objects to using the history of the basis of the Alex Jones stuff and the John Birch Society as being written about as the source of much of the first movie. It is cited information. the link citation has been used for a long time in the article. It comes from a respected journalist and paper Michelle Goldberg. Saying my edit summary attacked him is untrue. I just pointed out that he was recently editing with the movement members that arrive there in droves. I started the thread on the talk page discussing sources recently. I modified the so called copy paste just to appease him whether it was accurate or not because I did change the presentation the first time around. I rewrote the material, so what is he complaining about actually? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose any one-sided topic bans. There are POV editors but neither Andy or Earl are one of them. The problem with articles like these is that there is a lot of passion for advocacy yet not so much for neutral or negative. Therefore any that engages the passionate advocates looks "negative." Reviewing the talk page, I found other editors to be more oriented to advocacy than either Earl or Andy. I don't think that Earl's opposition to that advocacy is grounds for a topic ban. The recent issue of using a blog source that has no professional oversight is a legitimate dispute and should be removed especially when the blogger is referencing a living person. I am not qualified to determine whether being associated with Zeitgeist Movement is negative or not so without a very reliable source, references about living people should be avoided. The movement and movie are different phenomena and to the extant that editors tie persons with the the movie to the movement better have a firm, reliable source. Blogs are insufficient and removing thodse references to living people is well grounded in policy. Certainly not a dispute that results in a topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban...The edit warring by all parties needs to stop however. I support 1rr in 72 hours....one non-vandalism revert every three days, for all active person in that scope of articles.--MONGO 15:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

a concern regarding the use of [IMO] false accusations to belittle

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.

---

PREFACE: I have an issue with an editor posting malicious and demonstrably false accusations against me, and declaring he intends to continue to do so for my life on WP, that I feel can only be resolved through ANI. I am reticent to bring a two-party WP:CIVIL / WP:WIKIHOUND issue to ANI; I do so only because I feel this issue concerns potential ongoing disruption in WP edit discussions due to the other editor's statements regarding future activities of this type. I come into this ANI will full awareness that I may be perceived as a purveyor of WP:DRAMA for raising a WP:CIVIL issue related to myself. Finally, I welcome a WP:BOOMERANG review of my edit history and, in fact, it is incumbent to understanding this issue.

ISSUE: In a completely unrelated ANI pertaining to the wording of a RfC [[144]], Binksternet appeared and began making the following declarations about my WP history as evidence my opinion in the ANI should be dismissed (this was preceded by an announcement, by him, that my history on WP had been one of "poisonous" editing and he found me "distasteful"):

BlueSalix keeps track on his user page of articles that he successfully nominated for deletion, as if this is a big game hunt. I think it's bad form to gloat over the deletion of someone else's good faith work.

I pointed out that, in four years on WP I have initiated just 10 AfDs (2.5 per year), and 8 have been upheld and deleted. Of those, 75% were PR-generated advertisements that certainly do not rise to the level of “good faith work.” (see:[[145]]) Bink did not respond to my explanation, nor attempt to retract his accusation of AfD "gloating," but moved on to declare …

You and I both edited the Ronan Farrow biography, but we did not speak to or about each other at all. I changed some BLP-concerning text which was under discussion on the talk page and at ANI, the same "child molester" text you had been edit-warring to keep.

I pointed out that, far from “edit warring” I had inserted "Ronan Farrow ... claimed [Allen] was a child molester" based on a RS that stated "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester;” (see diff: [[146]]) that this edit was discussed and ultimately dismissed by community consensus in a relatively routine manner. I feel this dramatized characterization of a fairly routine edit series was extremely aggrandized and was a highly inappropriate attempt to make other editors believe I was a mere wikivandal, in an effort to have my opinion at ANI ignored. Again, he did not respond or refactor, but moved on to make a new accusation about me -

you were so nasty to me and anybody who agreed with me in relation to a year-old AfD

I asked for diffs of my “nastiness” (the full text of the AfD is here, I very much welcome everyone to review it for nastiness; you will see I responded to a sarcastic comment he made on Feb 7 with a flippant comment of my own; I don't think anyone would perceive that as rising to the level of a one-sided pattern of "nastiness" - an extremely strong accusation). He did not reply, instead, declaring he was quitting the ANI thread, while throwing one last accusation on his way out:

I am merely hoping you will acknowledge some of the instances in which you have been guilty of incivility

I, at this point, observed that I had received one 48-hour block for a 3RR (for which I take responsibility and apologize) in 4 years. That I had had not been “found guilty” of numerous instances of incivility and that I believed falsely declaring that I had been "found guilty" numerous times was a highly inappropriate attempt to undermine my reputation among editors with whom I had not previously interacted.

Binks finally said he would continue to levy these, and other, charges against me in the presence of other editors in the future; to make sure, apparently, everyone knew how “distasteful” I was and did not consider my opinion in edit discussions. This is the reason I feel I need to bring this to the attention of ANI. I know this may not seem like a big deal to a third party but I, quite honestly, feel like total shit right now after getting this mud-dragging but, more than that, I think there will be wider scale disruption on WP if this editor carries through on his plan to periodically drive-by threads to shotgun these accusations out about me.

CONCLUSION: I am not here to lobby for any kind of sanction, only administrator investigation into these accusations and - if warranted - exoneration and affirmation that they are, in fact, misleading (or, alternatively, that I am a poisonous and disgusting person [hopefully not]), so that future threads are not sidelined by personal tête–à–têtes. Thanks and my apologies, again and in advance, for presenting a two-party conduct issue to ANI. Please take this ANI in the spirit in which it was intended. I am very sorry if anyone feels this ANI, itself, is disruptive. I think my history will demonstrate I am not quick-to-ANI. Best regards, BlueSalix (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG is right. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering no administrator action is really requested, I think this should be archived. If someone wants to open a RfC/U on BlueSalix they should feel free. ANI isn't the place to try and clear oneself by demanding a public investigation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Canvassing...

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

---

I'm unsure of how many administrators here are aware of the {{Orphan}} deletion discussion that is going on, but I'd like to advise you all that Andrew Davidson‎‎ has been CANVASSING two specific editors who are more likely to be supportive of his position than not. This was brought to my attention based on this post by PBS. I have warned the user and am requesting administrators monitor the situation. Thank you for your time. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My communication was limited and neutral at a time when there seemed to be considerable confusion about the current state of the template. I sought to engage editors who had been active on the template's talk page, who could help clarify what was going on. Once we sorted that out, I subsequently added the TfD to the centralised discussion list as this seemed to be of significance to the community in general - there have been repeated discussions at the Village Pump. We should further note that User:Magioladitis has advertised the discussion at WikiProject Orphanage. The matter is of widespread interest and so such postings are to be expected. So long as they are limited and neutral, this seems within the guidance of WP:CANVASSING. Andrew (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• User:Technical 13 now tells me that he has reverted my addition to WP:CENT. Why should the wider community not be engaged in this matter? There are plenty of other discussions listed there about flags, tags and notices. Andrew (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • They should, but a seven day WP:TfD is not the appropriate place to do so (as has been mentioned by multiple editors in the TfD]]. If you want a wider discussion, have a proper WP:RfC to address the reasons why you think the template is inappropriate. Quite frankly, it, as consensus and the overwhelming number of keep, speedy keep, and snow keep !votes show, is just not going to end up deleted. So, the options are to start a discussion as to what you think is wrong with the template and ask for advice on how to fix those issues, join WP:ORPHANAGE and start working on adding links to those orphans and in doing so removing the tags from pages and help cure the root of the problem, or using the directions in the documentation, make it so you never have to see that tag again. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrew and Magioladitis have only notified those people/board who have been involved with the tag or they are actually interested. It is fully supported and encouraged by the guidelines of wikipedia. There was no breach of canvassing, not even a bit. Andrew is not incorrect if he wants more people to have their view. We've seen opposition towards this tag, and finally there is some consensus that tag should be kept. Nothing wrong if more people wanted to participate. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• OccultZone, targeting two specific editors that would support him without posting on the talk pages of any user that would oppose him is the very definition of canvassing... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Nightscream

Nightscream (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has been previously blocked for ignoring WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He tends to fly off the handle and call users liars. When he was blocked in 2011,[147] he called a user who disagreed with him a " persistent liar".[148] In what appears to be a return to this bad behavior, Nightscream referred to me as "an abject child and a pathological liar".[149] I have already asked Nightscream to avoid interacting with me several times previous to this latest attack to no effect.[150][151][152] Per WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:TPG could an admin please remove these latest attacks from the talk page of Talk:Molly Crabapple? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Swisstruth

Swisstruth and his IP sockpuppets (sockpuppeting noticed on the relevant notice board) are consistently engaging in personal attacks against me and administrators on asmallworld talk page. The page has been protected twice after section blanking by this user/IP address. And is currently protected because of their attempted blanking. here are the personal attack diffs - (please note the edit summary) [153] and attacking me and two administrators that protected the page [154]. You can see the IP blanking and our entire conversation on the page/talk page. Thanks for looking into this (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC))Also here is my reply to the personal attack with a polite warning [155]. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

Georgism problems

Recently that article had discussions which appear not to support substantial additions to the definition of that belief. An IP has suddenly appeared whose only contribution is to seek to maintain the non-consensus additions which are from a single editor. Eyes on that page and talk page are welcomed. Collect (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I dropped a note on his talk page, linking WP:BRD, explaining how it works and how to properly seek a consensus. We will see if it works. If not, we will know he had every chance. I left him a note that there was a discussion here about him since you didn't. I'm guessing it was just an oversight so I won't labor it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • His addition is currently "in" as I hesitate to make another revert. There has been no discussion supporting his addition, so I presume anyone other than me is free to remove it pending discussion. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Historically, the idea of "notifying" editors was that they would be prompted that something was on their talk page, which is great for registered editors. In the past, IPs were not always so notified in my experience because they many times are dynamically assigned, and my goal here was to get eyes on the article and not on the dynamically assigned IP to be sure. Collect (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • My thinking is it removes the opportunity for a drive by drama comment from someone bored. The notice above doesn't really differentiate, so I'm just saying it is probably a good CYA move, regardless. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback by Nick

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.

---

@Nick: Has misused rollback here I asked him to explain how my revert of another Russavia sock was vandalism, he did not respond but has instead accused me of editwarring and threatened me with a block. Si I now have Russavia thanking me for edits, adding stuff to articles I have created and then being enabled by an admin. He is no doubt having a great laugh. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And Nick has now accused me of being a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

When reporting me, can you please not transclude my entire user page onto ANI. The content, even if it was added by a blocked/banned user circumventing their block/ban is valuable and improves the project, I see no reason to destroy the project in the pursuit of one blocked user. I will happily take responsibility for the edit from now on in. And could you please allow me to respond before adding yet more text to ANI. Nick (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, fair enough if you want to 'take responsibility' for a sock edit by restoring that content, but mis-using rollback is simply not on. GiantSnowman 15:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been confirmed the editor is actually a sock, as far as I can tell. The edit stands as vandalism until otherwise confirmed (and was reverted on that basis). Nick (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is a sock, he admits it here. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as WP:RBK#When to use rollback indicates, you shouldn't use Rollback in a situation when a useful edit summary would be expected. This is pretty clearly one of those cases. But... the solution? "Nick, please use an edit summary next time instead of rolling back." More concerning to me is Nick's description of the removal of a banned editor's edit as vandalism. Darkness Shines's removal, while probably incorrect (insofar as the content added is an improvement), is at least arguable: even though Russavia isn't formally banned as far as I know, the situation (even without the socking) rises to the level of a de facto ban. I think that adds a very strong presumption that Darkness Shines's revert was in good faith. As such, describing it as vandalism is probably inappropriate... or at least unhelpful. As to the threat of a block for edit warring (after two reverts in 24 hours)... I'm not crazy about that... but I don't see it as actionable without more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those sad cases where two people who are both committed to improving our encyclopedia are acting antagonistically towards each other rather than as the cooperative colleagues we should be. My suggestions? Nick, don't revert without an edit summary - a summary saying, eg, "It's good - I'll take responsibility now" would probably have avoided this. And DS, don't go running to ANI over trivia like this - a friendly word with Nick could have headed off any need for confrontation, don't you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I did ask him, and he called me a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

DS, I like you and I like the work you do at Wikipedia - but you do have a history of getting into needless fights. Instead of continuing with the "I'm right and he's wrong" line, perhaps try to see this as a poor outcome over a trivial disagreement in which you both acted sub-optimally? Maybe take an hour off and enjoy the sun/rain/darkness (whatever it is where you are ;-), and then just move on and forget this? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you not tell me, on my talk page, what you posted here ? It would have resolved the issue before it even started. I'll of course redact the suggestion you were vandalising. Nick (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Impersonation of quasi governmental entity - Block request

I believe there is potential impersonation of the State Bar of Texas going on and thus request a block for the impersonating editor. I'm not technically savvy enough to understand how the user could resume editing under Statebaroftexas after his user name was changed. Lulaq (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's very possible, if not probable, these are legitimate edits by legitimately a State Bar employee. However, this has to be verified properly I believe pursuant to current protocol. Lulaq (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As User:Jsherzik was clearly warned that the account User:Statebaroftexas was in violation of username policy, it is my feeling that an immediate block of the State bar account is warranted and some discussion as to blocking Jsherzik should occur. Just my 2 cents. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Jsherzik claims to be Joanna Herzik. Lulaq (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I still support a block for Statebaroftexas, but I'll defer on Jsherik for now. Jsherik can email an administrator from her work email address to undo the block. I think such a move would be the least disruptive. Lulaq (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Statebaroftexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) merits a username block. Also, note to readers, please be wary of clicking the Linkedin URLs above since, if you're logged in there, it may reveal to that person that you viewed her profile. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

TheREALCableGuy

A few days ago I reverted a suspected sock contrib of comm-banned TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs) on The Amazing World of Gumball (season 3), and as is usual per their MO when I warned the user that their edit was reverted per the banning policy their response via IP was to tell me I was harassing a group of innocent IP addresses, using the suspicious 'us' wording. Somehow out of nowhere, TRCG commented on their own talk page with a 'I didn't do it, leave the poor IP alone' response despite their lengthy roll of socking. Can I get a talk page lock on TRCG and some more eyes on this? I filed a new SPI report on their latest IP's a week ago without success, and had a RFP on the Gumball page declined after due to the backlog. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a talk page lock here but as a first measure I've blocked 82.113.27.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for this obvious evasion. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

115.164.222.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just blanked this section. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

180.234.244.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did it too. We're building a whole farm here! Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

All three of these IP addresses come from across the world, suggesting an open proxy investigation is needed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 66.87.152.222 showed up suddenly at my talk page after I dropped @Mrschimpf: a note about some reverting he was doing at Gumball. (I didn't want to revert Mrschimpf because it looked like he was doing some WP:RBI stuff.) Was this the same user, Nate? Can we get WMF to call the kid's parents? I think I know his name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Same editor; they seem to go in circles depending on how many pages have been semi'ed because of their vandalizing; they jumped right on One Magnificent Morning because of an irrational hate of anything with E/I content. We know they're in the Charlotte area, but other than that they've mostly been providing a good way to knock down proxies with their post-commban edits. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland) edit warring

User Faustian continues to add a disputed statement, which is currently being discussed on the article Talk Page, the editor has been notified in the past that per WP guidelines if a statement has been removed due to objections from another editor, a debate needs to take place first before the statement can be re-added. Unfortunately, Faustian continues to re-add the text despite the fact that the discussion about the statement has not been settled. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The user above has a pattern of removing information he doesn't like. The statement is referenced, and there is no consensus to remove it. That being said, any other eyes looking at this situation would be appreciated. I've filed an RfC too.Faustian (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting IP range block

Howdy, the article Ilion Animation Studios has been semi-protected a few times now because of a persistent Mexico-based user/bot/whatever, who keeps making the same disruptive edits to this article, and United Plankton Pictures and a few more. The disruptions have been going on since about late December 2013. The IP user hasn't participated in any discussions, doesn't use edit summaries, has ignored warnings and blocks, and there really doesn't seem to be any way to get the disruptions to end. In some articles, they change normal article section headers to non-standard, incorrect or even nonsensical ones, for example here where they change Filmography to Studios, Television to TV Shows Television, and Film to Feature Films. At Ilion Animation Studios, they have for months kept removing the perfectly legitimate and useful format=dmy flag from the {{dts}} template. I have no idea why they are doing this, and can't even speculate. Anyhow, it's disruptive and locking articles has proved helpful in the short term, but the user resumes after the page comes out of protection.

IPs used (listed numerically) (source: whatismyipaddress.com)

• 189.159.224.77 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-224-77-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Río Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.228.129 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-228-129-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Tamaulipas, Sinaloa, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.231.124 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-231-124-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Río Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.243.124 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-243-124-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.251.227 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-251-227-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.251.234 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-251-234-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.252.162 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-252-162-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.237.109.201 - Static IP - hostname: dsl-189-237-109-201-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Río Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.237.186.87 - Static IP - hostname: dsl-189-237-186-87-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.237.186.234 - Static IP - hostname: dsl-189-237-186-234-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.237.215.110 - Static IP - hostname: dsl-189-237-215-110-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Río Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.

Any help curtailing this disruption in the long term would be greatly appreciated. I'm not sure what the best way is to report this sort of thing, but I'm hoping I got close. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock isn't necessarily appropriate if there is only one article being attacked; instead, I have semi-protected the article for six months. Don't take the static IP stuff too seriously, a lot of them are dynamic as well. Oh, and did you mean to post this on WP:AN instead of WT:AN? Risker (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Risker -- Jesus I'm an idiot. Long day. I meant ANI. (NOTE: I moved this discussion from WT:AN to WP:ANI) Also it's not just one article. It's about 5-8 articles. Since the Editor Interaction Analyzer doesn't work the way it used to, I can't enter ten IPs and compare their intersections. I see Ilion Animation Studios, United Plankton Pictures, Teen Beach Movie, DNA Productions, Kennedy Miller Mitchell, HandMade Films, Den Brother, and probably a few more I haven't picked up on yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Tintor2

Tintor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A couple of weeks ago, I noted a poorly written addition by Tintor2 (talk · contribs) to Saint Seiya: Legend of Sanctuary regarding a promotion at a restaurant. At the time, I thought it was generally just an inaccurate description, but did note similar wording at the source he cited. I paid no attention to it at the time until another editor noted Tintor2 had done the same on Attack on Titan [156] which he repeated when he made a separate character article. I fear that this may go deeper as is evident with [157] and [158]. Tintor2 is a prolific editor of these kinds of articles so we may have large portions of Wikipedia not normally ventured into full of copyright violations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you brought up concerns about his writing style to him before coming here? Sergecross73 msg me 11:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I had addressed issues regarding the edit to the Saint Seiya page but at the time I had just assumed he should not have been using the source as closely without recognizing that he actually copied the sentence verbatim. The level of possible copyright problems I think is more important than inquiring why he has been writing as he has. He may be doing it unintentionally or with the right intentions in mind, but it's still a problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I just asked because I didn't see anything on either of your talk pages, and in my experience, he's not a difficult editor to deal with... Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

For some reason they undid the character article Eren Yeager despite it had material cited. When I copy material, I later rewrite it. I apologize for it. It's a shame because Ryulong undid an entire article that was in the middle of being improved. 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Tintor2 (talk)

All I did was turn it into a redirect when your last edit to the page was 12 hours prior. That's not "undoing an entire article that was int he middle of being improved".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

12 hours prior. Of course I needed to sleep. You removed an entire article. I reverted it being bold and kept working on it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't impeded you. And we still need to discuss the identical copying and pasting you have been doing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just don't remove articles again.Tintor2 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing that should prevent me from that. I really don't think Eren needs his own page TBH.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tintor2, you wrote "when I copy material, I later rewrite it." I'm sorry but you're not allowed to copy and paste from non-free sources at all. That's already an act of copyright infringement even if you change the original text later on. Please try to write using your own words from the beginning. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I already said I noted it. From now on, I'll be careful.Tintor2 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:189.124.217.111/User:200.120.158.78 Personal attacks after returning from a block for same

200.120.158.78 was blocked for 1 week on 4 June for edit warring and personal attacks. As promised on their talk page, they are back with a new IP, returning to the edit war and personal attacks on the same list of articles (New personal attack: [159]; same editor proof: "stop reverting for no reason you discourteous piece of shit", "don't revert for no reason")

Prior ANI: [160]. Promise to return on a new IP: [161]. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The above user has also carried on a series of tendentious edits in addition to his personal attacks. See Special:contributions/200.120.158.78 and Special:Contributions/189.124.217.111. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for the abusive comments. I do feel compelled to point out that despite his poor behaviour, he's absolutely right: all of these "best known for" comments are nothing but original research, and it would be best to remove them from every article in which they appear. Anyone really want to claim that they know for certain whether Ed O'Neill is best known for Al Bundy rather than Jay Pritchett? Who would possibly constitute a reliable source for such a statement? Can we really say that many of the inconsequential people we have articles about are actually known for anything?

In short, while the IP is behaving inexcusably, the people that reverted him shouldn't come away from this feeling guilt-free. Most of these cases are technically BLP violations: unsourced original research in the lead of a biography of a living person. The next time someone removes one of these things, avoid the struggle by following policy and leaving it out.—Kww(talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww, we I see your point, but if this is true, then it is a tremendously widespread problem, so much so as to be nearly unfixable. I ran a small, unscientific experiment: Using WP:AWB, from the list of all male guitarists with articles on Wikipedia, how many of those contain the phrase "best known" in one of their introductory paragraphs? Out of a list of 1137, there were 323 that did. And that is just one type of performer; what about every other performer that ever lived? Clearly, the use of the phrase is fairly common and widespread on Wikipedia, so much so that it ventures into the WP:SKYISBLUE territory. My suggestion: Change the text to "perhaps best known" and remove the citation. I saw many articles that had done that. Prhartcom (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Who's "we"? the panda ₯’ 12:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose SummerPhD and I. What's your point? Prhartcom (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a simple question, and I find it odd that you speak on behalf of someone else. The question of "we" is common: shared or role accounts are not permitted, so when you say "we" - especially with a username that already appears to represent an organization - there is always the concern that you're a shared/role userid the panda ₯’ 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, I should have said "I", and I have changed my statement above. Several of us have been in agreement at the article talk page. There is no concern with my username. Let's stay on topic. Prhartcom (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In my book, the problem (in addition to the obvious "I'm right, so fuck off" attitude) is that it is a widespread practice. In fact, it's big enough to constitute an indication of consensus. We cannot challenge that on one article and expect it to stick. We need a much broader discussion to resolve the question. Until then, there are questionable ones that can be resolved locally and obvious ones (I'm looking at Syd Barrett and Brian Wilson) that are pretty much unassailable demonstrations of the current consensus. Anyone care to take up the cause in a constructive manner? - SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Talk:David Gilmour and there is a strong consensus for keeping the 'best known' wording.' The IP in question refuses to come to grips with that. He also refuses to discuss his similar edits to other pages. The IP's edits also extend beyond removing the best known wording as he also removed valid descriptions of Canadian broadcasting networks from their pages. Again, he refuses to discuss those edits before hand. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Best known" is a phrase that could be in the lead in a few scenarios; if it's supported by sourced assertion/material in the main part of the article, or if it has a cited source in the lead itself. I could see it being non-problematic in some of the hundreds of cases it crops up. If it's just a bald assertion, then it's already broadly discouraged by Unsupported attributions. People include great numbers of unsupported attributions, but that's not the same as consensus to include the phrase wholesale. I would suggest it's a commonly committed bit of weak writing that should be fixed when noticed, not unlike a common spelling mistake ("alot" could be considered common, but not with any definition of consensus). If the phrase is summarizing other material, I'd shorten "best known" to "known". If it wasn't supported at all it should be discouraged or edited like any other unsourced claim.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no particular reason that "best known for" can't be a consensus decision debated on the article talk page. Yes, it's technically OR, but if a wide variety of editors agree with it, I don't see much harm in it. I do, myself, have a tendency to replace "best known for" and "famous for" with the somewhat more neutral "noted for", which at least doesn't posit a hierarchy of what the subject's fame is founded on. BMK (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the article content, I agree that it should be discussed on the article talk pages. Otherwise, I've blocked the IPs have now been blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why there would need to be a lot of discussion about a practice that violates both WP:OR and WP:BLP. Those are both very specific reasons that it cannot be a consensus decision debated on an individual article's talk page.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but we're done here. The IPs are blocked, and this board isn't for article content discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh jeez, not this again : This has been going for at least 18 months, and possibly longer. It culminated in Cleo Rocos getting an entry in WP:LAME (including edit-warring on WP:LAME itself! - [162]) and a whole load of hot air being blown about exactly the same content dispute. I said it would happen again, and I'm not wrong. I firmly predict we will be having another ANI thread on the same conduct in a different article in the next six months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 115.112.41.166 Long Term Persistent Vandalsm

Persistent vandalism going back at least two years. IP has received numerous warnings and has been blocked at least once. A glance at his/her contrib log causes me to suspect even more vandalism may have gone undetected. I am going to have go through it carefully since some of it won't be fixable with a quick revert given the likelihood of intervening good edits. Respectfully request extended block. Enough is enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Most recent vandalism

(Non-administrator comment) 115.112.41.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), first and last blocked a little over a year ago for one month. The Geolocation tool says this IP corresponds to a dial-up ISP in Mumbai. Last warning resulted from blanking part of Deor's RfA (linked above). This was also the most recent edit. While normally I'd suggest going through the normal AIV channels, this IP's vandalism is spaced out enough that I could see the most recent final warning being considered too stale to issue a block of any significant length. As such, I think a block of 3-6 months is appropriate, same block settings as last time since this is a dial-up ISP. Problem of course is that the ISP being a dial-up one is likely to just assign IPs out of its pool dynamically at connection... but with a /13 address block, a rangeblock is probably not feasible. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Article deleted after it had been voted to Keep!

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.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquín Santiago-check it out...Antonio Dukaika dukaika Martin (Aqui) 14:16, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

If you believe there was consensus to keep/no consensus to delete, you would be better served by asking FPAS to reverse, and should he disagree, going to DRV. This is decidedly the wrong place to make this complaint. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Antonio, you are drama-mongering. Stop it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Comments removed per WP:NPA

I removed some trolling from TL36 (talk · contribs) that was made at Talk:Media Matters for America. Both comments were personal attacks against other editors (including myself) and one of the comments was in reply to a thread that was 11 months old. TL36 restored the comments, so I reverted them again with an appropriate explanation. FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs) restored the comments, stating I was not allowed to remove these personal attacks. I believe this action by FreeRangeFrog was in error, since I believe that the policy of WP:NPA and WP:NOTFORUM should take precedence over the guideline of WP:RTP. I would welcome comment by other administrators in this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In general, you're free to remove trolling form your own user talk but on article talk pages it's better to wait for an uninvolved admin or WP:DR volunteer. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Bad redaction. Honestly, these remarks are all over Talk:Fox News and no one removes them. Give it a rest.--v/r - TP 04:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have three issues with this. Firstly, one of the comments attacked me personally. Secondly, if removal of article talk comments attacking other editors isn't desirable, why does the {{RPA}} template exist? I have no problem with disagreement in article talk, but not personal attacks. The policy is quite clear on this matter. Thirdly, why were these attacks restored? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with you removing the NPA - NPA totally allows for this to happen:

"On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose. "

FreeRangeFrog was in error, as is made clear by NPA Kosh Vorlon    11:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Scjessey had no justification to remove those comments. They are involved in the discussion and more importantly the comments are neither a clear personal attack nor any better or worse than the rest of what is in that talk page. They might was well blank the whole thing, including their own past comments. It seemed that Scjessey is trying to do a petty version of WP:LASTWORD by removing them. And by the way, I wasn't notified of this thread until this morning. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for failing to notify you in a timely fashion. Normally I do the usual ANI notify template, but I clean forgot about it. On the issue at hand, my point was that this random editor came in and resurrected an 11-month stale discussion to basically stir up shit and make specific accusations about me. Certainly the comments added nothing to the improvement of the article, so what else could possibly be the reason? I've never had any problem with the removal of such comments before, on a range of articles, so I was surprised by your opinion and shocked that you actually restored the comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Surprised on 2 counts: 1) someone sees that as a personal attack (because it doesn't look like one), and 2) that someone doesn't know that you CAN refactor or remove someone else's comments in some situations. the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Password Problem

I have not changed my password recently and I cant log in on chrome. I think my account may have been hacked but I'm still logged in on IE. Help! TitusFox^'Tribs 17:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You may get an answer here but this is not am admin problem. I would suggest that you move this post to the Wikipedia:Help desk or the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're logged in on IE, go change your password. The, go to Chrome, clear your cache and trying loggin in using your new password the panda ₯’ 18:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You will probably want to change your passwords in general as well. Especially if there are contribs you know you didn't make. And as a point of order, I think this is something that belongs at ANI... if Titusfox's account had been compromised, a block would be the remedy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If the password was indeed changed as part of being compromised, going to preferences to change the password won't work, even if the user is logged in, as they will need to know the old password as part of the process of getting a new one (assuming they can't use any forgotten password feature). - Purplewowies (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And you can't change (or I guess add) an email without knowing the password so unless whoever compromised the account didn't change the email address, there's probably not much you can do just because you're logged in. Note that if the email isn't changed, you may want to check it carefully and see if there's any sign of it being compromised, it may be how the account was. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As a brief aside, situations like this are probably a good reminder to seriously consider doing WP:COMMIT, so should your account be compromised you have a means of proving you are who you say you are. I know this has me seriously thinking about finally taking the time to do it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

But I Have tried changing my password on IE and it says my password is incorrect. Even though it is very complex and stored on a notepad document because even I can't remember it off by heart. It's Horribly misspelled and with letters, numbers and symbols. A Block may be necessary if I start acting up. TitusFox^'Tribs 19:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Now Able to change it. Maybe it was just a bug, I have all my passwords in a document. Maybe I Should make them more secure... TitusFox^'Tribs 19:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Odd editing at Vivint

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.

---

Several brand new editors have started editing Vivint. Some of the edit summary wording is very similar. As none of the accounts are blocked, it has the appearances of meatpuppetry. I recommend an admin review the editing patterns by User:The Voice of Reason 9999, User:Honestabe7777, and User:Joearnest. A couple of them want to keep a summary of legal issues out of the lead section. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. As it turns out, those three accounts are  Confirmed matches to one another. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Institute of Mathematics

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 Institute of Mathematics and its applications - a prestigious London academic society - is being redirected to some similar ly named organisation in India. It says: "(Redirected from Institute of Mathematics and Applications)"

HOW DO WE STOP THIS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.220.145 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong here, you're just going to the wrong article. You're looking for Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. I'm disambiguating the "Not to be confused with" links to fix that. Thanks! —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have also created a disambiguation page. BDBIsrael (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Nicolas Sarkozy

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.

---

TBBT Chase and I have been disagreeing about whether a meme should be included in Nicolas Sarkozy. I don't think it should be included, and the discussion has hit his talk page, [163] my user page, and the article talk page. It finally came to this [164] edit summary--The death threat wasn't serious, but I'd like another opinion on this so I can move on. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 16:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: WMF Is aware of the threat, no need for further reports. Please feel free to discuss the policy implications and such, but there's no need for further admin reports to us. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Philippe, I have hidden the edit summary with RevDel. As for the meme, the edit says, "On the 13th of July 2014, a meme was created", and the image was just deleted from Commons as a copyright violation. Since the creation appears to be something that hasn't happened yet, and since it isn't something notable that should be included in the article, I have also reverted the edit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Origamite, you've pasted the same diff twice. (Which happens to us all, diffs are stupid like that.) It seems it's the one you particularly want comments on, with a threat in it (?) that's missing, so please fix. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

It was this one: [165], but DoRD revdeled it. Thank you again. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 17:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am assuming the "threat" (which I can no longer see) was just a puerile stupidity from a schoolboy, so I'll leave it to the WMF people to deal with that, but fooling around with hoaxes on high-profile BLPs is not on, so I have blocked TBBT Chase for 48 hours. (If anybody thinks they should be blocked longer, feel free.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. I can't out him from what was in the email he sent me, but suffice to say you're spot on. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support a longer block. Since the edit summary was redacted rather than suppressed, an admin can view it with admin tools. The edit summary was completely inappropriate even if only a bad joke, and the description of a future event in the past tense is a form of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My perspective is that TBBT made a meme, uploaded it, and tried to give it a semblance of belonging with pretty references to google.com and a fake quote from Sarkozy. When I reverted it, the troll treated as he would one of his friends making a joke--see "narc" being used here [166]. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A review of the editor's editing history shows that he was a constructive editor in 2013 but has been a vandal in 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that; the talk page was done in 2013 and so was this [167] diff. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 22:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

TBBT just emailed me this:

Get me blocked for longer. I DARE YOU! Can you acc get me deactivated bc its pointlesss having an account if you can't edit. Are you that sad, you'd call me a troll. I know everything I did was wrong, but reporting me and accusing me of a death threat. COME ON! Scratch my last message, I will message you every day until you get my account deactivated. Screenshot this for evidence. I TBBT Chase sincerely want my account deactivated because I am being harassed by Origamite and FutureProof

Do we grant it? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 12:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. indef'd TBBT Chase with email and TP access revoked. NAC time. Blackmane (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Has User:Eddypc07 gotten hacked?

Has Eddypc07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been hacked? This user made productive edits up until May 21, 2013. Then this user goes silent until April 3, 2014. All subsequent edits are edits that replace URLs with URL shortener URLs that show ads and require the user to click a button that appears to get the user to the real website. (I have not analyzed one of the sites to determine if the button really works or sends victims to more ads or possibly malware.) I then ran across this user at WP:AIV and then investigated. I then added a final warning. I therefore suspect the user's account has been hacked. Could someone help me figure out if this user should be blocked as a compromised account or leave it alone unless the user does more spamming? Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I checked a couple of the links, look like simple redirectors but that isn't my field of expertise. I'm not sure if it is an affiliate thing (doubtful) or he just came back after a long break thinking he was helping, when in fact it isn't. Regardless, he has had enough warnings and I would block on the next instance until he explained why he is doing this. Using redirectors like this is a huge no-no on Wikipedia. At the very least, if they go down, all those links go down. Worse, it can be used to inject spyware, viruses and other fun tidbits. As for the account being compromised, I don't see evidence to support that yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• A big note that while the links do work (I checked one he added to Babymetal, and it goes to their legit website after the ads), they are specifically routed through a service that pays the user who generates them, which definitely makes it a big no-no in my eyes (not even including the fact that I often run into malware myself if I must use Adfly, which also is a no-no). - Purplewowies (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you. I forgot I have a bunch of ad block stuff on Chrome, so I went into IE private browsing, and his intent is 100% crystal clear now. Profit. That is incompatible with our goals and intolerable from any editor. As such, I've indef blocked him until he can explain and convince another admin this won't continue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I've nominated the URLs for global blacklisting. MER-C 01:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  and has been  Done. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please advise of the correct place to propose blacklisting? I have made a proposal at the only place I could find (here). However this place seems dead because there is nearly a year's backlog that has not even been looked at. This blacklisting seems to have been actioned quickly and is suspiciously absent from talk:Spam blacklist. I have already moved the discussion from one dead location. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the only place I know. Its been a while, but last time I filed it took about one day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For global blacklists m:Talk:Spam blacklist is more serviceable. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is strictly for blocking URLs on en.wp only. URL shorteners should be (cross-)posted at the meta blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing at that talk page has been actioned since at least August 2013 (the first request is undated). Since, that page is clearly (currently) inactive, I have tagged it as such. Should anyone decide to action the requests, the tag can be removed. I will attempt to copy the request to m:Talk:Spam blacklist later today when time presents itself, and will shall see what happens. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to RfC and General Behavior Pattern

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 started a RfC. Another editor requested the RfC have the wording changed at midpoint on the grounds that I had worded it incorrectly. The following occurred:

1. I complied and added an explanatory note to the RfC (see diff [[168]]).

2. Cwobeel reverted my changes and replaced them with "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." (see diff [[169]])

3. I reluctantly accepted his position that the RfC should not have explanatory notes added midpoint and, in that spirit, further deleted his comment "Please don't :change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process" which, itself, was a change to the wording of the RfC.

4. Casprings reinserted this change to the original wording of the RfC "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." (current version), an edit Cwobeel appears insistent to maintain.

Two issues should be reviewed in action of this ANI:

1. I feel, in judicious fairness, either "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." should be deleted as it constitutes an amendment to the original wording of the RfC that could color other editors opinions, or, my original explanatory note be reinserted; but we can't have one or the other. This is a highly contentious RfC and the first editor in question has used a variety of unconventional methods of engaging other editors ("blinded by your own POV," "you can't or won't have a proper debate," you're "here to waste other editors' time?" among a wide range of other stylistically questionable comments and major, undiscussed structural changes); for this reason I feel this relatively simple administrative question can only be resolved by ANI; that alternate avenues of resolution are likely to produce protracted WP:DRAMA and further uncivil comments.

2. Given the editor's unconventional contribution pattern I feel a 30-day subject matter block would be within realm of consideration, but am not necessarily advocating for that. However, to avoid the appearance of POV kneecapping and mitigate the potential for DRAMA, I will accept a 30-day subject matter block on my own account without objection if determined useful. BlueSalix (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is silly beurocracy. So what if it's formatted badly? So what if Bluesalix changes a few words? So what if "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." gets deleted. We're building an encyclopedia, not running government. Let's focus on what's important and not be tedious.--v/r - TP 21:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a heated debate, clearly, and I take responsibility for making comments I should not have made. I have accepted BlueSalix's suggestions to cool the debate. Let the RFC run its course, while we continue improving that article and others. Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, T, I agree. My preference is to simply revert the RfC to the original form and move on, however, I was told if I even thought about touching the addition of the somewhat passive-aggressive line "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." the matter would be brought to ANI (the implication being ANI is a punitive process). There is a very negative tone that has infected this RfC in which minor bureaucratic edits like this are being defended with no effort at compromise; an effort to "draw blood" from other contributors and then use it to engage in triumphal displays of aggressive comments like those I outlined above. I have never seen anything like this on Wikipedia; a RfC being turned into the Coliseum. Since it's clear this will eventually end up in ANI I'm hopeful bringing it here now will allow a fast and DRAMA-free resolution than the mess it will probably arrive here in 3 days hence. BlueSalix (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted that sentence (it was not passive-aggressive, it was a request), with the hope it helps cool the tempers. Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think, and I believe you and Cwobeel agree, that getting caught up in the wording of the RFC is a distraction to the core concern regarding the article. Great learning opportunity, but let's move on.--v/r - TP 21:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is where this conversation should have ended. The rest is a failure by BlueSalix to AGF on Cwobeel's sincerity in their apology and additional attacks. I'm rewinding to this point.--v/r - TP 00:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you, Cwobeel. T, I agree. With Cwobeel's decision to revert the RfC to its original, unedited form and apparent intent to better police his displays of triumphalism, I'm fine with this ANI being closed with no further action. I do, T, find it unfortunate that Cwobeel seems almost single-purpose on WP in his intent to try to get a rise out of other editors, as in his most recent comment to my Talk in which he demurely drops "sorry for rattling your cage," even while this ANI was active, but c'est la vie. This is just the way some people choose to conduct themselves. BlueSalix (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC) BlueSalix, it's best to just drop this issue while everyone is coming out ahead. We're at the WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME point right now. Issue solved, no sanctions needed. If you really want me to look more into the issue, I'd have to start at WP:RFC which says that Cwobeel is technically correct about how RFCs are meant to be worded. I don't want to do that. I'd rather we all just walk away happy. Don't you agree that'd be awesome here since Cwobeel has already agreed to let WP:RFC policy slip this time in the interests of collaboration?---v/r - TP 22:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I certainly don't dispute that Cwobeel was correct with respect to the RfC, T. This is why I did not attempt to revert his deletion of my GF edit to the RfC and have not raised that original edit as an issue in this ANI. That said, is there a larger issue that is becoming increasingly apparent as relates to the highly aggressive way in which he chooses to interact with other editors and his overbearing use of sarcasm in article discussions? I think so. Do I want to see him sanctioned because of it? Certainly not. Do I think it would be to his future benefit - as well as that of other editors - if he received GF counsel from an uninvolved editor, before his pattern of behavior becomes hardened and uncorrectable, regarding a more engaging method of interpersonal interaction? I think it's worthy of consideration. The only request I would like to make is that Cwobeel receive a block from my talk page as he is either unwilling or unable to restrain himself, despite my request. BlueSalix (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I tried to apologize, but it seems that my style is not of BlueSalix's liking. For the record, my full comment was: Thank you for your patience, and apologies for apparently rattling your cage with that sentence in the RFC. It was never my intention. Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Sometimes it's better to say nothing at all than to issue a non-apology apology. Hopefully we're all here to collaborate in improving Wikipedia, not troll userspace and bait other editors. I appreciate that you think you're being clever by skirting the line with comments like "apparently rattling your cage with that sentence," and - believe me - you are doing a tremendous job. I realize you believe that, when you ape comments I've made in other discussions and then post them on my Talk page as a kind-of "gotcha!", you think it's a good way to earn a free ticket to disruptiveness because it's too nuanced for anyone other than myself to notice. And you're probably right. I get that you think you can blow-off my requests for you to stop posting provocative comments on my Talk page and just keep doing it anyway, like you just did. Your less finessed aggression, however, like "blinded by your own POV," "you can't or won't have a proper debate," is what I'm afraid you're having the most fun with and will ultimately get out of control. BlueSalix (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Again, I am sorry to have upset you. It was not my intent. My comments in your talk page User_talk:BlueSalix#What.27s_up.3F were an attempt to get clarification on your comments outside of article talk. I will not post any more on your talk page as requested. Cwobeel (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC) If I wasn't clear previously, I would much appreciate it if you could stop juveniliziing my concerns with stilted, tongue-in-cheek, comments like "sorry I upset you" and "sorry I rattled your cage." I'm not going to play games by describing to you why this phrasing is exceptionally incendiary and baiting, because I know you are perfectly aware of the words you're choosing, as you have been aware of your peculiarly passive-aggressive word choice throughout your recent contribution history. While I could personally care less, some of the other editors you are playing these not-so-subtle games with are, in fact, taking your bait and reacting in-kind and it is really causing a lot of disruption to what was a perfectly pleasant and vigorous RfC. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. How can I empower you to act in a more mature, collaborative manner moving forward? BlueSalix (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I think it would be better for me to disengage now, as I am totally failing to produce an apology that will be acceptable. Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC) In all honesty, it's difficult to take these paper-thin apologies too seriously after receiving your three emails in which even the one-centimeter veneer of tongue-in-cheek niceness you're serving up here is gone and replaced by a string of juvenile taunting and four-letter words I've never seen on WP (or adulthood, generally). I hope your decision to disengage also involves disengaging from the editor email function. Assuming it does, I thank you, kindly, in advance. Best regards - BlueSalix (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Email? I have not sent you any emails. (I don't have email enabled on my Wikipedia account, and without it I can't send emails to other editors) Maybe someone is impersonating me? That would explain a lot. Cwobeel (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Well I've certainly disabled it on mine after the string of vitriol I've received. Did you also disable yours? I don't know. Based on the above detailed pattern of grinning behind the keyboard comments you've made, my inclination is to assume they're from you, and I think this is a reasonable assumption within the context of your interaction pattern. Ultimately this doesn't matter as this is not about me being put-out or offended, it is about a pattern of disruptive baiting of other editors that is rapidly derailing a conversation. Don't bother with the cute sorry I emasculated you or sorry I rattled your cage non-apologies, just drop it, act maturely, and everything will be fine. BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I have never had my email enabled in WP. Still, I want to understand how can someone impersonate another editor? How this is possible? Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC) I'm not going to address this question because (a) it's not possible, (b) you know that and I've already said I'm not going to engage your thinly veiled sarcasm, baiting and games-playing on Wikipedia. But, whatever. The onus is mine to opt-out of email if I feel I'm receiving unwanted contact; there is not a remedy outlet through ANI. The only thing I can't control is your decision to continue to try to bait me on my Talk page after I've requested you not post further there. I hope your recent declaration that you'd cease doing that is genuine and not more games for the benefit of third party observers. BlueSalix (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Wait, it's been 32 years since Cat People? How'd that happen? In any event, staring an ANI thread to avoid drama is like, as David Bowie sang in the film's theme song, putting out fire with gasoline. Best for both parties to disengage and focus strictly on content, and don't sweat the small stuff NE Ent 23:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) No, this is serious. How is it possible for someone to impersonate me and send emails from my Wikipedia account, when I don't have email enabled? Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC) It might be a user with a similar name spoofing you, I've looked a little and didn't see any, but there are a lot of possible permutations that I didn't try. They obviously can't "Hack" your email here since you don't have it active. BlueSalix could forward the email to a trusted admin, preferably the first email, including headers, to see if it needed further investigation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC) BlueSalix, can you do that please? Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Kindly refer to my previous comments regarding my decision to not empower games playing. Your verified edits (posting on Talk pages after being asked to stop, posting facetious apologies like "sorry I upset you" and "sorry I rattled you", using abusive language towards other editors, etc.) are sufficient for me. I want to get back to editing Wikipedia, not going off chasing down a wild conspiracy theory while you're laughing from behind your keyboard. BlueSalix (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC) You have made very serious accusations, and I think it is not much to ask to at least get an admin to investigate the spoofing. Cwobeel (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

New header for ease of editing

So, TP, you're saying the conversation should have ended after you got the WP:LASTWORD? No, Cwobeel's "apologies" are difficult to take in good faith. "apparently rattling your cage" is not an apology, it's a snarky comment. "I'm sorry I was (description of own behavior)" is what a sincere apology looks like. NE Ent 00:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cwobeel's apologies are easy to take in good faith. BlueSalix's accusations about emails and then refusal to show evidence are personal attacks. Add on top of that the fact that, indeed, Cwobeel is actually correct that RFCs are supposed to use neutral language, then I see a whole lot of reason to sanction BlueSalix and not Cwobeel. It's better for BlueSalix that he never made his comment after we all agreed the original problem was solved. Apologizing for rattling someone's cage isn't an attack. WP:LASTWORD doesn't apply here. I'm not involved in the dispute and I'm not competing with these editors. I'm saving one editor from himself.--v/r - TP 01:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it quite ironic that BlueSalix would complain about someone else having "a larger issue that is becoming increasingly apparent as relates to the highly aggressive way in which he chooses to interact with other editors and his overbearing use of sarcasm in article discussions." There might certainly be an issue with Cwobeel, but the locus of the described problem is BlueSalix. In my very limited interactions with BlueSalix I have witnessed a toxic hauteur which rises above the issue of presenting the reader with a useful encyclopedia, above the issue of collegial editing, and continues into the realm of wishing to win plaudits within the system, against any opposition, to gain points. Note that BlueSalix keeps track on his user page of articles that he successfully nominated for deletion, as if this is a big game hunt. I think it's bad form to gloat over the deletion of someone else's good faith work. (Of course, deleting poor work is a constant job at Wikipedia, a task I myself embrace on a nearly daily basis. I approve of any action which removes poor work from Wikipedia.) When I first crossed paths with BlueSalix at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio (after seeing a post on SarahStierch's talk page, where I lurk), the discussion quickly grew heated after I said I thought the article could be kept after some thorough improvement and new references. BlueSalix launched into me with a poisonous passion, as I was messing up his AfD score. The experience was so distasteful that I put the potential BlueSalix RfA page on my watchlist (as a redlink) so that I could be sure to register my negative opinion if ever BlueSalix chose to run for admin. (The only other person I've done that for is Toddst1, in case of his second application to adminship.) I have not been following BlueSalix around; instead I've stayed away as much as possible. The recent interaction at the Dave Brat talk page came after I registered my opinion at the RfC, which came to my attention because I saw Cwobeel post on several other editors' talk pages with a request for input, and I was aware of the recent news about Brat beating Cantor, so I felt I could help settle the RfC. It was only after I put down my thoughts that I read the general discussion, and saw BlueSalix doing the same sort of bullying through passive-aggression, belittling an editor (Cwobeel), and berating those who disagreed. When I came to Cwobeel's defense, BlueSalix told me to stand down, that he and Cwobeel had already worked it out. Apparently, BlueSalix has not worked it all out with Cwobeel or else this ANI discussion would not be taking place. Like NE Ent, I find it disingenuous of BlueSalix to come here with a complaint about too much drama. It looks to me as if BlueSalix fans the flames of drama by choosing words that hurt. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive: [170]. I am taking a break from all this. Had enough aggravation already. Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Michael, the issue to which you're referring is a separate one that was amicably settled. I noticed - based on the editor interaction tool - there has been a measurable and substantial increase in your appearances in articles in which I'm participating since we disagreed with each other on Live Wire Radio and that you have, in 100% of those cases, taken the opposite side of me in the debate. TTBOMK, I have only filed two ANIs in my time on WP, as it's a tedious process. This is why I have not pursued this as a case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. At the present time I don't feel I need to, either, as you have been mostly polite, even if determined to track me. However, if you choose to make actionable accusations about me like "BlueSalix launched into me with a poisonous passion" and "BlueSalix doing the same sort of bullying through passive-aggression, belittling" you need to provide diffs. I will absolutely not tolerate being lied about and I am certain a WP:BOOMERANG of your speech will validate my position. Thank you.

As to your statement that I am a SPA that "gloats" over deletion of the "good faith" contributions of others, I have made exactly 10 AfDs in 4 years, 8 of which were sustained and 6 of which were PR advertisements, which I'm proud to have helped remove. Given that context, the BOOMERANG question that should be asked is: why did you make the choice to characterize my AfD activities in the way you did? BlueSalix (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't call me Michael; you can call me Bink, Binkster or Binksternet.

If you wanted to portray an accurate picture of the very few interactions between you and I, why did you not include diffs or links yourself, especially after chiding me for that absence? One of the interactions was my comment about your BLP edit-warring, the comment posted at the edit-warring noticeboard which has been on my watchlist for years. 28 minutes after I said you appeared to be deflecting your own guilt upon others, requiring protection of the wiki from you, Bishonen blocked you for 48 hours. It's clear that Bishonen came to the same conclusion I did. (By the way, your userpage still says you have never been blocked.)

You and I both edited the Ronan Farrow biography, but we did not speak to or about each other at all. I changed some BLP-concerning text which was under discussion on the talk page and at ANI, the same "child molester" text you had been edit-warring to keep. Note that the settled state of the biography, following lots of discussion among many others, has none of your "child molester" wording.

I don't have any idea where you came up with me calling you an "SPA", which I didn't.

I imagine there will be some issue in the future where our paths cross again, and I'm perfectly willing to support you if I feel your stance has merit. Up till now, the very few times I did not support you (yes, 100%) was because I did not think your argument had merit. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That's your smoking gun? There was no edit warring, I inserted the text "Ronan Farrow ... claimed [Allen] was a child molester" based on a RS that stated "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester" (see: [[171]]). Someone objected, we debated it and decided not to keep it. Given that context, the BOOMERANG question that should now be asked is: why did you make the choice to characterize my edit the way you did in this ANI? (You still haven't addressed your decision to mischaracterize my AfD edits, as per my question above.) I hope someone reading these outrageous, drive-by accusations is wondering why you are choosing to mischaracterize and obfuscate the fairly mundane details of edits. What you are doing is so completely over-the-top in its violation of every norm of WP:CIVIL and WP:WIKIHOUNDING that I'm at a complete loss. I think you need to take a step back and do a thorough self-evaluation of why you're at Wikipedia and what you hope to accomplish here - providing constructive, useful edits, or doing all you can to try to kneecap someone who had the audacity to disagree with you in a year-old AfD. Right now I can't even conceive as to how you are avoiding sanction in light of the "child molester" and the "AfD big game hunt" lies you just dropped here. Combing through another editor's 4 year history on WP to dig up whatever mundane edits you can find, add a highly sensational and scandalous spin to, then drop them in an unrelated ANI is at absolute odds with the spirit of WP.

You said "requiring protection of the wiki from you," however, Vance McAllister was protected prior to my first edit on April 9 [[172]]. Again, the question needs to be asked, why are you continuing to lie about my edit history in this ANI? You do realize everything on WP is permanent record, right?

As for my 48-hour "block" you said I received - this is certainly the first I've heard of it (?) and I show a perfect disciplinary record in my Block History [[173]]. However, I am pinging Bishonen so s/he can apply this block now in case s/he forgot to activate it previously; I'm sure whatever it was for was merited and I will, of course, take ownership and issue a full apology in the relevant forum (which is probably not this ANI). BlueSalix (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I'm looking at with regard to you being blocked:

• "20:38, April 9, 2014 Bishonen (talk | contribs) blocked BlueSalix (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Aggravated edit warring on Vance McAllister)".
• "(You have been blocked from editing for violation of the three-revert rule on Vance McAllister. (TW))" Revision as of 20:30, April 9, 2014
• "(→‎April 2014: personalising the template to warn the user against calling good-faith edits 'vandalism'.)" Revision as of 20:37, April 9, 2014

These indicate to me that you were blocked, despite the clean block log to which you refer.

You portray me as sifting through your 4-year career but that is not the case. I used the editor interaction tool to see the articles at which we have both been active. The first one was the Live Wire Radio AfD from six months ago (not a year ago). Yes, I most certainly got the impression that you were very pissed off about the March 2014 "keep" result, that you were counting on getting one more deletion to hang on your wall rather than trying to make sure Wikipedia was hosting an accurate and informative article. If you hold my characterization as wrong, please tell me why you were so nasty to me and anybody who agreed with me, up until you realized that a consensus was forming against your position, and you changed sides so as not to tarnish your AfD record.

The editor interaction tool demonstrates that your accusation of hounding is unfounded. In the thousands of edits I have made since we first interacted in January 2014, we have only crossed paths at the Live Wire AfD, the edit-warring noticeboard (where you and I did not exchange thoughts), the Ronan Farrow biography (where we again did not converse with each other), and then finally the Dave Brat talk page where I called you on your incivility to Cwobeel. That's two conversations we've had (aside from this current one) and two instances of me registering opposition to your editing. Which all adds up to about 00.01 percent of my editing contributions. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It is utterly unbelievable to me you feel you can continue to use this type of incendiary language such as "you were so nasty to me" without providing a single diff demonstrating my supposed "nastiness" (obviously because there is no such evidence of "nastiness" by me to you). Your malicious spreading of false accusations about me with impunity must stop (this is the third demonstrably false accusation you've floated in this thread that I've called out). It is utterly inconceivable to me that this type of swagger would be permissible in any civil forum. As for your thousands of edits, what I observed in my original message - and what is verifiably true - is that there has been a measurable increase in your appearance in threads in which I've participated since our disagreement in the AfD for Live Wire Radio. And that is absolutely correct. BlueSalix (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• @BlueSalix:, I should have been informed on my talk page this was going on. You mentioned me in your OP but never properly informed me. I understand you indicated you would file, but you never let me know you actually did.Casprings (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had pinged you but I can see it was a formatting error on my part; I intentionally did not notify you on your Talk page as you were not the subject of the ANI. Either way, however, I did mention you without notifying you - it was my fault and I apologize. By not notifying you I denied you an opportunity to provide input in this ANI. I will better police my future comments to ensure this does not happen again. Thanks, in advance, for your understanding. BlueSalix (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? Because you filed it after you wrote this and I responded with this. I would of assumed I was the subject of this WP:AN/I. You have a pattern of odd behavior. You make a big deal of others behaviors but you are very aggressive and disingenuous with your comments such as this exchange. ([174],[175])Casprings (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, really. The link you posted above as proof of my "odd behavior [and] very aggressive and disingenuous" comments is to me making the one-word post "uh huh." Was there a different link you had meant to put in? (Again, I apologize for not pinging you. There were other involved editors, like NazariyKaminski (who may have a separate issue with Cwobeel, as I notice Cwobeel edited NazariyKaminski's user page [not Talk, his actual user space] with the line "hope you learned your lesson" [[176]] after they had an edit disagreement), Lithistman, and others, whom I should also have notified and failed to do so in my rush.) BlueSalix (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm obviously involved as I'm participating in the RFC itself, but even if I weren't, I would say "Can we just drop this and move on to discussing the merits at the RFC itself?" It is contentious, but overwhelmingly focused on the merits and some real constructive discussion is going on. That is what a good RFC is about. THAT is what really matters. I don't have an opinion on the above discussion, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, sometimes we are just going to disagree and it is best to just accept that and get back to what really matters: The article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and, frankly, the trend in the RfC seems clear that there will be no consensus so it's a moot point anyway. I was fine with the outcome of this RfC, the only reason for my continued participation is I feel some need to defend myself in light of what Binksternet is saying about me (above). Since this is part of what is becoming apparent is a block-shopping effort, I have - I believe - genuine concern that my failure to provide diffs to his sensationalized, unsourced accusations will result in a sanction against me. This is, unfortunately, a defense I have to regularly mount. This is my life on WP now, I guess. BlueSalix (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a sanction against you. I am merely hoping you will acknowledge some of the instances in which you have been guilty of incivility, of adding to the drama level, of creating a negative tone, of displaying triumphalism, and of baiting others with provocative comments. Failing that, I want to tell other editors that I consider your current editing style to be disruptive, so that they can keep an eye out. Perhaps in the end you will change your style to be more friendly and sincere, and the encyclopedia can benefit more from your contributions. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm done with this thread, done for now with BlueSalix, having said my piece. I am taking the Brat page off of my watchlist. I hope for a good outcome from this discussion, while I remain alert for other results. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Binksternet, this is not acceptable. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal to you to occasionally fly into random threads like this ANI and declare to other editors that I'm "poisonous" and "distasteful" before flying out again but these kind of adjectives make me feel like pure shit, especially when there's no evidence they'll stop and that you intend to subject me to this kind of treatment for my life on WP. There's no reason I should be expected to grin and take it. You have lied (this, itself, is a very WP:CIVIL-line word, however, I think I've proven its objective accuracy) about me throughout this thread and you continue to do it with impunity. Your declaration about my AfD zealousness was rebutted by pointing out I had filed 2.5 AfDs per year; you then moved on to declaring I had edit warred about Woody Allen and I demonstrated that was another wind-up. You decided to log-off of this thread with a final bomb throwing by saying "some of the instances in which you have been found guilty of incivility ..." when, in fact, in four years, I have had a single 48-hour block (for which I apologize). I don't know what next steps are at this point, but this is simply not a situation that can remain without resolution. I know I risk being perceived as a Drama Queen by pursuing this matter, however, I'm also a human-being and it's understandable if it rattles my cage (to borrow a phrase from earlier in the thread) to know I'm going to be dive-bombed with this kind of hatred ("poisonous" "distasteful" "you have been found guilty") at random points forever. I don't think I'm being totally unreasonable to try to seek some help to get this bullying to stop. BlueSalix (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, Dennis, but I really need to point out that I did block BlueSalix for edit warring on 9 April. Gosh, I'm relieved I didn't forget to place the block, as his note on my page made me think before I checked the log. (I'm sure such a slip has happened and will again, but not that time.) Here's your block log, BlueSalix, and here's my block template on your page. I thought it was quite conspicuous. Are you saying you didn't notice it when you returned to editing on 15 April? Bishonen | talk 00:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen - my apology. Obviously I was looking at the wrong block log. You're correct, I was on a break when you applied the block and, frankly, I don't read all my Talk messages faithfully sometimes if a lot of RfCs come through; your template probably got overlooked in a group of them. Thank you for the clarification and my apologies for encumbering you with this extra bookkeeping. BlueSalix (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to belabour the point, BlueSalix, but you speak strangely. Here's how your talkpage looked when you started editing again on 15 April. Here's where you removed my block template later. Conventionally on Wikipedia, removal of a post is taken as evidence that the user has read it. Anyway, it's more important for your credibility that you address the matter of the supposed abusive e-mails to you from Cwobeel, which you've been ignoring despite requests above and pings on User talk:Cwobeel. You made a serious accusation against a user, here, you need to prove it or retract it. See Dennis Brown's suggestion here: all you have to do is forward one of these e-mails with full headers to an admin you trust, or straight to arbcom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you like, because it's likely to end up there anyway if you continue to ignore requests for clarification. Your foot-shuffling on the issue[177] [178], is quite unimpressive. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen - if I count correctly, I removed 8 posts to my Talk page within a space of 6 minutes on that date and it does, indeed, appear yours was one of several removed, and maybe the only non-Bot post deleted. I apologize for not being more diligent in reading posts before cleaning up my Talk page. This was my first experience with a block, and it's clear I have a lot to learn about the process. As for the email, I let it go in the spirit of deescalation, however, I'm happy to provide any information to anyone else who feels it needs to be pursued in the overriding spirit of cooperation. The originating email address was "honeypot21@XXXXXX.com" (I have obfuscated the extension to avoid a privacy violation but will be happy to provide it on request) and the email contained the sig "This email was sent by user "Mosfetfaser" on the English Wikipedia to user "BlueSalix". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents." Please let me know what specific additional information you would like and where I should direct it and I will certainly be happy to provide anything at all. I want you to understand that it is absolutely not my intention to foot-shuffle and if anything I did created that appearance, I absolutely apologize. I will follow all instructions given to me in reference to the emails in questions henceforth; I accept full responsibility if I misinterpreted User:Dennis_Brown' instructions as suggestions. Please confirm to whom I should forward this to and I will do it forthwith. BlueSalix (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"This email was sent by user "Mosfetfaser"?? Excuse my French, but what the fuck does that have to with Cwobeel, BlueSalix ?? Take it up with User:Mosfetfaser. You read that sentence about who the e-mail was from, you copied it, you pasted it in here, and all this time you've been blethering about e-mails from Cwobeel? I guess I'm no longer surprised that you managed to miss my big, bold, yellow, shouty block template. Well, are you going to apologize to Cwobeel? Properly? Just asking. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen - this would be best dealt with via email. Please let me know the best way you would like me to contact you. I directed my initial comment to Cwobeel due to the content of the message. I cannot elaborate beyond that in a public forum without making an accusation that is specifically prohibited by a Wikipedia policy. I don't have a wide breath of experience filing complaints against other editors so I'll ask you to please give me a little patience in pursuing this one. I apologize, in advance, if this is a non-satisfactory answer. Please understand I am committed to working with you but I have limtied wikisavvy in this section of WP. Thank you for your understanding. BlueSalix (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My understanding? I don't think so. And I don't feel like publishing my e-mail address on wiki. Why don't you just fucking simply re-enable your e-mail (temporarily, if you like) and then you can e-mail me through the normal channels. I won't pretend I'm looking forward to it, so much of my time as you have already wasted, but if you send me an e-mail I'll take it into consideration without prejudice and in confidence. Of course you could also contact someone more patient, such as Dennis Brown. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen - I am happy to do that via wikimail. I am escalating this matter at your request, however, it is still my desire to cause as little disruption or inconvenience as possible, so if you would prefer I contact someone else, that is fine as well. If you could please let me clearly know to whom you would most prefer I forward this (you or Dennis) I am committed to following your directions exactly. I am also happy to forward it to Arbcom as you have also indicated you might prefer I do that. Thank you, and I again apologize for inconvenience this has caused. BlueSalix (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If you feel comfortable, you can email me the email including full headers (all the wordy from/to/routing info). I've run mail servers, so used to them. If you prefer to email Arb directly, you may also do that, or any other active admin you trust. At this point, I do agree that you need to take the initiative, as you have made some strong claims here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, just send it to me, making sure everything's included ("full headers" and everything else) and preferably with a cogent explanation of your actions so far, and I'll see if it's something ArbCom needs to see. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

If this was a case of mistaken identity by BlueSalix, I will accept a simple apology from him/her so that we can move on, and avoid further drama. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and this is becoming a time waster and quite upsetting. . Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation

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.

---

Someone with nefarious intent has impersonated me and sent BlueSalix nasty emails with the purpose of generating bad blood and poison the well. That editor should be properly dealt with for these actions. I don't and never had email enabled on my account. To admins: How do a file a request for this to be investigated? Cwobeel (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't. You didn't get the emails and you didn't send them. If BlueSalix wants them investigated he can follow Dennis Brown's advice (in the hat above) and forward them (including headers) to an admin. NE Ent 00:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Who do such a malicious thing? Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with you, NE Ent. BlueSalix can either follow Dennis' advice, which I have just conveniently linked him to in the thread above, or make a full retraction of the accusations about abusive e-mails, because all the foot-shuffling is taking a toll on my AGF. I don't see that Cwobeel should be expected to sit down under character assassination, or that he should be dependent on whether "BlueSalix wants them investigated" or not. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

I agree, Bishonen. I had two simultaneous issues I was trying to juggle and I chose to deal with one over the other as I had a concern about being perceived as a serial complainer; in retrospect, this was selfish of me and, if I was not prepared to pursue both issues to the very end I should not have brought them up. I have addressed your concerns above and will follow all specific instructions from either you or NE Ent in how to dispose of this and will continue to pursue it until a final conclusion has been achieved. BlueSalix (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And we will pursue an apology/retraction/explanation for these false accusations. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@BlueSalix: I'm not here to gloat, but you should have taken my advice when I said to drop it early on. I had your best interests in mind. When disputes can be solved amicably early on, and apologies are made, it is always a bad idea to start a new dispute immediately afterwards.--v/r - TP 18:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please close this whole thread now, preferably without using the word "resolved", because the issue of the false accusations is not resolved. It's being handled elsewhere. I appreciate Drmies' and TParis' sane comments, but any further posts telling BlueSalix he did wrong would be superfluous, in fact I would remove them. Bishonen | talk 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC).

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

The problems related to the user Qizilbash123 in the page of Iran

Please take a look at the history of the page of Iran.

In the section of History, dear Qizilbash123 has tried to add up some disputed contents against a huge part of the people of Iran, in several times. Ignoring how hard he has been trying to remove the image of the protest of Iranian women against the rules of the new regime, in his recent edit, we have seen a phrase ("disputed only by minority of Westernized women") which is a clear invasion to a huge part of the population of Iranian women who had protested for their rights, on the International Women's Day, after the Iranian revolution. Many of these women include the people who have done efforts in order to gain this revolution. Why would the new regime become against them?! The word "Westernized" has always been a useful weapon against the government opponents in Iran. The government tries to relate the simple rights of the people to a western culture, and they fancy an ordered eastern lifestyle for the Iranian people. This is exactly what this user is trying to do. The revolution of Iran, was a movement against the Shah and his monarchy. It was not a religious revolution, but a fanatical religious group of the people were trying to led the revolution to another side, and they were actually successful in this flow. This is why it was written "The Iranian Revolution, later known as the Islamic Revolution". But this person has replaced the word "also" instead of "later" to achieve his own purpose.

In the section of Observances, we have tried to find and include the most obvious depicted form of this well-known and understandable tradition (Haft-Chin Table). But this user has removed it several times and replaced his own order which include a painting depicting a particular performance quality of this tradition by a specific group of people in the Qajar dynasty. But we believe that this tradition can be shown in a more obvious and purely way. I believe that the thing which has been pleasant for this person in that painting goes for the white scarfs of women.

Another surprising action of this person is that he keeps removing the photos added to the gallery in the section of Geography. He says "too much" photos are included, where as I have seen in other pages that we have a gallery including two lines of photos.

In the section of Philosophy, we read: Iranian philosophy can be traced back as far as to Old Iranian philosophical traditions and thoughts which originated in ancient Indo-Iranian roots and were considerably influenced by Zarathustra's teachings. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, the chronology of the subject and science of philosophy starts with the Indo-Iranians, dating this event to 1500 BC. The Oxford dictionary also states, "Zarathushtra's philosophy entered to influence Western tradition through Judaism, and therefore on Middle Platonism."

So I found a photo of Faravahar which is a symbol coming from the Zarathushtra's philosophy. But then this person appears and removes it, and replaces a photo of a Mullah.

The question it why?!... Why this person must have such freedom to do whatever he wants to do, change whatever he wants to change and include what ever he wants to include?...

I believe we need a more accurate monitoring on this page. And this user needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

User:Binksternet, User:Robert McClenon and User:Bbb23, please help me if I couldn't explain it enough! :(

Thank you. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• A few diffs would be helpful. And you could clarify as to exactly what administrative action you are requesting. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Qizilbash123 just got off a 31 hour block for edit warring on Iran. Here is Qizilbash123's very first edit after getting off that block. Spoiler alert: the edit summary is "rv POV-pushers". Including the previous diff, Qizilbash123 has made three non-consecutive reverts on Iran in the last 24 hours ([179], [180]). I think 31 hours was not long enough to prevent further edit warring. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I just left them a message to that effect. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Qizilbash123 is now blocked five days for resumption of the edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

New user removing AFD template

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.

---

Here, quite a few times. I have posted to their talk page and the article talk page to no avail, I have reported him to ANEW for violation of 3RR but would like an admin to restore the AFD notice. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I restored it. Henichi has received a final warning for removing the AfD template (though it issued after Henichi had removed the template again). AIV would be another place to take this if Henichi did it again. Honestly, I think it would've been a better idea to just wait for someone at AN3 to handle your pending report. You didn't need to come to ANI over this, though I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with an admin blocking Henichi given the disruption of the AfD process on that page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked the account for disruptive editing. He could appeal, of course...  —SMALLJIM  13:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Callanecc

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 unhappy about the conduct of this admin user:Callanecc - he has ignored my question to him on his talk page , and then when I repeated it , said he forgot about it and then just wrote a lot of jargon -its TPAC and may be ARRBWASH kind of stuff - I asked if he kept an eye on articles where he had blocked editors who were, as they saw it at least, trying to stop an article from being an advert or whitewash, in this case Mint Press News - he has not bothered to respond - in the meantime another editor set up a sockpuppet investigation , and it seems to me callanecc could look at that , as it directly concerns a page where he has got involved, but that is ignored too. obviously it is frustrating to see a very poor and pov version of the article in place - perhaps I am upset and over reacting but it seems to me callanec almost wants me to change the terrible pov version so then he can indef ban me for breaking my 3 month ban. whatever, I have found his interactions with me personally rude and offhand, and his studiously avoiding changing a poor pov version or looking at the sockpuppet investigation where I have drawn his attention to it -, very poor. really awful behaviour. haughty, negligent, spiteful, alienating.Sayerslle (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The article was a tad puffy -- but it does have what is likely a notable connection to the Syria story which I would hesitate to remove. Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• You were topic banned from Mint Press News here (via general sanctions available to topic that touch on the Syrian War). You emailed him, he forgot about it while pondering it (it happens, we are volunteers with real world lives), then you took it to his talk page where he informed you that you are on the border of violating your topic ban, and he linked why it wasn't an exception. If anything, you should have emailed again and just left a note on his talk page. A topic ban is just that, a ban against talking about that subject online. Even if you think the edits that someone else did were biased, you are still banned from talking about or editing the topic. Bringing it here is a violation of your topic ban as it isn't covered in WP:BANEX, which he already linked you. If you bothered to follow that link, you would understand. Personally, I recommend you stick with email if you must, but don't reply here or on his talk page about the subject, or someone is likely to block you for breaking the topic ban. I think you've already pushed the limits of the ban far enough...too far, really. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

good lord - no wonder wp is haemmorrhaging content editors. I have never emailed a wp editor in my life btw I don't know what that is about. thankyou collect for looking at the article.Sayerslle (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The same could be said about editors that edit war and make life hell for other editors. That is why we have general sanctions and topic bans. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• At the top of Callanecc's talkpage is says they have crappy connectivity until the end of June. Indeed, I've seen less of them as of late. You left a question on June 13 on their talkpage that is a violation of your topic ban, and should lead to a block. If they forgot to reply, or ignored it so as to not have to block you ... they were both wise choices. Now you're hounding them about it, even though you're not supposed to even think about Mint Press. Are you a fan of "suicide-by-admin" or something? Bringing your multiple violations of your topic ban in front of all admins? If I was logged into my admin acct, you'd already be blocked. Nevertheless, admins are NOT at your personal beck-and-call - you shouldn't even be watchlisting an article you're banned from the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I suggested on my talk page (and for some reason I didn't get an email about your reply in the top section on my talk page) you are getting very close to breaking your topic ban. Which is that you can't make any edit regarding Mint Press News anywhere on Wikipedia, per WP:TBAN your comments on my talk page, the SPI and here have breached the ban. Regarding the SPI, there are currently 13 other (unendorsed) requests waiting for checkuser attention so you should expect some waiting time and I didn't get to going through that list (as an SPI clerk) today. However I've had a look and endorsed it for CU attention due to the evidence presented. I'm not going to have a discussion regarding the article which you as you are topic banned from it an so aren't allowed to discuss it (hence WP:BANREVERT). Dennis could be referring to the xxx left you a message email which is what I'm using to work out what's happening on my talk page at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

ok , thanks for that reply. I will leave this subject now as I have been rather forcefully advised to do so. I would say that language like this 'Are you a fan of "suicide-by-admin" ' - is unhelpful though, and rather grotesque. Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

When you're topic-banned, you should expect some "rather forceful" response if you violate it. Your best bet is to pretend that the topic doesn't exist. Stay away from any articles connected with it. Take any such articles off your watch list. Avoid all temptation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Repeated IP vandalism on page YesAllWomen

An IP block needed on page YesAllWomen. IP user 209.94.203.146 is relentlessly vandalizing page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Currently at final warning, no edits in about 10 minutes. Although it's pretty blatant vandalism, I don't see anything here that requires an immediate block rather than letting this just go through AIV should the IP vandalize again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for link to AIV. Will report if I happen to be online when they vandalizes again...I mean, maybe they'll stop now, but I'm not all that optimistic because prior warnings from others didn't seem to deter them. See: User talk:209.94.203.146. Hopefully, this report will at least get more eyes on page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As the person who gave the final warning, I don't believe there should be any administrative action other than blocking the IP. This shouldn't have been brought here, it's like using a shotgun to shoot a fly. Go to WP:AIV (after they vandalize again, since after the final warning, I don't think they've edited again.) Tutelary (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused. Only action requested was a block of the IP. Sorry if I brought this to the wrong board. Thanks again Mendaliv and Tutelary for link to AIV.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, asking for an "IP block" on a page sounds a lot like asking for semi-protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating. This no longer requires attn. The vandal hit page five more times from different IP address and DragonflySixtyseven protected page so only auto-confirmed users can edit....so issue has apparently been resolved via semi-protecting page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about semi protection at this point; I think it's too soon. It's only two IPs. Block 'em both for a day or two. It's a pretty hot topic that might draw in new editors... and a locked page kind of goes against the idea of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both IPs blocked one week, if another IP comes back, report at WP:RFPP for semi-protection. With tag teaming IPs doing nothing but pure vandalism, I didn't see a need to wait for the blocks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putin khuilo!

I was stupid enough to open this nomination, which has now been turn into the championship of single-purpose accounts who can insult me stronger. Based on the fact that Russian is my mothertongue, they make unjustified conclusions that I must be pro-Russia biased (note that a couple of weeks ago on this very page, WP:ANI, many users suggested that I should lose my administrator flag because I am strongly and obviously anti-Russian biased and protected a (different) page on an "anti-Russian" version), and now of course that I am lying. I am not sure whether anything could be done about this except for me just shutting up, but I would welcome any ideas how this could be solved.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

AfDs like this don't pose an insurmountable problem. Because the votestacking SPAs are incredibly obvious, the closer will disregard them in favour of the policy-based arguments. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not so much afraid of the vote stacking (after all, AfD discussions are being closed by experienced users, and I do not have any particular reason to have this article deleted does not matter what, it was just my opinion that it is not notable at the moment), I was more afraid of the amount of personal animosity against me from the people I have never met. The page has now been semied, hopefully this may solve the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything needs to be done. I've been the target of similar personal attacks, including SPA pile-ons at AfD coordinated by massive off-wiki campaigns. But it all dies down as soon as the deletion discussion is over. These people are just here to ride their own hobby-horse; once it's taken away from them they all suddenly disappear and are never heard from again. Of course, if you've actually been threatened with physical harm then that might be a different matter; if that happens you should refer to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

May be I should take it easy indeed. So far there were no physical harm threats.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been in a similar situation. Often a lot of it is a single user or person (and as seen below there was a sockfarm involved), though even if not, this sort of stuff tends to die down fast and get forgotten before long. I wouldn't worry about it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What is amazing is the simple fact that the "song" does not meet the notability requirements for songs - several of the sources are about an epithet a Ukrainian envoy used, and a "chant" by a crowd, and the "song" at best is not cited as a focus of the articles. The material may well belong in an article on Ukrainian protests, but as a stand alone article - it fails. And this would be true of a Russian "song" about Ukraine as well. IMO. Collect (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't as far-fetched as that, the Washington Post source is solid, and covers the song/chant directly. But one source isn't enough, so the best outcome here is a redirect until/unless it is covered in greater detail down the road. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Both the article and the AfD have been semi'd, several SPAs blocked, the shrillest of them by a CU as a sock farm; AfD has been cleaned up some and has been getting some more input from experienced users. Should be okay now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I got a death threat on my talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Intelligentguy89 again

Pursuant to this complaint that was archived without action, I'm afraid to report that IG89 is still engaged in tendentious editing and acting against consensus. Failing to secure inclusion of certain content in Indian general election, 2014, he posted the disputed content to 16th Lok Sabha. Another editor who was aware of that discussion at the election article found the content, and after asking if it needed removing removed it. IG89 has been edit warring and trolling since, and has been a tad abusive too, particularly against User:Iryna Harpy (Discussion here). I've tried reasoning with him and I've also given him a 3RR warning, but he's ranting and shouting. As a WP:POINT-violation, he also posted a edit war warning to an editor who clearly had not been engaged in any such warring. Can someone do something? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, this is getting a bit annoying. At first I thought that this content was placed and discussed in just one article, then I found two more with it, and he wants fresh talk page discussions to exclude it (rather than include) from those articles despite the prior discussions on the original article and at NPOVN. —SpacemanSpiff 16:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Intelligentguy89 has gone being beyond WP:TEDIOUS to plain WP:BATTLEGROUND. Previously, he'd accused other editors as being WP:SOCKS. While the original AN/I wasn't actioned, I was prepared to leave it to rest as he'd appeared to have settled down. Looking at his special contributions, however, the lull is attributable to a short period of inactivity on Wikipedia.

In order to be WP:POINTy, he posted an unwarranted edit warring template on my talk page.

Please note that he was fully aware of the fact that the discussion of the use of the self-same content was being continued at the original venue within the context of the use of this content in any related articles. User:Dharmadhyaksha had asked for input as to whether it was also inappropriate for use in the 16th Lok Sabha article. The only edit warring that's occurred has been by Intelligentguy89 (as evidenced by 5 reverts within the space of an hour). Calling for discussions to begin from scratch on every individual article talk page regarding content considered to be inappropriate in any context can only be construed as an attempt to game the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding all of the above:

• "Another editor who was aware of that discussion at the election article found the content, and after asking if it needed removing removed it." Did everyone at that talk page agree that the content in question should be removed from 16th Lok Sabha? Or is it that some editors' opinion is more valued than that of others? Besides, should not the discussion for 16th Lok Sabha take place on Talk:16th Lok Sabha, and not Talk:Indian general election, 2014? They are two different articles, dealing with two different topics. Just because some content is unsuitable for one, does not mean that it is unsuitable for the other, too. The latest version of the section describes some details of the members of the 16th Lok Sabha and is backed by valid third-party references. It is notable, encyclopedic content. And the latest version is not necessarily portraying the members only in a negative light. It has some neutral information too. It is a description of the members, and is not "meaningless" or "scandal-mongering" as User:Ohconfucius suggests.
• There is a request posted on the NPoV notice board, to resolve the issue of the content in question. But there has been no involvement of a third party administrator or NPoV expert editor in this issue. So it is surprising how some are thinking that there is "consensus", or that the issue has been resolved. It is still pending.
• WP:POINTy - As the page says, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which they do not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition. I never made any edit that I do not agree with. User:Iryna Harpy undid my edits adding important information to 16th Lok Sabha, without initiating any discussion on the talk page of that article. It is not as if an edit war results only when 3 revert edits are made. By the way, User:Ohconfucius, who is having a problem with me posting a warning to another user after she made a single reverting edit, himself did the same thing on my talk-page, after I undid a single edit that had deleted a whole section on Indian general election, 2014. So he is losing consistency in principles when someone on his side is edit warring.
• User:Ohconfucius has not tried to "reason" with me any time. He seems to be doing the opposite. When informed and questioned about his unacceptable actions, he opens ANI after ANI, wasting others' time. He is also using language that may be considered as an attempt to threaten or intimidate. He is behaving as if he has a lot of authority and is above other users.
• Response to my observation that some editors may in fact be WP:Socks can be found at the previous discussion. I do not think there is any need to repeat it here.
• User:Iryna Harpy is either uninformed about what counts as a single revert, or is trying exaggerate matters. She should also pay attention to reading the time properly, from the article history. I did not make "5 reverts within the space of an hour" on 16th Lok Sabha. They were 3 reverts, withing the space 5 hours.
• Yes, I was aware of the discussion that was going on Talk:Indian general election, 2014#Constant removal of MPs with criminal background. I never denied that, unlike what User:Iryna Harpy and others may be thinking. But I am not unjustified in requesting for discussion of content for 16th Lok Sabha to take place on talk:16th Lok Sabha. Any so-called consensus on Talk:Indian general election, 2014 is not automatically valid for all other articles related to Indian politics. And it is not necessary that Talk:Indian general election, 2014 has received comments from all users concerned about content on 16th Lok Sabha. The talk page of another article may lead to a different consensus. And there is no consensus (or even valid argument) for exclusion of the said section from all Wikipedia articles. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing at semantics. Reintroducing content that had already been removed based on consensus, then reinstating it again (whether by reverting or by cutting and pasting precisely the same content again) is edit warring. The fact that, using one rollback to revert the content you'd reintroduced in two edits, it shows up as 2 reverts provides an insight into the methodology you're deploying in order to game the system. Incidentally, 2 reverts is not WP:3RR, whereas beginning at 21.00 and spreading your edits over into the next day at 1.00 is trying to fly under the radar. Every tactic you're deploying is purely insidious WP:TE. WP:BRD does not mean bold, revert, cast WP:ASPERSIONS about everyone who doesn't agree with you through personal attacks, accusing them of being WP:SOCKS and anything else that occurs to you at the time, then restoring the content you want to include and starting the process again. Edit warring is not restricted to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. You are engaged in a slow edit war, and all of your actions violate the spirit of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Three reverts still count as edit warring; four reverts will earn you a block. Your defences are rather lawyerly and disingenuous. Although there were never any responses to my posts here or at NPOVN, it still means there was no support for your position, and three or more editors still ranged against your continued reinsertion and disruption. Kindly desist. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• IG89, you need to read WP:CHUNK and understand to keep your statements short. There are angry and furious admins out there who might just block you for all your blabbering. They would unblock you maybe in short time, but a block log is bad. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have tried to keep my statements brief, while also addressing all the issues that were raised. A balance has to be kept between the two. My presentation (as a separate point / paragraph for each issue, rather than all mixed-up together) is to facilitate easier reading and understanding. You need not read it at all, if you consider it to be "blabbering". No one is forcing you to read it. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I will bet that no one is reading it as they have read it once elsewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Insisting on adding a section with 4 subsections on the "16th Lok Sabha" talk page, treating it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND by removing any attempts to collapse your article length section featuring copious graphs, tables and lengthy evaluations as to why you consider the addition of the content to be important, then challenging other editors to start the discussion all over again after consensus was reached on the "Indian general election, 2014" article talk page regarding the use of these allegations on any of the related articles is gaming the system. "You asked for "reasons given by other editors", etc. That should in fact be done by those "other editors" themselves."? We have already gone through this with you at length. Enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Would suggest topic ban or such covering articles related to the latest general elections and its subtopics. User is fairly new and shows no grasp of understanding policies. Let them edit other stuff elsewhere and in the process understand how we work. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I share your frustration, Dharmadhyaksha. Unfortunately, both occasions where an AN/I into Intelligentguy89's WP:TE have been opened, there has been a protracted, convoluted AN/I regarding other matters running concurrently. This is reinforcing Intelligentguy89's perception that his behaviour is acceptable. The previous AN/I saw only only one comment by The Bushranger observing that "More precisely: Frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry uncivil at best and are usually considered to be personal attacks." before it was archived without being actioned. I sincerely hope this doesn't get overlooked again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Ohconfucius summed it up well: "You were clearly watching the general election article, and you saw the consensus developing on that content. The view was that the information was mere news and was unencyclopaedic. Because of the fundamental principal that a person is innocent until proven guilty, those statistics are meaningless at best, and scandal-mongering at worst. That pretty much rules it out for all articles. I therefore see no need to restart the discussion for every article you decide to spam it to." I've looked at the material and completely agree. One form of it can be seen at User:Intelligentguy89/sandbox. EngineeringGuy, please move on now. If you continue to add this material or get brought back here for similar behavior, then a ban or block will be appropriate, but hopefully this can be avoided. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that if Intelligentguy89 doesn't drop the stick it's probably time for a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Multi-article edit-warring by Fallacies4

Fallacies4 has been edit-warring across multiple BLPs and against multiple editors for days now adding mock Golden Raspberry awards against consensus and against the recommendations of Wikiproject Film. For the relevant discussions/warnings please see the talkpage of this user. The admin action requested is a block of this editor to prevent further disruption. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

He seems somewhat reasonable on his talk page, but the edit warring continues unabated. Maybe there are communication issues due to his not being a native English speaker? It's possible that he simply doesn't understand the templated warnings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The templated warnings today came after the editor did not stop following a discussion with Ashanda, Coretheapple and Doniago between 8-11 June. These users had already requested him/her to stop at that time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What gets me is that, the issue of whether the awards should be added to biography articles aside, we made it clear that they should at least be sourced when added, and Fallacies seemed to understand that. Based on their recent contributions though, evidently they either do not understand or do not care. I think their Talk page makes this fairly clear, but diffs available upon request. DonIago (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Also they are still continuing with similar edits, after this ANI report was opened, adding unsourced Raspberry awards even as we speak. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Posted to their talk page asking for a reason not to block. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Doug! DonIago (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Doug. Let's just hope they respond to your fair question. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fallacies4 actually said he was going to stop at one point, but then he continued, even edit-warring about them. These mock awards are efforts to ridicule people. If they are discussed in RS sources, fine. But he kept adding them to "awards" lists without independent secondary sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many signs of trouble with this editor. Not only they are an SPA but they also add unsourced controversial material and edit-war across many BLP articles. On top of that they appear not to communicate well or show any signs of stopping. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

So here I'm. NinjaRobotPirate is right. I'm not a native English speaker, so that I don't undertand every detail that you write, but I understand your warnings or advices (somehow). Because of my generally English skills it is a little bit difficult for me to answer your "comments", so that I ignore the most of them. (Yes, I was/'m lazy and naive).

My impetus to add this awards, is not to ridicule people. The awards should show the bad performances in filmhistory.

My editings follow my german editings of this awards (Razzie Award = Goldene Himbeere)and on the german pages of people from the film branche, you do not need a secondary source or something like that. But if you want that I give you a secondary source to this awards, than I will do this in the next time (That mean that I will accept your rules yet).

But what I can not understand is, why did you always delete my editings and not the editings of the other edits of the Golden Raspberry Award without the secondary sourcing?

I hope you can excuse my English. When you can not understand one point of that you can ask me. I will not be offended.

Fallacies4 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure if there are edits by others concerning the Razzies that have not been removed, it was uninentional. I certainly have. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fallacies4: Please understand that there is wide agreement amongst editors that these awards should not be in the articles. If there are any other remaining they will eventually be removed. But that is irrelevant to the problems you are creating, because the idea is that these awards should be removed from the articles, not added to them. But the first step to solve the problems you are creating is for you to stop adding any more Raspberry awards anywhere. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

BjeliRabac

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:BjeliRabac is a user with a rather special view on the truth regarding the wars in Yugoslavia. Even an air engagement in which the NATO shoots down five Serbian war planes without own losses is according to him not a NATO Victory. His talk page shows a long list of warnings and AfDs. He is already blocked twice for disruptive editing. Tonight, he started again with a series of POV-edits on Template:Campaignbox Bosnian War, Operation Una and Operation Corridor 92. Using Twinkle I warned him about these edits, what according to BjeliRabac was rubbish and made me a a wanker and a cowardly troll. A more personal warning was followed by a threat of some kind. After another Twinkle-warning, this time for disruptive editing/insults. I then disengaged for a while and did other things. Coming back a few hours later, I found this POV-edit. Good enough to warrant a final warning, followed by an advice from BjeliRabac to burn in hell. Good, enough. And while writing this, BjeliRrabac produced a long list of edits almost each of them removing connections with war crimes or nazi-Germany.

Something needs to be done here before this completely goes out of hand. The Banner talk 02:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Nothing productive for you to do except blantly make false accusations against other users with less power than you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BjeliRabac (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how they're false? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 02:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

BjeliRrabac now on notice that discretionary sanctions are available on Balkans articles per WP:ARBMAC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Created plenty of work for others rolling back his POV editing on Yugoslavia in WWII articles, this really needs to be a final warning before an ARBMAC discretionary sanction. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd support some sort of sanction even without further misconduct because of the evident WP:BATTLEGROUND-violative mentality. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Peacemaker. An editor making such bold edits in sensitive controversial subjects with inability to discuss and making the kind of comments he gave to The Banner should definitelly be either one last time warned or sanctioned. FkpCascais (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The lack of NPOV is strong with this one. Looking back the last dozen or so edits, particularly those involving biographies, one can see the removal of categories which list the subjects in categories of less than favourable light. The editing revolves strongly around Serbian/Montenegrin articles and is indicative of the strong nationalist leanings that appear in these articles regularly. [181] diff is particularly revealing. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin undeleted an article

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.

---

Admin AntonioMartin silently undeleted Pop culture in Puerto Rico after @Slakr: delete it following an AFD. --damiens.rf 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

He was aware about the deletion discussion, but choose to ignore it and revert the final decision. --damiens.rf 05:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blatant misuse of admin tools (and apparent misunderstanding of consensus) - I fully support the warning given by Fut.Perf. The article should be re-deleted, and AntonioMartin should follow the appropriate procedure if he wishes to contest the deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Mmm. While I agree that the AfD probably should have been relisted, I don't think AntonioMartin was correct in unilaterally overturning the delete outcome on the grounds that there was no consensus. I see no evidence he took it up with the AfD closer (slakr) before restoring the article. This is all the more concerning because AntonioMartin created the article in question (way back in 2003). I feel pretty confident the outcome of this will be to relist the AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  Oh dear, a breach of WP:INVOLVED too. That makes it worse - it's a clear example of a bad-old-days admin misusing their powers to enforce their own preferred content. Whatever the merits of the case, an appeal to WP:DRV to request a relisting of the AfD is the way to dispute a deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's a rather outrageous misuse of admin tools. Maybe AntonioMartin, who apparently has been an admin since 2003 but has been making very infrequent use of the tools, is no longer quite up to speed when it comes to the expectations we have of the admin role, but he certainly should have known that he can't unilaterally override the outcome of a deletion process like this, least of all on an article to which he had himself contributed earlier, and certainly not in a case where he has a significant history of prior personal conflict with the nominator. He also should have known what the proper procedures are: go to WP:DRV, or request userfication and re-work the article until it meets the concerns raised at the AfD, before moving it back to mainspace. I would like to give Antonio a chance to rectify this himself when he comes online again; otherwise this action will certainly have to be reverted by one of us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Given User:AntonioMartin's infrequent use of the tools, I am going to assume good faith and presume that he wasn't aware that DRV now exists to challenge AFD closures if you're unhappy with them. I do agree though that he needs to reverse the restoration, otherwise the article is eligible for CSD G4. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

• • I agree that we should wait, but I also think that we aren't benefiting from him having the tools and that he should resign. He's never been an active Administrator and has been virtually inactive for years. DRV or not he should have know this was incorrect and asked what he should do. I very much doubt that he has the understanding to do the job now or that he would pass an RfA. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's probable AntonioMartin didn't know about DRV;(see my comment below: he knew or should have known about DRV no later than 2009) his comment in the restoration log refers to the "VfD" whereby the article was deleted. AfD hasn't been called VfD since late 2005. Antonio really doesn't seem to be using the tools for much of anything, and his adminship seems a relic of a bygone era. I concur with Dougweller that it may be time for Antonio to hand in his mop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  I ain't handing in my mop or anything else. One thing I learned as an amateur boxer is never quit. Those who ask for my resignation, why don't you resignate instead? Antonio El Miles Maravilla Martin (Aqui) 13:19, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

• Note I have deleted the article under G4. (Antonio apparently cannot do math either - nom plus 2 delete !votes = 3-1). the panda ₯’ 09:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  And the 1 against should be discounted anyway, because accusations of racism don't count as policy-compliant argument -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was going to say that...but I figured some smart person would say it instead the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Among his infrequent uses of the tools, this also comes up: [182]. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to be wary of judging old deletions and undeletions by modern standards - what happened there might have been fine by the standards of 2007-9. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeesh. So there's a pattern of silently undeleting articles he's created. I'm not sure, though, because it seems like the Milivi Adams article was deleted out of process (or at least without a particularly good log summary). There's no sign that Antonio contacted the admin who deleted the page prior to undeleting it (though he did wait a couple years). Oh, and thanks to this link to Milivi Adams, we now know that Antonio was on notice that DRV existed no later than 2009. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd just like to suggest a little patience, folks - Antonio doesn't appear to have been online since this report was made -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

3-1 is a majority IN VOTE, but should not be enough to be considered "consensus". Damiens deleted it instead of re listing it, as should have been done. Which is worse then, having deleted it without reaching consensus, or bringing it back where now it can be voted on again?Antonio Juice Baby Juice Martin (Aqui) 13:25, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate. This reply displays total cluelessness both about the situation of the article in question, and about the issues of admin policy we are discussing here. Definitely not competent to remain an administrator. Recommend Arbcom if he doesn't wisen up quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Antonio, why didn't you just use DRV if you felt there was no consensus to delete at AfD? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The first step would be to ask the editor who closed the AFD. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I'd be interested in Antonio's answer to why he didn't try to contact the deleting admin either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• A valid consensus is one that is consistent and repeatable, and a ratio of 3:1 may be but 3-1 is not enough - with one more editor (AntonioMartin) it can become 3-2 and no consensus. In this case maybe it was seen as 3-0 as the only AFD participant who supporting keeping the article was probably a sockpuppet and only there to to harass the nominator. If (as appears to be the case) this was undeleted without consulting the deleting admin and not relisted or renominated it would be out of process. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am always leery of these sorts of 'it might have gone another way with one more vote'-type arguments. We expect closing admins to approach an AfD discussion with some judgement, and to weigh the quality of arguments made instead of simply to count votes. In this case, we had three votes to delete from experienced editors who offered concise, reasonable arguments; and one vote to keep from a new editor of dubious provenance whose argument came down to declaring that the nominator is a racist.

Further to that, an admin reviewing an AfD discussion isn't ever compelled to close the discussion. If they read through a discussion and feel that an important point has been omitted, or not given sufficient hearing from the discussion's participants, that admin isn't obliged to close the AfD. They can relist, sure, or they can add to the discussion. If straight-up vote counting (particularly in a discussion with few participants) would force a result that an admin finds unconscionable, that admin always has the opportunity to present his or her own arguments and wait for another admin to make the closing call instead. In cases where the vote count is close, we permit admins to use their own judgement to make a determination; I would presume in such circumstances that the admin in such a case is adding their own tacit single vote in support of whichever close they opt for.

Finally, AntonioMartin – as the article's creator – was notified of the AfD on his talk page, on 21 May. The AfD wasn't closed until 6 June, during which time it was relisted once (on 28 May) for additional community input. During that eighteen-day window, AntonioMartin made more than a dozen other Wikipedia edits, spread across at least four separate sessions. He had plenty of opportunity to step up and be that 'one more vote'—or better, to improve the article (if possible). He failed to take advantage of either opportunity. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Antonio, the question isn't about your determination that it should be relisted, it is about your methods. Quietly and unilaterally reverting another admin acting in good faith is very problematic. And your "You can have my mop when you drag it out of my cold, dead hands" approach above is a bit disturbing, to be honest. It makes it look like you are more concerned about the hat than your own actions. This is why the community needs the ability to have a "confidence" vote with each admin every few years. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, a reconfirmation RFA or a community-led recall process - either would probably do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:AntonioMartin has refused to resign, saying that those (like me) who have suggested it should resign instead. This is a bit perplexing as he only uses his tools rarely while I'd say the rest of us do. My question to him is why he needs the tools and what does he plan to do with them? The last thing we need is administrators with tools who don't use them except when using the tools is to their benefit. I don't agree with "confidence votes" though as I think they won't be a benefit are are likely to lose us good administrators. There should be other ays of getting rid of poor ones (and are). Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And Antonio has unequivocally stated on his user talk that there are no circumstances under which he would voluntarily give up the mop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would I resign? I do one thing and you are saying I should resign. Never mind the other things I have done here for 11 years. I am very proud of my administratorship here and will act upon called to action. However, I prefer to just contribute. Does that mean I should "return my badge"? Antonio vLADIMIRRR! Martin (Aqui) 14:17, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

The admin bit has nothing to do with editing. If you can't use the admin bit wisely and within policy, if you can't admit a mistake or even recognize it, then yes, it would be better if you resigned the bit and just continued as a non-admin contributor. What you are doing now just makes life more stressful for active admin, and every day users, as it reinforces the negative stereotypes that admin endure as well as tells non-admin that you don't care about anything but the bit itself. That is not consistent with the goals here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Antonio, let me suggest what you should have done. Firstly, consensus is not a vote. Now, I agree that 3-1 is not ideal and more opinions would have been better. But it had been relisted once and had been running for two weeks - and an admin is entitled to close it as a delete if they think the !votes were based on good policy-based arguments. Of course, you are entitled to contest the closure and deletion if you wish - but not by unilaterally reverting the deletion! Your first move should have been to ask the deleting admin if they would reconsider their decision and relist the AfD. And if the answer was no, you should then have started a WP:DRV review to ask the community to overturn the decision and relist (and I think you would have had a good chance of getting it relisted). But you absolutely do not have the authority to unilaterally overturn an AfD outcome that you personally disagree with! Now, as a community we don't have the power to force you to a recall of your admin rights (which is a wrong, but that's the way it is), but if you cannot see what you did wrong and continue to insist you were right, this is likely to end up at ArbCom - and ArbCom is becoming less and less tolerant of admins who abuse their powers and refuse to listen to feedback from the community. How it goes now is largely up to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• As a nonadminstrator who sometimes monitors this page, I'm not shocked at all by what happened. Administrators have lifetime appointments, and lifetime appointments mean that the good get tenure and so do the bad. It happens with federal judges and it happens here. This confirms the impression many people have that administrators are not regular users with a "mop" but a class of super-users who are accountable to nobody. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have filed a formal request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AntonioMartin. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The RFC isn't properly certified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The RFC has been deleted because it wasn't properly certified. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct mentions deletion after 48 hours, but this appears to have been deleted after only 32 - is there another guideline that allows earlier deletion such as this? Peter James (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that even if there is an overwhelming consensus to remove the tools, only ArbCom can desysop an admin who is unwilling to give up the tools willingly. Tutelary (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorta true -- but the community can ban any user, even an admin, which would have the immediate effect of a desysop. Such an act, of course, would engender some controversy, and I mention it only as a hypothetical act. RfC/Us, of course, are not sufficient for such a community action, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Related to this, would an admin take a look at Red Burman and see if there are any attribution issues with the deleted version and the version that was created about 15 minutes later? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The only difference was adding a header for References.[183] It is a copyright violation. If it is notable, this can be corrected by undeleting the old material, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a copyright violation for a number of years. 3.5 to be exact. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, so do we do a G12 or just undelete the old page history? I'm thinking the latter, at least until we figure out what to do with the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • For the short term, nothing, but an undelete would be the normal course once all the dust from this settles. Then the history would just show him adding the subtitle line instead of creating the article, which is the correct interpretation of events. I'm curious what AntonioMartin has to say about this copyright infringement when it is the admin's job to enforce copyright policy, not blatantly violate it for their own benefit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Let's not exaggerate. The deleted edits in the history of Red Burman are by User:Marine 69-71, aka Tony the Marine. Antonio said he deleted them "by request", implying a valid CSD#G7. Tony and Antonio are father and son. I have no idea why Tony would have wanted to have his own edits hidden, but I have no difficulties assuming that it was all done by mutual consensus between them, and if Tony has no problem with his son taking the credit for a few of his edits, neither need we. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Calling it "exaggerating" is itself exaggerating as that is not remotely obvious from the logs. There was no way (that I have found) to tell the relationship unless you go to his page and read the one barnstars. It is still infringing, although obviously much less a concern as we can imply familial consent. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I actually noticed the connection as it had been mentioned at a past ANI thread involving both editors. At any rate, I still think it's a bit odd... I don't particularly care that editor A wants to give the credit for his edits to editor B (presuming that's what happened here: there's no real explanation). I mean, we can argue that it was effectively a valid G7 delete, but on the same note it's effectively a REVDEL (actually it's SELDEL, but I argue the effect is essentially the same). Even if not actionable, it's damn weird behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that AntonioMartin has kept a slow burning edit war on The Beatles alive by continually adding them to Category:English boy bands. ([184], [185], [186], [187], [188]) Edit warring on a featured article without using talk or good edit summaries is plain old disruptive, whoever does it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree that he messed up. You just do not go undeleting an article that was deleted regardless if it was justified or not. There are proper procedures to follow and I told him so. However, I do not think that his admin. powers should be stripped for his mistake. I told him to face and accept his mistakes and that if he wants to have the articles deletion revised then to re-list it. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  Those are wise words Tony, and I'm sure they'll be better accepted coming from you than from some strangers on the internet - I expect Antonio is feeling a bit down after being criticised right now, but having you there should help. He just made a mistake, and I also don't think he should lose his admin rights over it as long as he accepts it was a mistake and he won't do something similar again. Things have changed a lot since the old days, and I think it would be well worth it if he can update himself on the modern way of doing admin things - having a good read of our latest deletion policies, for example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I committed a mistake. It won't happen again. Antonio SureFire Martin (here) 23:35, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

"A" mistake? You apparently undeleted 2 things improperly, giving all admins a bad name ... and your attitude when it was brought to your attention was appalling, once again giving all admins a bad name ... and your piss-poor tit-for-tat ANI filing below was pathetically childish ... so, how many mistakes? the panda ₯’ 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that if Antonio will please make an effort to get up to speed on current accepted use of the tools. We need more active admin, particularly bilingual admin, but up to date admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Upon reflection, I'm good with one more chance given the surrounding circumstances. Antonio has been put on very clear notice that out-of-process deletions/restorations—especially where he or his father is the article creator, or there's such poor documentation as to create the appearance of impropriety (e.g., the WP:SELDEL situation mentioned above)—will likely result in a petition to ArbCom to desysop him. While the responsibility for Antonio's actions falls on his own shoulders, his adminship dates back to a bygone era (indeed, it seems to predate the existence of the 'crat system). Some accommodation is not unreasonable, but it should be well understood by now that there shouldn't be any more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Neuraxis blocked for legal threats

The community endorses an indefinite block of Neuraxis for posting indimidating comments and off-wiki libel. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

In the course of a ban discussion. [189] [190] IMO a pretty blatant attempt at legal intimidation of Doc James in the course of the discussion; note that legal threats against Doc James are a real thing that happens, not something idle. The block is indefinite but is not intended as infinite. Opinions? - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Intimidation? Absolutely, and it should result in a block because of the added harassment by referring to off-wiki matters of Doc's profession. Bright-line legal threat in the sense of WP:NLT? I'm not quite so sure. A legal threat, in my view, is a threat to institute legal proceedings. While the second diff comes close to threatening an action for defamation, the worst part of the first is the suggestion that Neuraxis has been engaged in off-wiki discussions with others about whether Doc could be subject to disciplinary action: the only "action" Neuraxis could take to cause this would be to make a complaint against Doc to a licensing board or similar, and any investigation or action that proceeded from that would be independent of Neuraxis. That's not a lawsuit. But I do think it's pretty severe harassment and indicates that Neuraxis is willing to engage in further harassment. What does this mean? I don't think a mere retraction of any "legal threat" by Neuraxis should be sufficient for an unblock to be granted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semantically, Neuraxis isn't the one bringing a legal threat to the table. Bringing off wiki matters into play onto wiki is a blatant attempt at intimidation and harassment. What is off wiki should stay off wiki. Good block Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement "Those comments could easily be construed as slander/libel and I'm going to give you the chance to retract them, in good faith" definitely qualifies as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a bright-line legal threat, but Neuraxis' comments were definitely intended to be inappropriate intimidation and mudslinging, dragging in external disputes in an attempt to gain leverage. Neuraxis' suggestion that another editor – a physician whose Wikipedia account is publicly tied to his real-life identity – is engaged in "professional misconduct" is at least as egregious an attack as the one that Neuraxis complains could be "slander/libel". Good block, and if not permanent should probably be lengthy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good block - The essential point behind WP:NLT is that an editor must not come anywhere near attempting to use real-life legal threats or intimidation to chill on-Wiki discussion. The diffs clearly show Neuraxis was attempting to do exactly that. Zad68 13:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse While not a direct threat, it is obvious that the intent was to chill discussion using intimidation that touched on "legal", enough so to warrant the block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. While I don't think we have a clearly defined policy like NLT regarding intimidation, we should. Threats which can impact an editor's real life and career should not be allowed. What happens at Wikipedia should stay at Wikipedia, and off-Wikipedia communications, plans, and schemings should never be allowed. Such threats can effectively chill a discussion and silence an opponent and are totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. This should be a safe place. Neuraxis, unlike Doc James, is an anonymous chiropractor who could suffer no harm in real life because of occurrences here, and yet he dared to threaten Doc James. That's beyond the pale. We can't allow it, and we really should have a policy against WP:Intimidation written up, which can be invoked instead of NLT, for cases like this. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good block threatening to take an action that could lead to real-life ramifications like this in order to "win" an on-wiki dispute is wholly unacceptable behaviour the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Please read this comment made by Neuraxis: When asked if I made legal threat I said no. Re: DJ, I never once said anything about making a legal threat, reporting someone to their college for possible misconduct is not a legal threat, it is the truth. And I did not say I would, although I private emails suggested that it may be an option.. I think Neuraxis' talk page access should be blocked. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• It's worthwhile noting that in WP:NLT's rationale for the policy, the first two items are:

• It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles.
• It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith.

These both clearly apply to any action which would tend to create a chilling effect on editing, so while intimidation does not have its own specific policy, the rationale given for disallowing legal threats should de facto apply to it as well - and my observation is that doing so is standard practice. BMK (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Some editors try to get off the hook by trying to narrow it to making an actual, tangible threat to sue. Wikipedia's definition is broader than that, as you've noted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Re: bobrayner, Sairp

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 are a couple of editors being extremely tendentious at the Rs/N thread on Russia Today Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today. In particular, this edit [191] and the series of edits by a new editor that the editor chose to delete after I questioned their motivations. I suspect that this editor may be a sock in light of the fact that they are a new account with an apparently well-developed knowledge of some Wikipedia practices.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You've posted two diffs by two editors. How does this become tendentious, much less "extremely"? Are you suggesting that Sairp is the sock of Bobrayner? Be careful of making WP:ASPERSIONS. – S. Rich (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, it might be helpful if you said why you think my edits are tendentious, but in the meantime, I think a boomerang may be inbound.

Ubikwit has been making up some pretty bizarre claims about how there's a Consensus to use a particular source and, alas, there are many rhetorical tricks used to wave off the many people who disagree with Ubikwit's Consensus - usually that opponents are biased and have some kind of anti-Russian agenda, and their comments are just arbitrary opinions. I'm quite surprised to learn that my own comments are invalid due to Ubikwit declaring that I have a POV on the Russian annexation of Crimea, because I have tried very hard to avoid that topic on en.wikipedia (I have enough work on my hands trying to deal with other controversies). Other editors have pleaded with Ubikwit to rein in this tendentious editing:

• User:Sayerslle: "its infamous ubikwit - how can you not be aware of this"
• User:Kmhkmh: ignoring policies and previous discussions
• User:Volunteer Marek: "That's an entirely bad faithed comment there Ubikwit. As you well know, I am neither a "newcomer" nor do I have an "anti-Russian" agenda. I would really really appreciate it if you stopped engaging in such personal attacks and pathetic attempts at poisoning the well"
• User:GRuban unhappy at being misrepresented.

And so on. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the RSN thread, and it looks like consensus is going against Ubikwit. The two diffs presented in the opening post are clearly unrelated to one another (timestamps about 5 hours apart), and are both examples of editors who initially replied negatively to Ubikwit, and then actually took back what they said. I don't see any reason to take admin action against people who have already retracted what they are accused of doing. I agree with bobrayner that Ubikwit has also spoken harshly in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) First, Ubikwit, the word "tendentious" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean "tenacious, but in a bad way". Second, you're accusing an established editor of socking. That's completely uncalled for and worthy of a WP:BOOMERANG. Third, this is par for the course for Ubikwit, who seems to suffer from a chronic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some kind of permanent WP:BATTLEGROUND death match mode, where anyone who disagrees with them is immediately attacked, dragged to drama boards (where Ubikwit's attacks are routinely dismissed), and other kinds of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It's exactly this behavior which has landed him in an going ArbCom case (if they ever actually finish it) and it does not seems to have chilled his hard-to-deal with behavior in the least bit. Boomerang it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can't be serious, can you? In case you need reminding, here was your first contribution to the thread, in full.

I agree with most editors above: We should avoid citing RT, and there is clearly no consensus to treat it as a reliable source. In the past, I've noticed that some editors want to cite RT because it diverges from what mainstream sources say on certain controversial topics, but that's exactly why we shouldn't cite it. We have enough NPOV trouble already; we don't need crap like this. bobrayner (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you "lied" about the "most editors above" point, you were obviously engaged in soapboxing, and in a manner aimed at denigrating my good-faith and valid comments because you were trying to facilitate you POV regarding the annexation of Crimea, apparently. How do you justify your egregiously uncivil and deceptive conduct?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop making wild and completely untrue accusations directed at other editors? It's beyond tiresome at this point. Bob didn't "lie" about anything. Nor did he "soapbox" - he made a good faith comment which addressed the issue. You're raving and annoying the living hell out of people. You're impossible to talk to. Everything with you is a "with me or against me!" WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and attitude. You waste a tremendous amount of other people's time who are forced to respond to your nonsense accusations or who get fooled into trying to reason with you. Frankly, you really have no business participating in a collaborative project, until you grow up a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have accidentally removed a link when quoting my comment. The link which explicitly said that RT was propaganda. Why? bobrayner (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Please specify precisely what you are referring to regarding "spoken harshly"?

@Bobrayner: It was you that introduced this source with the comment, "we don't need this kind of crap". So if your beef isn't with the representation of the annexation of Crimea, then what exactly were you commenting about in that thread?

From where I stand, it appears that you were you just being disruptive, joiing a couple of other POV pushers attempting to issue a blanket dismissal of RT as a reliable source, which is beyond the pale as far as WP:RS and WP:NPOV are concerned.

"If you claim that I "accidentally" removed one of your posts, then it was obviusly an accident, right? So why do you ask, "Why"?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile Ubikwit keeps on repeating the same old bullshit about me having some POV on Crimea (apparently POV means bias, and bias means that yet another person disagreeing with Ubikwit can be set aside). I have tried to avoid Crimea and I have no strong feelings on that particular issue. Does any other editor find it difficult to understand that when I point out problems with a source, it's because I think there are problems with the source? No ulterior motive required. Not, of course, that Crimea is relevant to a question of whether or not RT meets our criteria for reliable source. I am quite used to such spurious accusations; I try to improve a lot of other controversial topics, and it goes with the territory. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard should be for assessing whether or not a source is reliable, not for inventing a "consensus" out of thin air and then making up crap about anybody who points out problems with the source. bobrayner (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

[192], [193]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion: We have established that some editors are annoyed at one another. Perhaps it is time to close this thread and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of socking are serious - if Ubikwit does not have the strength of character to file an SPI on those whom he accuses here, then WP:BOOMERANG would be quite in order. I would note that I cited Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning the use of RT in that referenced discussion, and that Ubikwit seems a tad unwilling to accept what many experienced editors have stated in that discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bobrayner: Your crude language is a reflection of nothing but your crudeness.

You posted the article about RT on Crimea, editorial blah blah blah, not me! What was your point? Or were you just being pointy?

Morevover, you accused me of removing a link you posted above, but I did a little checking and don't see what you are talking about. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to grace us with a diff?

@Volunteer Marek: Need I dig out the bullshit you posted on a previous thread related to the same topic? I've already supplied it to Arbcom, so I might as well, eh Mr. "full of shit" [194]. Here is the earlier thread Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#Is_Voice_of_Russia_article_reliable_for_quotations_attributed_to_PM.3F. It's barely a month old, VM.

I haven't had the time to file an SPI, but maybe I will tomorrow.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:You have posted a couple of diffs accusing me of misconduct, but those diffs clearly state the relevant policies being violated in the discussion by the editors to whom I was responding. This is about an attempt by several ideologically motivated editors to have a blanket prohibition on the use of a source of the stature of RT issued on the RS/N board. Their conduct, severally and in combination, is tendentious and against core policies, and I brought the issue here because the situation was starting to get out of hand there with newcomers like User:bobrayner chiming in out of nowhere with diatribes about "crap" from RT on Crimea, etc., in a strictly diversionary and disruptive manner.

I should note that one of the disruptive editors (the SPI condidate, User:Sairp) chose to delete all of their comments, which included a number of I didn't hear that edits.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I am a sock of Okip: Please block me

Self-admitted sock and related accounts have been blocked. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive242#Okip_socking

Please block me, and the other four or five accounts I added the sockpuppet template too just now.

Before I went out (this time), I said my fuck you to User:Jclemens

Wholesomegood (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Wholesomegood. I'll leave it to someone else to block the other socks if they truly are socks.--v/r - TP 06:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything which is presently fresh for checkuser I've blocked. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User talk:183.219.58.106

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 Ip has so far added a warning template on my talkpage twice, first claiming ownership and then vandalism over at Bosnian War. The only edit I made to the page was an undoing of the warning IP's edit [195] which was undone by multiple editors before explaining why in the edit summaries. I asked for page protection and it was granted for the page. I would like this IP to stop placing these unwarranted warnings on my talkpage as I see it as a bit of harassment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also affected. [196] Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history [197] it seems that there is a pattern in the edits from the IP addresses. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sourced info was added to the article's infobox and was reverted multiple times with no reasonable explanation. Appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me because the changes were both verifiable and productive. These users were given multiple warnings about removing content, all of which were ignored flat out. Now, suddenly, I am the vandal. Before blocking anyone over this, can we please sort it out here? Thank you. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation by the IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse inappropriate removal of productive content though. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I also suspect this IP of socking (Now blocked) User talk:61.135.177.185 has made the same edits at Bosnian War. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See also the disruptive, bureaucratic policing and lack of understanding by other users here. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Its called a WP:CONSENSUS, I don't see anyplace where you have attempted to discuss this over at Talk:Bosnian War so I do not know what you are talking about when you say "I have offered to settle this on a talk page, but apparently, no one has thus far been interested". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Right here 183.219.58.106 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't see amy sort of consenus there. Lor^Chat 03:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you admitting to using that IP even though it was blocked? I do not see any relevant discussion either to your edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And More vandalism from this IP Lor^Chat 03:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have been removing improper use of non-free logos, which keeps getting reverted ([198], [199]). THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT INTERNATIONAL VERSIONS OF THIS SERIES. THIS LOGO IS FOR THE US VERSION ONLY AND DOESNT BELONG ON THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL VERSIONS. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, you'll find it's about all versions (U.S. included). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, my friend. Well well aware of it. But then why not have the logos for all the international versions on that page? The logos of each nation's version go on it's respective page, not the international one. That's how fair use works. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This is getting off topic now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As it stands right now, IP 183.219.58.106, should be blocked for personal attacks(accusation of sockpuppetry and vandalism)[200][201] directed at Praxis Icosahedron on his talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: It's not getting off topic when other users are engaging in similar behavior, which I am trying to revert. Is anyone even reading my comments? 183.219.58.106 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, here is another example of unjust content removal by another user not assuming good faith. What kind of edit summary is "??". That's absolutely not a reason to revert a constructive change.183.219.58.106 (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you think a use of a non-free image is not in compliance with our NFCC policy but others disagree, then make your case at Wikipedia:Non-free content review rather than edit warring as seems to be your wont. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, judging from the Bosnian War/Survivor edits, this is a sock of a blocked editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 36 hours for disruptive editing, impersonating an admin, excessive templating and other general jackholery. 37 Internets to NeilN for identifying the obviously related account, based on subject and geolocation. Zad68 03:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• ...upped to 3 months to match block applied to 61.135.177.185. Zad68 04:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Another sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Friends don't let friends edit whilst high

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.

---

Recently a script was written as part of VADA that allowe redirects to be taggged for what was thought to be G6.

However, Special:Contributions/Sfan00_IMG shows that I had G6 confused with F6... Result at least 500 mistags with the tool assisted editing.  :(

So some questions...

1. Hsve all the problem edits been contained?
2. Does User:Sfan00_IMG need blocking for lacking competence? (i.e I didn't notice this issue sooner.)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

So this is why we have Twinkle If you could give me the diffs i could fix it for you @Sfan00 IMG:. Its a easy but time consuming fix. and the deleting admin will likely go over it one more time and delete it anyway for F6. don't worry about it. Lor^Chat 00:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean G6. The confusion was why Stefan2 acted promptly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? are you talking about another editor or yourself? Lor^Chat 00:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion here: User talk:Sfan00 IMG#File:"Dr Laurence Kirwan.jpg".jpg. Some 400-500 file redirects were incorrectly tagged by Sfan00 IMG for deletion as having no fair use rationale. I have since reverted most of those, so Sfan00 IMG should have got hundreds of mw:Echo notifications. Since nothing dangerous happened, the Echo overflow is in my opinion enough punishment. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

So you have violated WP:3RR In Theroy that would be a little bit uncivil wouldn't it? There is other methods and i think you gone a little harsh.@Stefan2: ? Lor^Chat 00:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not quite bad enough for the WP:STOCKS, but since it can be somewhat easily fixed, I think it's ok to snicker a little ;) I would agree that 500 Echo notification is plenty punishment. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem was that Sfan00 IMG added some incorrect tags to a lot of files. When this was pointed out to him, both he and I started reverting his mistakes. All was already solved before he posted the section at ANI, and no admin action is needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely right, NO action is needed, nothing damaged. He didn't really have to bring it here, but I guess he was heading off anyone else doing the same, confused over the actions. We all make mistakes, and should have a sense of humor about it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What i'm wondering is what This button does. Lor^Chat 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:MosesM1017

MosesM1017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has added unsourced content to Wikipedia - again. There are multiple warnings on his talk page, including a final one. Nothing changed. The user does not react to his messages. Either he didn't see the messages or he ignored them. Either way, a block is needed.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would like others to take a look, but viewing stuff like this [202] and other similar edits, I see a clinical lack of clue here. I don't see anything malicious and not all the edits are bad...but I'm not sure how to phrase the problem. Maybe he's really young, or just not the type to pay attention to others around him. I can see how this is disruptive, and think that something does need to be done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Dennis Brown Although there do seem to be glaring WP:COMPETENCE issues, I've spotted some edits that look like intentional disruption to me. For example: here he inexplicably changes the subject's active date from 1988 (which appears in the article prose) to 1990, and changes the word "present" to "Presented". And how is Justin Bieber an associated act? The main intersection I could find between them on Google, had to do with gossip rags reporting that DJ Paul was telling Bieber to lay off the sizzurp. Here the user removed the sourced birth date and age data for some reason, then munged the OWOW reference by deleting the closing carat. Here they add confusing information that corrupts article formatting. Here the user inexplicably changed the Oakland Raiders season from 2014 to 2015. Here the user changed the George Lopez series end date to 2009, even though the List of... article says 2007. In this edit, we learn that Juicy J has released 10,000 EPs. In this edit the user added himself (Mo$e$) to the associated acts. (Remember the deleted article Mo$e$?) How is AC/DC an associated act of rapper Lil Wyte? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at some more, some of that might be auto correct as he edits via mobile, but not all of it. I had forgotten about Mo$e$ (deleted by me last week, admin eyes only) but that adds a lot of clarity as to who we are dealing with. If another admin thinks a block is appropriate, I would support. I still would like at least one other admin to review the deleted article and give an opinion, as I generally would on any borderline CIR case. From my experience, mentoring isn't usually successful in cases like this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown Here's another one from today: [203] User changes release date from February 4 to February 14. Although unsourced in article, the article says that the album was slated to be released on the 4th. iTunes shows a February 4th release date, as does Google Play, AllMusic and the artist's Twitter feed. I haven't been able to confirm the record label yet, but I've seen Select-O-Hits pop up a few times, including here. I'm out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've left a final warning. He always edits from phone, so not sure how well he is getting the notices, but that isn't our fault. It is disruptive at this point, particularly since he will not engage in discussion at all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted article and, based on that, I don't really foresee any constructive editing any time soon. Either WP:CIR or perhaps even WP:NOTHERE may apply. I would be inclined to support a block as well. Go Phightins! 19:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I see MosesM1017 has been blocked for 48 hours, with the last edit being this on Dennis' user page. This looks like somebody who is having a technical problem communicating and working within policies, and I'm prepared to AGF that this was simply an attempt to try and communicate with Dennis that just didn't work. Editing on a mobile, especially where there's a requirement to correctly and accurately cite sources, is actually quite difficult. Still, disruptive is disruptive - it's just regrettable in this instance. I predict he will either a) slink off and never be heard of again, b) come back, carry on as before and get indeffed or c) sock. Time will tell which happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Neuraxis previously known as User:DVMt

Per consensus of the community of editors Neuraxis has been banned from editing any pages at the English Wikipedia including his user talk page. He may, however, file appeals by email to arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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.

---

We have a number of examples of this user personalizing discussions and attempting to divide the editors in this topic area into two camps. They were also made aware of behavioral expectations on May 8th,2014 [204]

In this edit from May 13th, 2014 they state

1. "your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this [205]" were the page linked to is "Profile of the Sociopath"
2. "you again point to Ernst, which is outlandish behaviour as you admitted to being in contact with him (COI and meat puppetry, possibly) but he is representing the fringe opinion" however speaking with an expert is neither a COI nor meat puppetry. And Ernst is a well known and well published expert with much mainstream support.
3. "You, and other enablers, including an admin, have deliberately stymied any discussion that centres on the current practice characteristics of the profession". Those of us who disagree with some of his positions are not "enablers" and there is no evidence we have "deliberately stymied" anything. I have mentioned that he should try a RfC to get broader input on some of the questions at hand.

In this edit from May 16th, 2014 he makes the accusation of "engaging in stalking behaviour and posting bogus tags." without providing any diffs.

More current issues include this comment from June 6th,2014 were he writes " Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature". Concern regarding this comment was raised here on his talk page where his reply was "That's not an attack but a request that he please abide standard WP policy and to assert facts not opinions. Brangifer made a claim, I rebutted it" and "I do want to note, however, that the point I made was legitimate".

These are ongoing issues with this users editing. They were indefinitely blocked on May 24th,2014 by User:Kww for the continuation of previous issues and were unblocked by User:Adjwilley on June 2nd,2014. A previous block in April of 2013 was for sock puppetry.[206] and the one before that was for edit warring. Please note that I edit in this topic area as it falls partly under medicine and thus would be involved. In light of this I am of the opinion that a indefinate topic ban of User:Neuraxis is warranted. User was informed of the ANI discussion here [207] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am away for the evening for a family engagement. Although I don't currently have the time for a proper rebuttal, I would like to present some contextual evidence. My discussions were with QuackGuru who is a long known problem editor. He was blocked last week [208] and there has been ensuing conversations about potentially topic banning QG [209]. I wrote a min-essay about my experience [210]. Doc James seemingly gives QG unconditional support which may or not be related to a conflict of interest [211]. QuackGuru has edited Doc James' biography and removed any content related to his real life controversies. I was concerned about a retaliatory measures by a high powered admin, so I began collecting diffs [212] about questionable edits with Doc James' with respect to Chiropractic and related subjects. What I see is a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental issues regarding in how the page is edited [213]. I am also presenting evidence that supports the notion of 'scientific chiropractic exists and is the mainstream within the profession [214] , [215]. You can see from my contributions that I am in no way destabilizing any article relating to the topic in question. A topic ban is basically an attempt to censor a conversation that has been occurring elsewhere [216] surrounding the debate of mainstream vs. fringe. In short, this is who I am [217]. Dogmatic skepticism here at WP always tries to polarize the debate. At the top of this ANI, Doc James asserts that I am 'attempting to divide the editors in this topic area into two camps." That is not true. I am asking simply "Are the use of manual and manipulative therapies for MSK disorders fringe or mainstream". I have provided evidence to support such a view, and there seems to be some cognitive dissonance and conflation going on with some editors who have a radicalized stance on this issue. Neuraxis (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis has two agendas, but only mentions one above, which is "simply" his

• minor agenda. He "simply" asks: "Are the use of manual and manipulative therapies for MSK disorders fringe or mainstream"? Well, if that was all he was "simply" asking, then why is he doing it in the context of a controversial article like Chiropractic, and also Chiropractic controversy and criticism, one which he wants to delete? If his intentions were peaceful and "simple", he would be sticking to peaceful articles like Manual therapy and Joint manipulation, where his concerns are dealt with.

His choice of articles belies his claim and makes plain his real

• primary agenda, to advance "scientific chiropractic"[218] (the same agenda advocated by the indef blocked User:CorticoSpinal, also a Canadian chiropractor editing from the same area).

We're looking at a backdoor attempt to push the primary agenda, and not a "simply asking" about the minor agenda. His choice of articles indicates he wants to do battle in an attempt to whitewash the articles and portray chiropractic as no longer a controversial profession which still has issues with fringe elements and unscientific ideas, but as an uncontroversial mainstream profession. Sorry, but there is still plenty of controversy and opposition found in RS which document existing problems.

If he really wished to do as he claimed with the minor agenda above, he would have chosen peaceful articles, like the ones I have mentioned (where his concerns are already settled). They would be directly on-topic to that minor agenda. The ones he has chosen are only tangential to that minor agenda, but directly related to his primary agenda, which is rather disconcerting and creates unnecessary disruption.

He's carrying on this campaign with the same wordings, tenacity, combativeness, and tactics as the indef blocked User:CorticoSpinal, and I have advised him to "avoid the same mistakes" by finding "different and better arguments if you're going to fare any better at improving these articles." CorticoSpinal was blocked for socking and doing lots of things that really wasted our time, and the same is happening again. We don't need a rehash of the same failed issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a radicalized stance to recognize that Neuraxis's goal is to distort Wikipedia's presentation of chiropractic topics by deemphasising the history and foundation of chiropractic medicine in favor of the small subset of the practice that has some legitimacy: he outlined his plan to do so here. His previous editing history at acupuncture related topics makes it abundantly clear that he is not here to improve the encyclopedia in any way.—Kww(talk) 23:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe Kww misreads that diff; Neuraxis says his aim is to represent the evidence base properly, and he adds that he's seeking mentorship on WP:PAG. Re acupuncture: Neuraxis has no more than 14 mainspace edits since Nov. 2011, and has used the talk page more than mainspace (24 edits), and imo constructively. This most recent edit was good apart from an inadequate source, and he didn't revert when the source was removed. (Also note that Kww was involved in a recent episode over a block of Neuraxis; I don't know the details, but see the block log.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Relatedly, Neuraxis has also twice attempted to remove critical views of osteopathic manipulative treatment reported in the lede of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, and is arguing for removal of these critical views on that article's Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

To some editors, criticism of alt-med is a one-way ratchet: there can never be too much, and anyone who thinks it's excessive must be an alt-med apologist. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 13:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, no. You're telling half truths. See the discussion at the talk page [219]. I'm asking whether or not it's an over-reach as seen in this discussion here [220]. Not providing context and outright lying about removing things entirely vs. over-reach are apples and oranges. Neuraxis (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neuraxis -- Comments like that show that you do need to turn down the rhetorical heat. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• This deletion discussion and this newly created alternative draft as well as this one may be relevant to this discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note: there is a pre-existing disagreement between Neuraxis and Doc James, cf. User_talk:Neuraxis#Conflict_of_Interest, in which the former has expressed concern about the latter's neutrality regarding the conduct of a third editor. (Note re context: The opening sentence, annoted, would read: "His (QuackGuru's) special relationship with a high-rank med admin (Doc James) seems to be a conflict". Additionally, I also commented on that discussion.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Middle_8&oldid=611487841#Mutual_puffery Middle8 is misusing his talk page to rant about bogus COI allegations. Is this acceptable behaviour? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#Outside_view_by_Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed_six_month_topic_ban_of_User:Middle_8_and_User:Mallexikon for previous problems involving Middle8. Middle8 is well aware of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the first post by Doc James above, this seems to be a request to have Neuraxis topic banned. That being the case, I have added a section below for specific discussion of such a ban, as well as other possibilities. I leave the section open for @Doc James: to provide the definition of the exact scope of the ban. Based on my own review of the contribution history of the editor in question, based on the current discussion at ArbCom clarification and enforcement, I find in the history of the editor since November 2011, including some 2000-2500 total edits, only less than 10 article and article talk page edits which do not relate directly to alternative medicine in some form, including acupuncture and chiropractic, and on that basis have some question whether there would be any particular purpose to banning this editor from the topic of alternative medicine only, as it seems to be virtually the only thing they have ever shown any interest in. I have also added a section for mandated external review, which would mean that Neuraxis would have to propose any changes on the article talk page first and receive approval from an uninvolved administrator before making them to the page, if anyone thinks that would be their preferred method to deal with this situation. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your proposal, John Carter. So far, administrator DocJames has provided only one diff showing that Neuraxis is calling another editor a sociopath. I highly disapprove of any name callings in Wikipedia, and I think Neuraxis owes an apology. Reason for topic ban (!), certainly not. I don't see any connection between name calling and alt-med articles. If someone figures out such a connection, please let me know. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Neuraxis is well aware of the sanctions.

Neuraxis claims there is a Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers. IMO this was unconstructive and a waste of time. The lede does summarise the body. See Talk:Acupuncture#Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers.

Neuraxis wants to replace the current lede with text that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#New Lede Proposal.

Neuraxis edited my previous comment to add a space that broke the link.

Neuraxis wants to make significant changes chiropractic page but it seems this was a previously resolved dispute.

Neuraxis said Rather than individually deal with this individual, it might be better to work in conjunction to help prevent in what I see is sociopathic behaviour which ruins the experience of helping WP achieve its goal of being a reliable and credible source for medically related topics. Neuraxis also said later at the chiropractic talk page I've tried in good faith with you here, but your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this [221].[222] The link posted by Neuraxis[223] takes you to the website Profile of the Sociopath. Neuraxis accused me of "engaging in stalking behaviour and posting bogus tags.[224] Neuraxis said "Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature"[225]. This is uncivil behaviour and seems like an attempt to provoke me.

Neuraxis previously stated the copyvio allegation was resolved by changing a few words. This was the same sentence that was in his sandbox that is currently in mainspace. I spotted the possible copyvio again and discussed it on the talk page. I said There was consensus at the chiropractic page it was a copyvio for the same text. The text should at least be in quotation marks but quotes do not have an encyclopedic feel. He claims I was the only editor insisting there is a copyvio. I provided evidence from a previous discussion there are concerns it was actually a copyvio. Rather than try to rewrite the text he accused me of: I see you're coming out to battle (again).

I asked for verification for the claim "chiropractic medicine". But no verification was provided and my comment about the possible original research was repeatedly ignored. See Talk:Chiropractor#Lede changes.

I requested for Neuraxis to show where was the consensus to restore the Doctors of Chiropractic page in 2013. Without consensus the page was restored. But the previous discussion resulted in consensus to merge back in 2009. An editor tried to restore the page but he reverted his own edit back to the consensus version. Without providing evidence, he claims con has changed. I asked again for evidence where was the con.

The text is sourced[226] using the newer 2008 source but Neuraxis claims the text is original research.

Neuraxis attempts to persuade User:John Carter by using a primary source but that was the same source that he was trying to restore to the chiropractic page without consensus. There was no consensus to restore the tag to the top of the chiropractic page but Neuraxis decided to add a tag to the chiropractic again. The tag seems like a badge of shame. Neuraxis thinks secondary sources are not required for non-medical claims but User:Jmh649 told him to resolve the dispute to use secondary sources.

Neuraxis calls me Quack[227]. This appears to be Déjà vu[228] again per WP:DUCK. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)(Note: In the past Neuraxis attempted to whitewash the chiropractic page. The entire Safety section was deleted against broad consensus. What could possibly be the explanation for such radical changes? QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC))

Yes, my stated opinion was there there is bias. Since when do we allow one anti-CAM researcher and his minions to define that all of CAM is pseudoscientific? Skeptics don't own the definitions of the science of CAM. I was also discussing how there is a non-traditional view/practice of acu as stated in this cochrane review A westernised medical application of acupuncture involves the use of acupuncture using trigger points, segmental points and commonly used formula points. Medical acupuncture may involve the application of acupuncture based on the principles of neurophysiology and anatomy, rather than TCM principles and philosophy.. Thus, labelling the entire practice of acu 'pseudoscientific'. Alternative medical theorem would be better. [229] QG, you made the claim that I was introduced OR, but asides from the accusation, but provided no evidence that the new sources were OR. I was not aware this occurred, was not my intent, and I apologize for breaking a link. No, what the diff states clearly, was that I wanted to wait for outside opinions before there were any significant changes. This diff provides strong evidence of not wanting to make significant changes until there was consensus and discussion. And, to date, there have been no significant changes made to the article, other than yours [230]. QG, there are a list of 14 editors here [231], who have problems with your editing behaviour in 2014 alone. Here is a direct thread another editing who was going to snap dealing with the very same issues I and many, many, others have dealt with you. You're the common thread in all these discussions [232] in all these debates. You did misrepresent the literature making error riddled changes to EC [233] which was why you were blocked. No, there was disagreement whether or not quotation marks should be used and MelanieN stated she didn't feel it was a copyvio as per this discussion [234] I did provide verification [235]. We did discuss it, and it was supported that a rename of the article was preferred [236] and the previous discussion regarding the consensus that was established prior to that to not move DoC to chiro ed [237]. There was no CON; 2 editors disagreed with this, and I had provided evidence in Archive 37 where the imbalance was. Also, there was disagreement over DJ's narrow perception of use of primary sources by User:FergusM1970 here [238]. So, again, I was not alone in my concerns. Quack is short for QuackGuru. You're reading too much into that. The accusation of a white-wash was claimed, and as I stated ad nauseum, I am not attempting to white-wash anything. The safety section was not deleted at all. The diffs show this as well. Neuraxis (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There are currently problems at the chiropractor page. It does not seem like your are collaborating at the talk page. I don't like to have to repeat myself. Verification has not been provided for Chiropractors practice "chiropractic medicine". The part chiropractic medicine may be WP:OR. Have you ignored my repeated request for verification? QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed that unsourced OR wording per my comments on the talk page. Since this is getting too far off-topic, we need to get back on-topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Jayaguru-Shishya

In my personal experience, user Neuraxis has been the reconciliating party trying to settle the disputes. He has always discussed his edits at the article Talk Page and seeked for a compromise with well-grounded arguments and source material to support his views.

First, I'd like to reply to the allegations made by DocJames (19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)):

1. Seems pretty inappropriate behaviour to me, and I think Neuraxis owes an apology. A reason for topic ban? No, not certainly.
2. This one is pertaining to QuackGuru, am I right? So what was QuackGuru's answer? Otherwise, what on earth has this to do with personal attacks? QuackGuru's private email correspondence is of no interest in Wikipedia, no matter whether concerning scientific editors or his personal love life.
3. Where is the personal attack? Providing diffs could be a good start.

As far as I can see, only one of the aforementioned can be understood as personal attack. Implying that one is a sociopath certainly isn't appropriate, but proposing a topic ban for it (!) demonstrates total lack of sense of proportionality. Seriously, how can you pull the strings together between calling one a sociopath and a topic ban? An admin would be expected to have high sense of discretion.

DocJames, you also brought up in your post (19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)) comments, such as "Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature". So where is the personal attack here? If he phrased it differently, like "I think you are misinterpreting the literature in a similar fashion that QuackGuru did, and therfore I'd like to suggest...", would it be better? Not commenting the disupte between Neuraxis and Brangifer behind that (whatever it is), I don't really get where is the personal attack. Down to this point, only one personal attack has been demonstrated.

@Doc James:, you also said (19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)) that: "These are ongoing issues with this users editing." If you have something to complaints DocJames, please provide the specific diffs that you disagree with the editing of Neuraxis and discuss it; do not complain about his behaviour. That's what you said in a thread concerning the disruptive editing by QuackGuru at traditional Chinese Medicine, the diff here[239]. Are you applying a different rule on different editors? That was not a rhetoric question and I will be waiting for an answer.

Brangifer (23:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)) said that:

We're looking at a backdoor attempt to push the primary agenda, and not a "simply asking" about the minor agenda. His choice of articles indicates he wants to do battle in an attempt to whitewash the articles and portray chiropractic as no longer a controversial profession which still has issues with fringe elements and unscientific ideas, but as an uncontroversial mainstream profession. Sorry, but there is still plenty of controversy and opposition found in RS which document existing problems.

I have to quite disagree with this one. Like I mentioned befofe, Neuraxis always supports his claims with proper sources and discusses the proposed changes at the article Talk Page before making any edits. I haven't noticed any attempts to deny the fact that chiropractic still remains controversial in many ways: what I have seen is Neuraxis trying to point out that there has been given an undue weight to one thing over another in the article (like 90% of chiropractic patients are for musculoskeletal disorders, or something like that)

I couldn't see any diffs to support the alleged claim of so called whitewashing. Therefore, such ungrounded claims should not be taken into account. So far, the only personal attack Neuraxis is guilty of, is implying that one is a sociopath.

Kww, you said that (23:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)):

It's not a radicalized stance to recognize that Neuraxis's goal is to distort Wikipedia's presentation of chiropractic topics by deemphasising the history and foundation of chiropractic medicine in favor of the small subset of the practice that has some legitimacy: he outlined his plan to do so here.

Could you please address that in which part in particular Neuraxis declared his "plan" for some sort of advocacy? I couldn't find it from the diff you gave. All I could find was Neuraxis telling open and honest his connection to chiropractic. Considering that you are an administrator, I expect you to be familiar with Wikipedia:Advocacy#Experience and expertise, Wikipedia:No paid advocacy#Subject-matter experts, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#External relationships; primary and secondary roles. Are you implying that Neuraxis is a paid advocate, or why the diff?

Annie Delong stated (15:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)) that: "This deletion discussion and this newly created alternative draft as well as this one may be relevant to this discussion". Where are the supposed personal attacks? Off-topic remarks, to be disregarded. So far, only one personal attack brought up.

QuackGuru said (19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)):

The lede does summarise the body.

There is no such WP policy. Besides, how is that a personal attack? You are getting distracted from the topic again.

Conclusion

All in all, after this lenghty ANI where only one diff has been provided by DocJames to support his allegations, the totally distracted off-topic comments by couple of users like Anne Delong and QuackGuru who support this ANI, the fact that DocJames doesn't agree with Neuraxis does not qualify as a reason to topic ban anyone. Pulling the strings between "calling a sociopath" and a topic ban is very amusing. Considering that DocJames is an administrator, he should certainly know better.

It seems obvious that admnistrator DocJames is on a spree agains Neuraxis because of the the thread on his talk page (Conflict of Interest where the unique relationship between user QuackGuru and administrator DocJames is examined.

This ANI is not about anybody's behaviour, but about the alleged personal attack. If somebody wants to open another ANI about the behaviour of Neuraxis, one if free to do it. I doubt there would be anobody doing that, especially when considering the countless incidents concerning QuackGuru. Those don't serve as a very good precedent or a solid ground for such. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposed site ban of Neuraxis

• Comment - Of the three options, and given the nature of Neuraxis' edit history as I posted at ARCA and again here, although I am not yet sure that I actually support any sanctions on this editor, this option seems both the least restrictive, given Neuraxis' status as a virtual SPA, and least problematic to implement. I also note the editor's extreme fondness for what seem to me to be attempts to overwhelm discussion and possible disagreement on my own user talk page and at WP:ARCA. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes as they only edit alt-med a site ban may be best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On what basis, exactly, are you deciding this on? There's been allegations (suspicions) raised, but I see a double standard taking place. I have not done anything to destabilize any article at any point, yet I'm being treated like a heretic for trying to present the middle road. I've been mischaracterized as a fringe-alt med pusher when all I am doing is presenting research on the topic that disputes some of the current status quo. More perplexingly, we are trying to site ban me when we are ignoring what bigger problem is: QuackGuru. His block log and his indef banning from alt-med articles has done nothing to change his editing behaviour. In fact, if we look at the diffs you can see that this very year there was an investigation about ownership regarding QG and chiropractic. Despite after promising to improve his behaviour [240] and stop editing chiropractic [241] he continued to do so, he has 50% of the edits alone in 2014 to chiropractic[242], and even stated that he shaped the article from top to bottom [[243]. He has misled editors continuously about reforming his behaviour [ [244] and continued to be disruptive [245] Despite asking him several times to engage in talk, there were repeated attempts of not listening [246], [247],[248], [249], [250], [251], [252]His chiropractic article [[253] has become unreadable [254], while he continues self-congratulates himself claiming the article is just peachy [255]. He even implies that he may be Edzard Ernst [256] He continues to bait by stating "very few editors can write such an impressive well sourced article. It looks like it was written by an expert like Ersnt himself.. [257]. This seems very bizarre to me. With so many different editors experiencing the same problems with Quack, past and present, it's clear that despite repeated blocks, and a yearlong topic ban hasn't changed anything. And yet, here I am in the cross-hairs but trying to clarify something with @John Carter: then made a slew of 'suspicions' that I was trying to overwhelm arbcom. The evidence I presented was overwhelming, in the fact that it described a scientific approach to modern practice. John felt I was trying to circumvent the proper channels by discussing what I felt was an error in the perception of the case. The allegation that I was trying to get a source into the article that had been "rejected" is nonsense. After all, I was asked to provide data where I came up with the statistics that I was quoting. Also, my user analysis [258] shows a very different picture than John is presenting. First, you'll note that 75% of my edits are related to talks. What this demonstrates is that I am discussing the subjects and trying to learn about where bottlenecks are in the debates, learn more about policy, etc. So far, I have seen no one attempt to reach out and try to sort through the facts, merely treating me like a second class wikipedian where I am presumed guilty until proven innocent. @MelanieN: who describes herself as a neutral party, has been around for the shenanigans which occurred at Chiropractor and would be best to comment on the discussions on the talk page. In short, I have not seen anyone at the alt-med pages who are critical offer me any good faith and are always accusing me of having ulterior motives. I have done my utmost to be transparent about the issues, have suggested DN and RfCs when discussions have bogged down and have been smeared by these accusations and more of the same with me being vindicated that I was a meat and sock puppet. Whereas I admit I had made some mistakes in judgment in 2013, after a self-imposed year long wikibreak, I came back with lessons being learned and discussing things. Every single editor here (save Middle 8) is skeptic/cynic so I am not going to win a popularity contest. I simply ask that you look at my actions, vs. QuackGuru's and tell me how they stack up. I am at a loss how I am labelled a SPA when the rules clearly state that editing a broad topic (like spiders) isn't considered SPA [259]. Also, I'm sure that Adjwilley or LeProf 7272 and perhaps WhatamIdoing have some comments to make as I have interacted with them as well on these topics. Neuraxis (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment since I was pinged: I have no opinion or recommendation about any of the personalities here, and I have no brief for or against chiropractic. I have been following a couple of articles related to chiropractic for the past year or so, simply because I stumbled upon them as sites where edit-warring was going on (specifically, repeated blanking of one article and redirecting it to another; I was able to stop that a year ago, and had to stop it again when it recurred last month). I occasionally weigh in on a dispute or clean up a mess at the article. My only goal is maintaining Wikipedia's integrity, specifically Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. That means that I sometimes agree with one party, sometimes with another. But I don't know the users' history, I was unaware of this discussion until now, and I will have no recommendation here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: can probably come up with specifics better than I can, and I am pinging to provide specifics. Also, Neuraxis, if at all possible, and I realize this may be hard for a person who is apparently even more of a wall-of-words editor than I am, could you try to cut back the length of comments to something remotely reasonable? Some of the details put forward in the above section deal with the complaints against you. It's a long read, of course, but I have to assume you of all people have no good reasons to object to having to take some time to read the comments of others. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Providing context to my defense, which takes time to explain is not remotely reasonable. Then you ask an editor who I have professional disagreements and who others, including myself, have shown great bias in defending the chronic problem, QG, to be involved. I provide you evidence that shows genuine and long-standing edit warring, ownership and disruption and the chiropractic page, twice, and has already had a topic ban, and not a single word. I asked for diffs in my case, none are provided that shows any pattern of disruptive editing meriting a topic ban. You will forgive me if I think this whole process has jumped the shark. I am away until Sunday so I will not be able to respond until then. Neuraxis (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You also apparently as per your first post refuse to read the comments of others in the section above before starting yet another of your wall-of-words comments, similar to those I have recently been subjected to on my user talk page and ArbCom was subjected to at WP:ARCA. You seem to be incapable of differentiating between posting excessively long statements with comparatively little support and providing defense. You also seem to have jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that I myself had actually expressed an opinion on way or another yet, which seems to continue a bit of a tendency to paranoic refusal to abide by WP:AGF. The primary cause for action against you, so far as I can see, is that you are for all purposes apparently a single purpose account as per WP:SPA in a dubiously-respected pseudoscientific field, chiropractic, in which you seem to have a profressional degree, which, if true, raises extremely serious conflict of interest as per WP:COI issues. The wall-of-words comments on article talk pages and elsewhere could, presumably, not unreasonably qualify as soapboxing as per WP:SOAPBOX, and perhaps as an attempt to cast the community in a bad light, and oneself in a good light, in some sort of violation of WP:GAME. All that taken together could lead to real questions as to whether or not you are actually here to build an encyclopedia, as per WP:NOTHERE. There are may also be questions whether you may have exhausted the patience of the community, I don't know. Like I said above, which you seem not to have read, I have myself made no decision regarding this matter, although your comments above seem to indicate that you in your ongoing distrust of others didn't bother to read them. The comments here are simply my attempt to state what seem to me to be the most likely reasons to request sanctions. As I said in my first comment in the discussion, I added these sections primarily to indicate the available options. In doing so, unfortunately, I omitted a section on discretionary sanctions, and will add such a section below. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Or WP:LAWYERING perhaps? ^^ Could you please stick to this WP:ANI's topic: personal attacks? Thanks.

I did read the comments above, and because I am not allowed to explain myself, or, when I do I am accused of overwhelming and now with more wiki-lawyering. I am not soapboxing, I am here to build an encyclopedia, I do not have any conflict of interests, I am not gaming anyone or anything. The patience of the community? Based on 5 skeptics who are targeting me? You are well aware that you are to comment on the contribution and not the contributor and ever since i tried to clarify thing with you on your talk page you've not focused on my edits whatsoever or provided any sort of evidence that would merit a topic ban and instead have lobbed 'suspicions' that so far are a) not assuming good faith b) gaming the community, c) being a SPA, d) deserving a topic ban e) trying to be duplicitous and f) soapboxing. Do you know what it's like to be accused of something you didn't do? Do you realize even he allegations of such will stick to me permanently? Doc James has been called out [260], [261] for his relationship with QuackGuru by several others, so it's not a matter if me not assuming good faith, but rather being treated like a second class wikipedian by those who happen to disagree with his viewpoint. Alexbrn, Brangifer, QG are all cynics, so I am not surprised to see the pile on to shun me away from discussing the issues that are related to MM. So, based on precedence, where is the evidence that suggests I warrant a topic ban or any other sanction asides from opinions. I think that this process would be a lot easier for me to understand if there was a legitimate case build and we can compare and contrast. Regarding the SPA, I directly addressed that with you and I have heard of no rebuttal. A broad topic like MM covers a lot of topics, including chiro. But, I will make a proposal. I will voluntarily withdraw from editing any chiropractic article for 30 days and focus on other articles. I would like to be assigned a mentor, and I would like there to be a series of uninvolved admins to supervise any chiropractic-related article. Adjwilley, for instance, would be someone that seems very reasonable. I think that this discussion would be more proactive if we could negotiate in this regard. I am open to ideas. Ok, I am heading away now, work is done. Also, I do have email, so if anyone wants to communicate with me can email and I will check on my cell phone. A good weekend to all. Neuraxis (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the rather regretable "I'm a martyr" dramah queen attitude please. The wiki-lawyering doesn't help either. You might also try to get some basic grasp of the rules of the administrators noticeboards, something you apparently lack, as these pages are supposed to be about dealing with problematic behavior. I still have not made a decision, but, honestly, the hysterics, irrational allegations, and general attitude displayed above would make virtually anybody question whether you are capable of behaving in accord with guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So now we're onto the ad hominems. You should know better, John. But given the escalation here, I'm not too surprised. it seems other users have seen this playbook before [262]. I've asked you several questions which you ignored, and whereas my allegations are irrational, despite providing diffs, you are free to make some against me, with no evidence. Now you're canvassing Doc James for diffs [263]. Again, on what grounds are you proposing a topic ban or an indef block and how come the same standard has not been applied to QuackGuru? I've made a proposal above which you ignored and I am trying to be constructive here. No one is infallable, and I daresay that your attitude towards me is now bordering on outright hostility. I would please ask that you take a step back, and focus on providing diffs and evidence for the allegations you're making against me. You know, comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Let the diffs prove or refute your assertion(s). I can appreciate constructive criticism, but I don't really see anything constructive in this dialogue. Neuraxis (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis, you once again demonstrate that you have not in fact read the early section of this thread. If you had you would have seen that it was DocJames who proposed a topic ban and I only pointed out that in your case a topic ban would be fundamentally the same as a site ban. Thank you for demonstrating once again that you pay little attention if any to the comments made by others. And honestly your rather vapid repetition of insisting that others comment on the contributions not the contributor provides serious indirect evidence of your having no understanding of the nature of noticeboards which under the circumstances could be seen as raising serious questions regarding competence in general. You indicate in your last post above I believe either a wilfull or incompetent misrepresentation of my asking Doc James who first proposed sanctions against you to provide the evidence to support them. To my eyes, doing so seems to continue the hysterical behavior which seems to be exhibited by you any time you are questioned or challenged. And frankly as you have before the last comment above already twice in this discussion indicated you would not contribute more you seem to be displaying a profound inability to even predict your own behavior, and also what some might see as a bit of a devotion to arguably nonconstructive edits. Given the behavior from you which I have seen from you since I was first exposed to you, including your comments on my user talk page, that really shouldn't surprise me. Also please respond to the matter raised by QuackGuru below. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And honestly your rather vapid repetition of insisting that others comment on the contributions not the contributor provides serious indirect evidence of your having no understanding of the nature of noticeboards

Just provide the diffs about some specific contributions, if any. DocJames and I agree with that[264].

@John Carter:, this ANI is about supposed personal attack. QuackGuru's post isn't dealing with personal attack, but are blatantly distracted from subject of this ANI. In this diff[265] you told Neuraxis to "cut back the length of comments", right? Now, why did you not tell QuackGuru the same with the comment you are pertaining to? Are you applying different rules to different editors?

Please reply to these concerns. The diffs indicate you are a net negative for the project. You have not taken responsibility for your actions. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I don't see any possible upside to Neuraxis's participation here.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This ANI is about alleged "personal attacks", and so far only one diff have been given to support this claim. Most of the comments are blatantly distracted from the topic of this ANI. In my opinion, user Neuraxis owes a serious apology for his name callings. But a reason for ban? No, certainly not. If someone wants to open a new thread on the behaviour of Neuraxis, feel free to do it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: Your comment is misleading because it is a lot more than personal attacks. Please see this diff for the concerns. On April 1, 2014 User:Jayaguru-Shishya added text to the chiropractic lede[266] that failed V.[267] He claimed the text passed V but the text was original research[268] and did not summarise the body. Jayaguru-Shishya removed part of a wikilink in my previous comment. Jayaguru-Shishya said "I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now."[269] Despite his assurances in his unblock request, he has continued with the same behaviour at CAM articles. Jayaguru-Shishya supports the proposal that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#New Lede Proposal and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Comments. Jayaguru-Shishya claimed to have consensus to delete the text at Traditional Chinese medicine[270] where there was no consensus in the first place.[271][272][273] Jayaguru-Shishya argued on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text.[274] See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Deletion of text without discussion. Without fixing the problem Jayaguru-Shishya deleted the tags rather than removing the primary sources and falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[275] Jayaguru-Shishya made a 3RR report but there was no 3RR violation. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya is well aware of the sanctions. Jayaguru-Shishya, do you agree your behaviour has not changed since your unblock? Jayaguru-Shishya, do you think you may have misused this administrative noticeboard.[276][277] User:Kww warned you "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block". QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

* Comment: This has nothing to do with this ANI. This whole process has become a clown show. Neuraxis (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support for indef ban, and blocked talk page access. I am going to change my !vote completely. Neuraxis is now showing a totally uncollaborative spirit (see their edits in the last couple hours), and by failing to AGF are making serious errors and accusations. We can't have that. They are refusing to accept any advice on their talk page, aren't following the advice in edit summaries, and are instead dealing with anything as if it was "baiting and trolling". They are no longer an asset here at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I am trying to stay away from BR. He is fanning the flames and getting me worked up. He has been attacking me for incorrectly assuming my intent [278] and continuing to mis-represent me or any 'agenda' [279] Misrepresentation that I am trying to white-wash. I am not as I stated here [280] and have decided to disengage [281] as there are more pressing issues elsewhere. I have blocked him from my talk page after asking repeatedly that he cease to make contact [282]. He has been poisoning the well against me in other pages that I have nothing to do with [283]. I asked him to de-escalate and he continues to follow me around [284]. This is getting out of hand. Neuraxis (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This user is not only a POV-pusher, they are unwilling to accept that their agenda is not in line with Wikipedia's core goals. And what they are doing is classic for chiropractic advocates: they de-emphasise the quackery and harm that dominate the field, and emphasise an idealised model which does not reflect real practice. We simply don't need this. Reux: come back when no chiropractor learns or references the non-existent chiropractic or vertebral subluxation. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Another allegation of POV-pushing despite no diffs or evidence. Does not move the conversation forward. Non-existent subluxations are very clear in the ICD-10, MSK, biomechanical lesions [285]. I would expect you to know your material. Another baseless allegation of trying to white-wash, and another failure to read my bio [286]. This talk about 'agendas' is getting tendentious and not assuming any good faith. I have been clear, as my bio page shows what my interests are. Neuraxis (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support In this edit [287] he more or less called a user a sociopath by indicated that they are congruant with this webpage [288]. Neuroaxis edits in a very narrow topic area of alt med / chiropractors. As it appears that they have very little interest in other areas a site ban appears reasonable but a topic ban broadly construed may also work. Here they state that they have been editing for 4-5 months [289] and have managed to get blocked 4 times [290]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A number of their edits are questionable. As an example here they removed however the quality of the evidence is poor with the edit summary "rmv unsourced commentary" however the ref says "Both studies with high risk of bias had several key limitations. Heterogeneity of the studies prevented meta-analysis. There is low quality evidence that BoNT injections improved pain, function, or both better than saline injections and very low quality evidence that they were better than acupuncture or steroid injections." The texted was paraphrase which is required for copyright reasons.

Adversarial comments today such as this "However, it did make an error. That was assuming you had expertise and competence in scientific matters. I figured that an arbitrator at pseudoscience had the ability to discern scientific literature. I read your bio and your expertise seems to be more about theology. No wonder why you were so 'overwhelmed' by the scientific papers, but that's your own shortcomings." [291] make me doubt that a topic ban would be sufficient Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support as second choice, although I personally slightly prefer an indefinite topic ban under the terms I defined below John Carter (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Doc James, it's fairly common to disagree regarding the verbiage of paraphrasing a source. So you're cherry picked source, which is 1 of 2000+ represents 0.0005% of my edits. Do you really think that is a representative sample that warrants your conclusions "a number of edits are questionable'. You are asking for a big restriction and that's going to require big evidence, not just an appeal to your authority. You again present quotes out of context, but that statement is pure calling a spade a spade. But him questioning my competence, integrity, basic honesty, suggesting I'm trying to game the system and use a soapbox, are not adversarial comments? Just because I challenge your expertise on chiropractic here [292] which you opined that is was a treatment and no a profession, which was soundly rebutted, doesn't give you the right to try and topic ban me. As you are the involved admin, and given that you are the one suggesting topic bans, given that you have perhaps undue influence given your status, you should have really recused yourself. Do recall, that your actions here are an extension of your professional work. You've been investigated by your college for the inkblots release, been named in a lawsuit. I've gotten some emails from other editors who are health professionals who are suggesting that you are crossing professional boundaries, bordering on misconduct. I ask of you to de-escalate the situation, by focusing on the purpose of the ANI, which was a personal attack, and recusing yourself from any vote as you are involved. Neuraxis (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• User Neuraxis I take this as boarding on legal threats "Do recall, that your actions here are an extension of your professional work. You've been investigated by your college for the inkblots release, been named in a lawsuit. I've gotten some emails from other editors who are health professionals who are suggesting that you are crossing professional boundaries, bordering on misconduct."
• To clarify how Wikipedia works, yes I am an involved admin. That mean that I will take no admin action against you. I have not and am not going to do so in the future. As things appear to be getting overly heating we should probably ask an independent admin to close this. You by the way attribute to me way more authority than I actually have. I know very few of the admins who frequent the dispute mechanism areas of Wikipedia. Those who close this can very easily see that I am involved and thus will weigh my comments appropriately. When a discussion is closed it is not a "vote" and the closing admin will look at the evidence provided.
• I struggle as to why you consider my raising concerns regarding your refering to QuackGuru as a sociopath/psychopath here as "professional misconduct". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support community-imposed indef block which essentially amounts to the same thing. This editor's entire history is WP:TE/WP:CPUSH mixed with WP:IDHT, and had been heading downhill of late with the personal comments. After the legal threats (see WP:ANI#Neuraxis_blocked_for_legal_threats), it's time to separate this individual from WP. Zad68 13:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Neuraxis has been blocked for legal threats. See discussion below. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• This attempt to intimidate one of our most industrious expert contributors is absolutely unacceptable. Enough is enough, support site ban. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support formalized indefinite siteban: No matter how right or wrong Neuraxis was before today, by harassing and attempting to intimidate Doc James by, in essence, threatening to endanger Doc James' professional reputation and credentials (no matter how ridiculous that threat may be), Neuraxis has demonstrated a willingness to engage in conduct which can cause irreparable damage to the credibility and productivity of the project. While I would argue that by doing so, Neuraxis has in effect made himself hostis wikipedianus generis, and thus subject to a de facto ban, the nature of the conduct merits formalization of such a ban. I say so not because such conduct might have driven away an established and prominent editor, but because any indication that the community as a whole would not openly and publicly condemn such conduct damages the reputation of the project. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I have never come across Neuraxis myself, but his long history of disruptive behavior and the recent legal threat towards Doc James demonstrates that he is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support the material in this discussion makes it very clear that Neuraxis is here to push his POV by any means available, including personal attacks and legal threats. The disruptive behavior is so severe that a permanent site ban is the only appropriate course of action. (I should mention that I'm a wikifriend of DocJames, and also agree with him on the underlying scientific issues involved, but I would say the same regardless. ) DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support (post NLT ban) this kind of style inhibits many editors including myself from adding to the discussion of alt med articles. Jim1138 (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban and block talk page access for this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support formal site ban based on legal threats and personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Question - It seems that the discussion of the indefinite site ban is the only one remaining open. Expressed opinions or !votes to date so far as I can tell are 13 in favor with 1 against a site ban. Would it be appropriate to wonder if WP:SNOW might be considered relevant to invoke sometime soon? John Carter (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Agreed, it's time to close this. While the supports really only started pouring in the last day or two, it's clear there's a consensus for a formalized siteban; the only oppose is really not credible. WP:CBAN states that "discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours". We've had enough time go by. Let's close this and let everyone go back to building the encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support The comments by Neuraxis on this page alone indicate the encyclopedia would be better off if a ban were established. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• I have no comment on the content issues that have been ongoing. I supported the block that was levied by David Gerard against Neuraxis for their comment and would support a site ban. As I commented in the other thread, what is off wiki stays off wiki. Bringing up anything that has an impact on an editor's employment to silence the opposition is absolutely unacceptable. The ban gavel needs to come down. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This action is consistent with the reasoning detailed in ArbCom's motion to ban Phil Sandifer. A firewall needs to be maintained at all times between off-wiki and on-wiki activities, and breaching this barrier may have a lasting real-world impact on people's lives. The implied LT compounds the seriousness of the policy violation. Ignocrates (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis has requested the block be lifted

Neuraxis has requested on her user talk page that the block be lifted. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly my fault for assisting them in understanding that NLT blocks can be lifted, contrary to his beleif. I support the unblock, as per WP:GAB, with the understanding that the above site ban discussion may end up with a reblock the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• No way. I support the lifting of NLT blocks by withdrawing the threat when it was just a legal threat being made. This was a case of harassment in order to cause another editor to back down from a dispute. In other words, it was deliberate use of a threat—even if that threat was not to initiate a lawsuit—to chill participation. Moreover, it was a threat that indicated an editor's off-wiki livelihood could be endangered. That is unacceptable on Wikipedia (and is the crux of my rationale for supporting a siteban above). If Neuraxis apologized to Doc James, I might be able to see the block being lifted (at least until the community ban discussion concludes). But right now, no way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As a non-admin but with an intolerance of legal threats, I do not support unblocking. I am also not keen on a site-ban (not yet) but I think talk page access should be taken away for a week or two, while the user ponders the question of how badly they want to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) As a no-longer-admin who was one of the founders of Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility which had as one of its founding purposes making it easier for peope who have non-standard problems which can inhibit their ability to edit here, I am not myself averse to allowing the editor to use her talk page to propose or agree to terms of continued editing, rather the opposite. At the same time, I can question what good it might to to allow Neuraxis to perhaps continue to misuse the user talk page for other purposes, particularly if the site ban is approved. I think maybe the first priority here is to determine if the site ban is to be enacted or not, and then maybe leave a note on their user talk page regarding how to either use that talk page or perhaps e-mail to determine if any terms of continued editing would be acceptable to all sides. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Has Neuraxis provided a reason why the block should be lifted, including, at a minimum, a recognition of the wrongness of harassing another editor in a way that was likely to threaten his livelihood? If not, then this is all the more reason for a formal site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Per Mendaliv, I cannot support an unblock as long as Neuraxis fails to appreciate the seriousness with which the community views his (implied) threats against Doc James. (The wikilawyering by Neuraxis is...well, this: "So whereas the perception was that I was issuing a legal threat, any reports to a regulatory college is not a legal matter, but a professional conduct one.") In the interest of full disclosure, I probably wouldn't support an unblock under any likely conditions, given that he's already managed to cite WP:POV Railroad in response to comments on his unblock request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I saw that. I would honestly describe that comment as Neuraxis doubling down on the attempt to intimidate Doc James. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Neuraxis

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.

---

• Changed to Strong support for indef ban, and blocked talk page access. (see above). --- Brangifer (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Per John Carter's comment above (18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)), I tend to favor a topic ban, rather than a site ban. Neuraxis has obvious abilities which could be used better on other subjects. If a topic ban on all alternative medicine subjects is effected, I don't see any need for any "mandated external review".

Not using a topic ban and having such a "mandated external review" process would likely cause even more disruption than we are currently seeing, since Neuraxis already uses talk pages nearly exclusively, IOW their disruption is primarily talk page disruption, so a topic ban (which would cover any and all parts of Wikipedia, including talk pages and personal userspace) would force him to use his talents elsewhere. The topic ban would be indefinite, but appealable after one year. That year should demonstrate a lot of editing on other subjects, thus creating a track record of positive contributions and positive interactions with other editors. A year without any activity would be useless for judging whether the topic ban should be lifted, and would be an indication that it should not be lifted. could be limited to one year, after which an appeal could be made for lifting the topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean that the topic ban would be indefinite and not be appealable for the first year after imposition? John Carter (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct, and amended accordingly. I have also added a condition for even considering lifting the topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I might myself add that participation in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program, which would with luck give Neuraxis the chance to work with someone rather more aware of policies and guidelines who might help Neuraxis in understanding them, and actively displaying a greater comprehension of policies and guidelines would be very useful in allowing others to think they have a more competent grasp of wikipedia's procedures. Pending DocJames' indication of the specific conditions s/he saw which led to him/her requesting the ban, this seems to me to be a not unreasonable option. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This ANI is about alleged "personal attacks", and so far only one diff have been given to support this claim. Most of the comments are blatantly distracted from the topic of this ANI. In my opinion, user Neuraxis owes a serious apology for his name callings. But a reason for ban? No, certainly not. If someone wants to open a new thread on the behaviour of Neuraxis, feel free to do it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: The hands of those vilifying Neuraxis aren't exactly clean if they're doing things like (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Neuraxis, "User:BullRangifer has twice deleted my comment for a clarifiation request and is now alleging I am edit warring over it!". This looks like a classic case of trying to gain leverage in a content dispute by trying to get the other user blocked or banned. K7L (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• K7L, I'm surprised you are still around creating disruption, especially after my 12 point summary of all you've done wrong. At least you didn't send your sockpuppet. You should have been blocked by now for sockpuppetry.
  You really need to do your homework before jumping in here: Start by looking at the actual diffs of what happened, not at the claim made by Neuraxis. Here are the diffs: [293], [294]. Read the edit summaries carefully. Note these words: "Please place in your own area and sign properly." There was no attempt to prevent the inclusion of that content, only to make sure Neuraxis followed protocol. We are not allowed to place comments in the wrong areas in a Clarification request. What I did was considered the "100% correct" thing to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support This may be sufficient. It is not clear if the user in question has any interest in editing other topic areas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban as slightly preferable to site ban, based on the material presented above, but only on the following conditions:

• Neuraxis to be topic banned from articles related to the topics of pseudoscience and criticism of science, broadly construed, for not less than 1 year and 1,000 edits, which is roughly Neuraxis' annual number of edits to date,with one of the requirements for the ban to be lifted displaying no serious problematic behavior in that time and, preferably, seeking a mentor;
• Neuraxis is subject to an interaction ban with her/his critics here for the same period of time;
• Neuraxis is banned from maintaining any pages related to these topics in userspace, either under the current name or former name;

• Honestly, the previous behavior of this editor, particularly the previous sanctions including sockpuppetry, and their behavior here, raise in my eyes extremely serious questions about that person's basic honesty and integrity. I have for some time thought that we should have a variation on WP:SPA for WP:SAP for Self-appointed Prophet, the kind of person who seems to see no problems whatever in advancing their personal views under any circumstances, whether they remotely fall within guidelines or not.
• There is an extremely slight chance in my eyes that this individual may be capable of becoming a reasonable, productive editor, but I think it is an extremely slight chance, and have no particular objections to a site ban. I am, as I think most of my record indicates, generally willing to give even the most problematic editor one last chance, probably to the degree of irrationality on my part. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. This is ANI re: a personal attack. This proposal for a topic or site ban is not valid, there have been no diffs provided that suggest there is disruption or destabilizing of the articles in questions. As there is no evidence presented, other than the fact the critics don't like my presence here on WP, that is not a bannable offense. John Carter you are seriously treading thin line regarding my 'basic honesty and integrity'. Those comments could easily be construed as slander/libel and I'm going to give you the chance to retract them, in good faith. You're crossing boundaries now, and personalizing this to an extreme. Please explain the logic, any of the supporters above, of insisting for a topic ban when there is no evidence presented and b) that is not within the scope of the ANI, as it was regarding a 'personal attack' (notwithstanding all the character attacks here on my person). Neuraxis (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you threatening me with legal action? John Carter (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No. But you're getting very careless with your words. Strike out those words, you've crossed the line of civility a long time ago. Neuraxis (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mandated external review of Neuraxis

• Changed to Strong support for indef ban, and blocked talk page access. (see above). -- Brangifer (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Against'. Not using a topic ban and having such a "mandated external review" process would likely cause even more disruption than we are currently seeing, since Neuraxis already uses talk pages nearly exclusively, IOW their disruption is primarily talk page disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This ANI is about alleged "personal attacks", and so far only one diff have been given to support this claim. Most of the comments are blatantly distracted from the topic of this ANI. In my opinion, user Neuraxis owes a serious apology for his name callings. But a reason for ban? No, certainly not. If someone wants to open a new thread on the behaviour of Neuraxis, feel free to do it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed discretionary sanctions on Neuraxis

• Has Neuraxis got a warning of DS yet? If not, it would be best if an admin did that ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Neuraxis was notified of the sanctions but thought it was "spam". QuackGuru (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, he did remove it, but not before replying, so we know he read and understood it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Was posted to my page, no context was provided, had spammed my wall before, removed it. You're using a crystal ball again suggesting I'm understanding a template that is posted with no explanation, diffs. Neuraxis (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Neuraxis, you are once again apparently attempting to engage in distraction. If you are not competent enough to understand the nature of such a warning, that is your problem, and your problem alone. It is not anyone's obligation to have to take you step by step through every procedure an experienced editor of roughly 2-1/2 years experience should have some basic understanding of. And it is very hard to believe that someone who boasted on my user talk page "Reading and reviewing research is part of my real-life job" would be so clearly and pronouncedly incompetent to not understand the meaning of the template. This seems to me to be a rather patently absurd case of someone attempting to wikilawyer based on their own assertion of their own incompetence to understand simple messages, which itself can not unreasonably be seen to be contrary to Wikipedia:Competence is required. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

John, step back. If you analyzed by edit Hx, you would see that I have spent 4-5 months editing, the rest filled with inactivity gaps. So you ASSuming that 'I should know' bc of being here for 2.5 years does not take this into account. Considering that QG has a long-standing issue with tagging, I ignored it bc it seemed like an intimidation/bullying move. Thanks again for assuming no good faith and calling me incompetent. However, it did make an error. That was assuming you had expertise and competence in scientific matters. I figured that an arbitrator at pseudoscience had the ability to discern scientific literature. I read your bio and your expertise seems to be more about theology. No wonder why you were so 'overwhelmed' by the scientific papers, but that's your own shortcomings. You've made it clear of your intentions [295] and how you have your biases and it's to debunk. I would figure that your intent, as an arbiter, would be to analyze, interpret the evidence before having preconceived notions on the topic, or recuse yourself if you very little about the subject matter, especially in a professional capacity. So, if you have any constructive criticism, that's helpful. Your repeated attempts to smear me with your specious allegations, that are diff-less, reveal more about you than me. IOW, shit or get off the pot. Neuraxis (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis, you seem to ignore once again the material in the page I linked to above. You seem to be willing to make any number of passive-agressive commentary on others while at the same time showing little if any abillity to review your own conduct in a reasonable light. At the same time, you seem to place yourself in an exalted position despite clear evidence of your own inability to adhere to basic guidelines. You seem to find it "overwhelming" to actually make a basic effort to meet the basic standards of competency here, and, as the page I linked to indicates, competence is required. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that I am a fringe-POV pusher, or any insinuation that I am an alt-med apologist or a white-washer. A danger to the project, or the community. Smh. We follow the sources. This source [296] which concluded Chiropractors holding unorthodox views may be identified based on response to specific beliefs that appear to align with unorthodox health practices. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigm is the linchpin of all this. DJ opined that this source cannot be used under any circumstance. The skeptics want this buried because it challenges their ideology which states the overwhelming majority (if not all)) of chiros are pseudoscientific. Please don't hyperbolize the situation. I am not 'exhalting' my position, nor 'boasting' about my credentials. Nor am I being passive-aggressive, I am merely citing the facts, which you do not dispute. I asked for 'constructive criticism' and you answer with an attack. Here's what I think: Despite many other editors, to my count, 14 [297] who had issues editing with QG, I did err in adding the link. My personal beliefs aside, that wasn't right, and I apologize to QG. I also agree that I can use mentoring, which I had asked for,and you had a good suggesting of putting me into a similar program. I will voluntarily limit to 1RR in good faith. I will continue to use the talk pages before introducing any significant changes to any page I edit. I will use DRN and RfC as means to mediate stalled out debates, which is when frustrations start to accrue and things go to hell in a basket. These are my proposals to get the ball rolling here, they come voluntarily, under no coercion in a sincere to help resolve this issue. Neuraxis (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

96.228.244.95

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

I got into an edit war on Tired light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with the named IP. I am 100% certain that this is User:Licorne and have filed a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne to that effect. However, per WP:BAN, I believe we are simply supposed to revert on sight, but rather than breach WP:3RR, I thought I'd get administrator input here.

Thanks,

jps (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Based on my (limited) knowledge of this particular ban, your conclusion is likely correct, but I'll let the SPI speak for itself. For what it's worth, I've temporarily semiprotected the article to prevent the IP's edit warring. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but maybe the protection should last more than one day? This particular user has a tendency to wait out semi-protections and then simply go back to reinserting his original research into this article. jps (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course. I'll certainly keep an eye on the article and protect it for a longer time if it happens again. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Btloveadele1d repeated recreation of article merge/redirected as a result of afd

Btloveadele1d has just now for the third time recreated List of awards and nominations received by 5 Seconds of Summer, which was merged/redirected after AfD discussion. User has received multiple warnings already. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Probably merits a short block... hasn't broken 3RR yet (one revert away), and while it's not vandalism, it's clearly against consensus (the AfD closed only a week ago). This appears to be one of those silent editors; few if any non-automated edit summaries, almost no discussion (in fact the only instance of discussion I could find was here). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked until he agrees to stop.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry, legal threat. Suing for $10,000,000.

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.

---

Well, the threat of a lawsuit regarding the Yank Barry article, mentioned previously on AN/I, was carried out. A lawsuit has been filed in California against four named Wikipedia editors (I am one of them) and "Does 1-50, inclusive". There is a press release: "Lawsuit: Rogue Wikipedia editors conspired to manipulate Wikipedia pages to ruin reputation of philanthropist, charity he co-founded"[298]. The "Does 1-50, inclusive" means they would like to go after all editors and admins involved with the article who did anything they didn't like, but only have the names of those of us who edit under our real names. There may be follow-up legal efforts to get the identities of other editors from Wikipedia so they, too, can be sued.

Not only are they suing over what was put into the article, they're suing because their PR was taken out: "... the Wikipedia editors removed truthful and verifiable content from the Wikipedia pages pertaining to plaintiffs with the intent and purpose to downplay, minimize, attack or criticize favorable content about the plaintiffs ... ". I am informed by an attorney that deletion cannot be defamation, but don't take that as legal advice.

The Wikimedia Foundation may take this on; they're looking into it. It's such a broad lawsuit that it's an attack on Wikipedia, not specific editors. (In case they don't, I already have lawyers lined up. Everyone involved will need legal support. I've talked to enough lawyers that I expect to win this.)

Please don't revdel anything associated with Yank Barry. (Someone suggested that on the BLP noticeboard.) Better to keep the history intact.

The article is in good shape. Through all the controversy, all the factual issues were hammered out, and everything is quite well sourced. The Wikipedia process worked.

This guy has tried a libel suit once before, against a journalist in Canada. He lost. Don't panic. --John Nagle (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, all this new lawsuit stuff is only going to add to the "notability" of this character. Negative press is still press... Doc talk 05:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't take this as legal advice I wouldn't put too much faith in this, the suit is frivilous at best. The burden of proof is not only on the plantiff in a libel suit, but that burden of proof is quite high. Not to mention that several suits such as this have been readily dismissed. However, I am curious what the policy is on this as I'm unaware of a similar situation happening before. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that Yank Berry will be put under office protection until the lawsuit plays out. Past that, I have no idea, but it remaining under office protection is a likely outcome, as is banning every account associated with Yank Berry's PR machine. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

All I can say is...Good luck Lor^Chat 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole process with Yank Barry went well by Wikipedia standards. There was a lot of information about Yank Barry to sort through, and the many editors who commented on the talk page did a good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. The solidly sourced stuff went into the article. Some items needed more sources, which were found. Some weren't notable enough for the article, and were discussed on talk but left out. The sockpuppets were identified and dealt with by admins. The PR puffery was deflated. WP:BLP standards were met. Not much trouble; overall, discussions were civil. (Compare Banc de Binary, with Paid Editing From Hell.) As Wikipedians, we have nothing to be ashamed of here. John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything I can do to assist the lot of you, I'm happy to help in any way I can :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit Filing

For any reviewing admins here is the filing in its entirety. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging discussions

This discussion should be merged with the one ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive202#Yank Barry. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Re-evaluating admin decision from September 2013

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

---

In September 2013, admin John topic banned me (vaccination). However, i believe the judgement was in error since i did not engaged in an edit war, got no warning and didn't acted disruptive. After a group of users through the fringe notice board begun to look into my related edits they concluded i post fringe material or lack competence. The archived heated discussion can be found here, where i complained at ANI about subsequent actions from a few users. Most accusations from these users were unfounded and as pointed out i do not think the incident amounted to a topic ban, since it doesn't fit with WP:DE. There was a single source mentioned which is not compatible with WP:MEDRS. I did no attempt to re-add criticized content and i have no plans at this time to edit any of these topics in the future. In my edits i used a wide range of sources, most of them were from government entities (CDC or from the FDA and from science journals)- the exact opposite of what has been suggested. I did not looked into this until yesterday and after a brief discussion with John today i conclude that he rushed his decision. I ask here for someone not involved to re-evaluate my topic ban status, because i feel it was enforced wrongly. If this isn't the right place for such an inquiry point me to one, Thank You. prokaryotes (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't an admin decision, the topic ban was a consensus decision by the community - John merely evaluated the consensus (which seems clear). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) John didn't topic ban you, the community did. John merely evaluated the discussion and determined there was consensus for a topic ban, which, frankly, there was. The few opposes seemed directed at the original proposed sanction: an indefinite block. At any rate, if the reason for your request for the topic ban to be lifted is that it was improperly implemented, I would have to disagree. If you want it lifted for substantive reasons, I think you might do well to reframe your request to reflect that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion ending with this is pretty telling, particularly after he wisely recommended you read up on WP:CIR, WP:DE, WP:BATTLE, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE. I didn't participate in the previous discussion, but I'm wondering if another proposal is in order regarding at least one of those. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Per the above two users, and the statement Most accusations from these users were unfounded probably indicates the same attitude that applied in the original discussion, because they were not unfounded in the slightest. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The consensus in the discussion seems clear and reasonable. Based on Prokaryotes' comment to John from just a couple of hours ago (" Thanks for clarifying to me John, why you have topic banned me. Summary: I got topic banned for a single edit and because i tried to explain that edit afterwards.... i think a user shouldn't be banned from a topic because of a single edit..." [299]) it is clear that Prokaryotes has not grasped the reason why his past conduct was not appropriate, and it seems likely that the problems would persist if his topic ban were lifted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if that is CIR or just willfully being obtuse, although the distinction hardly matters. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"CIR"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIR. jps (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well d-u-h, hellLloooo?? That's really funny that I had to ask!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

JamesBWatson

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

---

Please block this idiot.--ИДИОТ ХУЕВИЧ ПОМОЙКИН (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly. Done. Black Kite kite (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Corruption in Haryana article

I'd welcome a second opinion on the recently-created Corruption in Haryana article - not only does it apparently violate WP:BLP policy by making serious allegations against living individuals which are not supported by the sources cited, but the entire thing seems to be a classic violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and synthesis at that. I was tempted to tag it for speedy deletion, but as far as I can tell it doesn't exactly fit any of the criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(Non adminstrive observation) Likely does violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX.. Might quickly Tag it with a PROD and see if this needs a AFD. Lor^Chat 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears that User:Rajsector3, the originator of the Corruption in Haryana article has made a habit of creating soapbox 'articles' - see Misuse of women laws in India for another one, and note the list of deleted articles on his talk page. I am also in conversation with him at Talk:Bhupinder Singh Hooda over his use of the talk page as a soapbox, and regarding his apparent inability to understand WP:BLP policy. While I think that some leeway might be allowed for the fact that English clearly isn't Rajsector3's first language, I have to ask whether he should be permitted to edit further if he is going to continue in this manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well a topic ban is a option...But thats a bit more harsh than not. Lor^Chat 03:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I haven't had time to look deeper, but when I was reading the Misuse article, I couldn't help but think that the last sentence of the lede looked like something ToI editors would come up with, and lo and behold it is a copy of the ToI source. There maybe more, so perhaps you'd like to take a look? —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup - assuming you mean the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede. Copy-pasted from the source cited, with minor changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And then there is the issue of Rajsector3's poor grasp of the English language. Take a look at University Grants Commission (India)#Failure in implementing its guidelines verbatim - an article section he has just added. Almost incomprehensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And again, Rajsector3 has chosen to create an article entitled Honour killing in India by simply copy-pasting the lede and 'India' sections of our Honour killing article - without attribution. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if I can find any significant edits by Rajsector3 that are simultaneously policy-compliant and written in comprehensible English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is different (I removed it and warned a different editor for that!), but the problem appears to run deeper than I had initially assumed! —SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well as I said. A topic ban or block might solve the problem. other than that its likely in my view a Competence Issue Lor^Chat 05:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I apologise on above issues and for future, I will take care and leaving me with above solutions will be discouraging me and more harsh, I will take care as suggested by you (all). With thanks in anticipation.Rajsector3 (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have redirected it to Men's rights movement in India, per WP:TNT: this is garbage, top to bottom -- including the title and lede ("Misuse of women laws in India is rapidly increasing and there is no check to stop this misuse"? Really?) -- and needs a rewrite before it it even APPROACHES acceptable. --Calton | Talk 10:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've deleted the Honour killing in India article under A10 as a non-bureaucratic solution, attribution trail is only part of the problem. However, this template {{Misuse of women laws in India}} is something that's quite odd (putting it mildly) and something needs to be done about it soon. —SpacemanSpiff 13:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. A template clearly created to push a POV. Another problematic article created by Rajsector3 is Divorce in India, which consists largely of material copy-pasted (without attribution) from our Divorce article - plus poorly-written moralising additions such as this:

"Divorce rate in India is remarkably increasing are there is debate in Indian Society that who is responsible for the same, e.g. prevailing law in India, Man or woman, modernization and loosing roots from the old customs, tradition etc. Its main effect is that a divorcee person has to reel in the pain and it has increased the apathetic situation of woman in the Indian society. Moreover, it gives impetus the thoughts of immorality, irrespective of their sex. Many times women are blamed for the breakdown and it results in divorce."

Quite simply, content like this doesn't belong in any encyclopaedia worthy of the name. And I have to say that I'm entirely unconvinced by Rajsector3's statement above. Not least because it displays yet again that (contrary to a claim on his user page) his grasp of the English language is questionable to say the least. I suspect that this is at the root of most of Rajsector3's problems, and is probably an indication that he would be making better use of his abilities if he were to contribute instead to a Wikipedia in a language with which he is more familiar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Propose indef block unless conditions are met

The user has indeed made a habit of creating soapbox articles, many of which have been prodded, others speedied, compare his talkpage. He (it seems safe to assume the user is male) seems unreceptive to being told about WP:BLP, per Andy above, and about WP:SOAPBOX, despite his promise above that he will "take care as suggested by you all". After that undertaking, he has spammed a protest against the redirection of Misuse of women laws in India to three five user talk pages plus article talk, arguing that the redirection was "harsh". Which it wasn't. Redirection was the only remaining recourse, as Kinu's prompt and appropriate PROD had been removed by RomanSpa who called the subject "notable", a statement that seems unfortunately to have encouraged Rajsector3 greatly and unrealistically about the merits of his article.

This is not promising. The user is creating a lot of work for Wiki editors by creating so many non-viable articles and templates, that often have to go through fairly laborious processes like templates for discussion. (And the redirect Misuse of women laws in India should really go to redirects for discussion, since the very phrase is soapboxy, but life's too short for all that.) I agree with Calton that it's very difficult to find any useful edits in the contributions.

Proposal: I propose that Rajsector3 be indefinitely blocked per Competence is required and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, unless he undertakes to henceforth take all his article creation through articles for creation and to stop creating templates altogether. (There isn't a "templates for creation" option.) Rajsector3, please click on the articles for creation link and read about article creation requests. Could you commit to always taking your future article ideas through that process? If not, I'm afraid I propose blocking you, not because I think you're trying to cause trouble — not at all — but because your article and template creation is using up too much of our most precious resource, which is the time and energy of our volunteers. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

• Support conditional indef. What Bishonen said. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I suppose I'd better make some sort of a comment here, since I'm peripherally involved. I can't really speak for the various other articles that Rajsector3 has created, though from his contributions page it's clear that there have been a great many. My involvement in this arises from the Misuse of women laws in India article, where I did object to the PROD. My reason for this at the time was expressed on the article's talk page: briefly, the subject did strike me as, on balance, probably notable - there do seem to be cases where Indian laws designed for the protection of women seem to be being used excessively. I don't have any particular interest in this article - I'm in England - but there have been occasional mentions of this problem in the English media, and I didn't find it too hard to google some reasonable references. For these reasons I felt that the article was probably worth keeping. That said, the article as it stood was not well-written and contained a high proportion of "soapboxing", and I entirely understand other editors' concerns on this. I hope, though, that we don't end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

I suspect that Rajsector3 has been mentioning me largely because I was taking a more conciliatory approach to one of his articles that other editors. I don't have any connection with him apart from this, and have already added notes to the appropriate talk pages explaining this where I've noticed he's mentioned my name in connection with this article. What does strike me, after a brief scan of his contributions, is that he's only been on Wikipedia for the past three months or so, and is clearly still learning how we work. I hope that this will be taken into consideration when discussing future actions. Perhaps a useful enhancement to Bishonen's suggestion above would be if Rajsector3 agreed to work through a suitable training course, perhaps Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure or WP:TUTORIAL, and perhaps also considered seeking WP:ADOPTION. Together with a commitment to refrain from creating articles except through the AfC process for (say) the next year this should lead to a general improvement in this editor's performance. I'd be interested to hear other people's comments. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

...briefly, the subject did strike me as, on balance, probably notable - there do seem to be cases where Indian laws designed for the protection of women seem to be being used excessively... I think you need to become acquainted with the topic of Begging the question, here. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the great recommendation. RomanSpa (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Rajsector3 (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing. He has made an unblock request, saying he is willing to cooperate, but I'm not sure he has really understood what the problem is about his editing, and frankly, I see a big competence issue here (compounded of course by the language issue), so I'm not sure I see much of a prospect of this becoming a constructive editor, even under the kinds of conditions Bishonen outlined. Is there someone who would be willing to invest their time tutoring/adopting this editor? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can certainly see your point about the tendentious editing, Fut Perf, but RS3 complains in his unblock request of me (we..?) first asking for an undertaking and then blocking before he could respond. He has a point, too, and I think it would be better to let him respond here and, as I proposed, not block him if he undertakes to go through AFC and to stop creating templates. Article and template creation is what he mostly does, and is where the chief problem lies. I've put the unblock on hold. What do you say, are you OK with an unblock for the purpose of responding here? I don't like the appearance of messing him about (=asking him to respond and then not allowing him to.) Bishonen | talk 14:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

(edit conflict)I've no desire for this to become a witch-hunt. However, based on some of the comments above, on what I found on Rajsector3's talk-page and on my own experience of pages created by this editor, I've requested a Contributor copyright investigation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, good job, Justlettersand numbers. Meanwhile, Fut Perf has agreed to an unblock for responding here. I certainly agree with him about the tendentious editing, but not so much about the potential usefulness of tutoring or adoption. Experience has made me cynical about those, and I wouldn't encourage anybody to invest perfectly good time in them in this case. The AFC process could hopefully deal with the problem a little more briskly, and give the user some tough love. that might actually help. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks

I thank you for your worthy consideration, especially to user Bishonen and your tough love you gave me, 'I give undertaking that I will create Articles through AFC (Article for Creation) and if possible please delimit the time for six month or one year' and will follow your guidelines as you will suggest time to time and as has been suggested by you earlier. Profound thanks.Rajsector3 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Good, thank you for responding, Rajsector3. Let me put it quite specifically, then: will you undertake to create articles only through Articles for creation, and not to create any other types of pages at all (such as for example templates) for the space of one year? You only need to answer yes or no here (unless of course you wish to give reasons for your reply). Bishonen | talk 06:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

Yes, I agree on above terms & conditions, thanks.Rajsector3 (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I won't reblock you at this time, and I hope nobody else will either. Since you were (justly) blocked for tendentious editing, please make sure you let the principles outlined in the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guide your article writing henceforth. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk 10:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

Nathan0313

Meh, I don't think this edit was in keeping with the spirit of WP:CIVIL, considering my hand-tailored note was intended to help explain why the content they kept wedging into the article at Laura Marano kept getting reverted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've left a message on his talk page, explaining in plain English what he did wrong, what policy it violates, where to go to get help, and what will happen if the edit warring or personal attacks continue. For now, I think that is enough, but would leave this open in case he doesn't get the message. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on the response to your comment ("i really dont need another guy correcting me" and "just please let me edit my things"), I'm not feeling very confident, but WP:AGF and all that. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I can't say you are wrong, but before we get ugly I want to make sure we've exhausted all the good faith we can reasonably spare. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does, so it is worth me spending a few comments to see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, and the response to your latest comment was slightly more promising. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I think The Honorable Dennis Brown did a fine job explaining the community aspect of the project. I'm satisfied with the response and I think this can be considered resolved. Intervention doesn't always mean banwhack. Thanks DB. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor socking, edit-warring to add himself to articles

• RAJA NARAYAN TRIPATHY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.197.253.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Articles: Dhenkanal district, Dhenkanal, India, List of people from Odisha, CA Raja Narayan Tripathy

Discussion here. Note the IP has changed over the last few days. Can an admin take a look? Semi-prot or a rangeblock may be needed if it is decided the edits are disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the busy 117.197.253.214 for a week. The range is too big to block, so I semi'd those articles, except CA Raja Narayan Tripathy, which has been prodded, so I didn't bother protecting that one. I was tempted to speedy it, but "really, really obvious delete as non-notable" ain't a speedy criterion, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. I was tempted to speedy it too but credible claims have been made (I suppose). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There were two more articles, Bhuban and Kamakshyanagar, that were linked to the bio and I unlinked them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I just blocked another blatant IPsock, 117.201.146.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for reintroducing that information. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also fairly certain that a couple of new users who have shown up to contest the deletion at Talk:CA Raja Narayan Tripathy are SPA socks. Anyone want to take a whack at CU, or does this smell like a WP:DUCK situation? --Kinu ^t/_c 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and blocked the socks. I see the article is tagged as A7, so it'll be put out of its misery soon enough, I suppose. It probably could even be deleted as a G11, seeing as how the sum of everything here makes this look like nothing more than egregious self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Good block all around. It is clear that they were here to promote themselves and admitted that they got their staff to try to save the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please help remove damaging comments on a page

I wish to have a comment I made on a page removed completely from the page. I realise now that the comment I made is both untrue, damaging, and libellous and I wish for my comment to be totally removed (even from the view history). The comment was made by my account monkeybear5000, with the user name now changed to HatofCleverness7, 14:58, 17 June 2014‎ on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Grovier&action=history The comment is: (Challenging the fiction that Mr Grovier has a doctorate from Oxford. To do so, you have to submit a final copy of your thesis to the Bodleian, before the degree is conferred. There is no record anywhere of Mr Grovier having completed this degree.) I now know that this is untrue, and I should not have written it. Please help me remove the comment entirely from the page. I cannot undo it and I dont understand how to remove it completely :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeybear5000 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The bit appears to have been removed by another editor. No admin is going to remove that from the view history, since it's not child pornography or something, and since he was adding sourced information (albeit original research, which we don't accept) in place of an unsourced assertion. Unless a source is added regarding his doctorate, nothing should be in the article about it. The way you say it's "damaging" almost sounds personal. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone falsely called me a PhD, I'd be flattered. There's nothing 'damaging' about it, just because it happens to be wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, other way around, Monkeybear5000 is pushing for the unsourced assertion that Grovier has a PhD, while Hatofcleverness7 is adding somewhat sourced WP:OR saying that isn't so. Per WP:BLP, they're both wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks folks. This is me, I tried to change my user name. Its a real issue, Monkeybear5000 and hatsofcleverness7 is the same user, I tried to change the name. The comment I made re the doctorate not being available should be entirely removed, I was wrong, and the information is just not right. So yes, please, delete it, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeybear5000 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're not just impersonating Hatofcleverness7, then log in on that account and post that you're both Monkeybear5000 and Hatofcleverness7. Otherwise, you're just looking like someone dishonestly impersonating Hatofcleverness7. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm both monkeybear5000 and hatofcleverness7, I tried to change my name but I seem to have two accounts now. I made the comment about the PhD but he does actually have a PhD, and this isnt proof that he doesnt. Please remove the comment I made, it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatofcleverness7 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(Monkeybear5000 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)) I am monkeybear5000

Confirmation that the above was left by Hatofcleverness7 [300] Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys, does this look suspicious to anyone else?

Monkeybear5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) implies he created the Kelly Grovier page, but his contributions page shows that he did not and the history for that article shows it was created by T-stcloud101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's only other major edit was asserting that Grovier was a co-founder (instead of just on the editorial board) of European Romantic Review. Hatofcleverness7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who, just to keep the records straight, used to have the username Monkeybear5000 before the current Monkeybear5000) added sourced (albeit unacceptably original) information in place of unsourced information, and was reverted by BODBOD2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the edit summary "Removing libelous vandalism: Successful viva for doctorate held on 20 July 2005. Copy of thesis subsequently deposited in Examination Schools. Missing citation on OLIS currently being investigated" -- indicating that BODBOD2014 is connected to Grovier in some way, if not Grovier himself.

EDIT after more caffeine: The current Monkeybear5000 claims to be Hatofcleverness7, even though Hatofcleverness7 clearly indicated they did not want to be associated with that name and there's no reason why Hatofcleverness7 couldn't have made this request him/herself.

Without some good evidence to the contrary, I can only believe (the current) Monkeybear5000, T-stcloud101, and BODBOD2014 are sockpuppet WP:SPAs (probably of Grovier's), Monkeybear5000 trying to hijack Hatofcleverness7's identity. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur and I think hatofcleverness7 needs to be investigated as part of the same action. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was confused by this line above "The comment was made by my account monkeybear5000, with the user name now changed to HatofCleverness7" (which would seem to indicate the present message is being left by hatofcleverness7, right?) but it was autosigned as monkeybear5000, which does seem to indicate one person operating both accounts. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm more under the impression that the current Monkeybear5000 is trying to hijack the name and pretend to be Hatofcleverness7, otherwise it would be Hatofcleverness7 who filed this original request. Hatofcleverness7 stated that they did not want to be associated with that name. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hatofcleverness7: - Can you comment on what appears to be Monkeybear5000 impersonating you at the top of this thread, please? Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If Monkeybear5000 is truly Hatofcleverness7, they can easily log in on that old account. I'd not object to an immediate indef block for trolling and impersonation if Monkeybear5000 replies as Monkeybear5000 instead of Hatofcleverness7. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm sure I left Morton's Fork lying around somewhere here. It's either impersonation or unapproved multiple accounts. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They're acting in opposite goals, though.

Monkeybear5000 has tried to remove a citation needed tag and censor an archive link that demonstrates that Grovier is on the editorial board (i/o co-founder). This leaves me with little good faith in the idea that he's not Grovier trying to censor the article for puff purposes. 15:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno what's going on here but they've now confirmed via the Hatofcleverness7 account it the same editor, see above Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Monkeybear500 here, I wrote the sentence but it is not true and I would really appreciate it if you could remove it. Monkeybear5000 (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am also HatsofCleverness7 too Hatofcleverness7 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC) please help me take out that comment :(

Okay, now that the confusing identity of the two accounts has been clarified, I really see no reason for further suspicion here. This editor made a rash remark about a potentially problematic BLP issue and is now trying to do the right thing in terms of BLP, by retracting it. Don't see why we shouldn't honour that request, so I have indeed hidden the two edits in question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the reason half of the users on Wikipedia have a committed identity using SHA-256,512 or Whirlpool. :D --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 18:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That committed identity stuff is silly and irrelevant. Monkeybear5000 showed control of both accounts by logging as both of them. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I was talking about Hatofcleverness7, who could prove himself easily using committed identity. If his account is hacked, he can ask a steward to restore that to himself using his committed identity (you know like one-way encrypting with a string of your choice). Although it's really unclear whether Hat and Monkey are the same guy, or different and is Monkey in access of Hat's account. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 05:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Breach of topic ban

Could an admin please review User_talk:Kunal_gurjar#Breach_of_topic_ban. Although there is a clear breach of the topic ban and there are plenty of signs that this is a caste warrior, I'm wondering whether the problem is basically one of youthful excess and/or inexperience. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

- Sitush (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)