Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

GERAC

I'm currently engaged in a big dispute with User:Alexbrn and User:QuackGuru as they try to take the German Acupuncture Trials article apart. The argument mainly centers around whether the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) can be considered a reliable source, and whether the GERAC are notable at all (I think they are, since they were one of the main reasons why the Federal Joint Committee decided that acupuncture is reimbursable by the statutory health insurances, for low back pain and knee pain). But these questions are already being discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard and at AfD (since Alexbrn has already started a case there).
The reason I ask for input here is the way these two users are going at it. Even though discussion is ongoing, QuackGuru has been tagging the article excessively [1] and deleting sources he doesn't like [2], while Alexbrn just nukeandpaved almost the entire article when he came to join the discussion today [3]. After reducing the article to a stub, he nominated it for deletion [4] On my objection, I was simply told I obviously don't understand WP policy regarding secondary sources [5]. When I reverted his nukeandpave, he threatened me to be blocked because of edit warring [6].
As laudable as the works of QG and Alexbrn are in clearing WP of pseudoscience and bogus alt med content, they're overshooting the mark here. Could someone please look into this? Of course I'm willing to discuss anything regarding content and sources, but I feel a little helpless against their rapid actions. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced text does not belong in mainspace. I explained this on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we don't agree on this being poorly sourced, do we? But your rationale why the (secondary) Fed. Joint Comm. source shouldn't be used is bogus. And as I pointed out before, WP:MEDRS states very clearly, that in some cases primary sources can be used - to give descriptive information about how the GERAC where done is one of these cases. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• A content dispute, other than Mallexikon saying I threatened him/her. My posting an edit-warring notice on their Talk page and warning about 3RR does not constitute a "threat", I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well how about your nukeanpave of sourced material, and then presenting the remaining stub at AfD? (Which has so far be rejected, by the way) --Mallexikon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

At the AfD page, a user conduct discussion regarding Alexbrn was recommended [7]... Is this the right place or do I have to take it to a special AN? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "of poorly-sourced material" - good stuff eh? We're here to improve Wikipedia, after all ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's poorly sourced... We have a very good secondary source here: a review of acupuncture studies, by an independent medical organization (Federal Joint Committee (Germany)). But you won't even listen to me, or wait for consensus. Instead, you revert me, and delete sourced material at will, and then carry the remaining stub to AfD... --Mallexikon (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a FYI, the article is German Acupuncture Trials not the currently redlinked German Acupuncture trials. If it survives AFD (including if it's merged or redirected), either create a redirect or move depending on how it's decided to handle the capitalisation. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. The only administrator's comment. After 12 hours. Focussing on redirect of the article. Thanks a lot, guys... --Mallexikon (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To allow a proper study of the matter at AfD, I recommend that the article content that was previously removed by User:Alexbrn and User:Quackguru be left in place until the deletion discussion is over. One of their removals was here. I am a bit surprised that WP:MEDRS is being interpreted so broadly as to require immediate removal, even during the period that a time-limited discussion is in progress. We expect to see immediate removal of badly-sourced material in cases of libel or slander, but citations to the Archives of Internal Medicine (whether or not the material published there is ultimately found to be quackish) won't cause immediate harm. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually you've missed my main point (noting I'm not an administrator and there's no need for an administrator to create the redirect). Your original comment previously linked to the redlinked German Acupuncture trials. This was fairly confusing since people may assume (I did at first) that the article has already been deleted. I did not modify your comment, as you or someone else has now done, because there sometimes is a lot of controversy over modifying comments. So even in a clear cut case like this I felt it best not to open that can of worms.

Instead I thought it best to point out the actual article is German Acupuncture Trials, which isn't currently redlinked, for the benefit of anyone else reading this discussion.

I also recognised that ideally there should be a German Acupuncture trials redirect presuming German Acupuncture Trials exists, either as a redirect to German Acupuncture Trials or a redirect to wherever German Acupuncture Trials points to. When I see an accidental redlink to something which should be a redirect anyway, I normally simply create a redirectk, perhaps mentioning I have done (to reduce confusion if people saw the redlink). However because of the uncertainty due to the AFD over whether German Acupuncture Trials will exist, I decided creating a redirect at this time would be silly. So instead I simply reminded those involved they should do so in the future and used the opportunity to also explained why I did not just fix the problem myself.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Is there a reason that the article was gutted, stubbed, and then put up for deletion? Why wasn't the article just put up for deletion as is? GregJackP Boomer! 06:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Because doing the WP:NUKEANDPAVE (and adding a new piece of secondarily-sourced material), and then seeing the result, crystalized my thought that that subject matter here made this article an AfD candidate. As it happened, the large amount of primary material that I removed has been restored and this has proved a distraction from the pertinent questions at AfD (although other editors have added better-sourced content which is pertinent). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Well it wasn't like that, was it? Your nukeandpave edit (removing reliably sourced material) took place at 6:19 [8]. However, at 3:57 you already had this discussion with QG where you stated that "... this article needs to be filleted - in fact probably deleted, with any usable remnant merged into the main acupuncture article". This was premeditated. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • What are you trying to say? Going from a thought that it "probably" should be deleted to actually deciding that it should be deleted is precisely what I meant by saying the stubbing process "crystalized my thought". So after thinking some more about it and searching for sources I nominated it for AfD. BTW, as has been pointed out at AfD, you set this hare running with a false statement that I nominated the stubbed article for deletion, when in fact it had been reverted by the time I made the nomination. Would be grateful if you could correct this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

QuackGuru

I'm not a person who likes running to a higher authority whenever something happens, but I do think this requires some attention from an administrator.

Basically, QuackGuru is a long time editor who edits mostly topics related to Quackery, which includes things like energy medicine, homeopathy, and in this case, acupuncture.

That alone should not be problematic, except that Quack is misinterpreting a lot of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in his controversial edits. What's more worrying is how Quack deliberately tries to compromise the integrity of an article that is currently being nominated for deletion along with any person or organization that's somehow related to these trials. The Federal Joint Committee (Germany), as a federal body working on a national level, is obviously a notable health authority so I think Quack's proposal for its re-direction seems to be somewhat unconstructive:

I propose redirect Federal Joint Committee (Germany) to Healthcare in Germany#Regulation]

...especially when it was made on the 20th of November, which happens to be the day that the trials were nominated for deletion.

Quack is still removing a lot of content from the German Acupuncture Trials, but I believe most of the article is reliably sourced. It shouldn't surprise anyone that most sources included in the German Acupuncture Trials are only available in German, yet QuackGuru is tagging all of these sources as "unreliable". I believe any native speaker of German (or even English) would be able confirm that the Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift is a reliable source.

The more important point here is that these trials are obviously notable (nobody seems to be denying that they're not), but before I continue to spend my time working on it, I want to be sure that those people who have issues with my additions at least try to read the references that I've cited before tagging.

I've tried talking to QuackGuru about this on this talk page, but he simply removed all comments, so perhaps there's an uninvolved admin who would like to give a third opinion? -A1candidate (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A1candidate is one of the editors who wants to keep the article with the disputed text and unimportant low level details. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article to describe the trial itself. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. The primary sources are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources that do not show it is notable. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails WP:MEDRS and WP:SECONDARY. The Joint Fed. Committee study is also being used to discuss the trial itself. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. All the medicine cannot be stripped out of this article because editors at the article think it is a medical article. If the non-notable medical claims are removed from the article there may only be a few sources on how a clinical trial impacted the society and politics. The current state of the article makes it impossible for editors at the AFD to determine if the topic is notable. Again, the primary sources are being used in this article to make statements about the acupuncture trial itself to discuss medical information that is unrelated to how a clinical trial impacted society and politics. Do you see the unrelated medical information and do you think that information must be removed? Discussing the details about the trial itself creates a WP:COATHOOK. There is not a decent paragraph in Healthcare in Germany#Regulation, Regulation of acupuncture#Germany or Acupuncture. The content can be merged into the other articles. Editors at the AFD commented there many problems with the current article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. See here, for example. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion. If it needs to be deleted because of poor sources, nominate it and make your case at AfD that the sources are crap. This article had 23K of material removed by Alexbrn [9], then it was nominated for deletion by him. The material was re-added to the article and then removed by you [10], [11] in what appears to be a tag-team match with Alexbrn. It is also not appropriate to remove reliable sources from an article while it is at AfD, which QuackGuru has done repeatedly, without any apparent consensus to do so. Note, I am uninvolved in the article and personally think that acupuncture is BS, but this isn't the way to go about it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion" ← well that's your opinion; I disagree. The fate of the article largely depends on its potential (as dictated by the sources available in the real world), not on what's there right now. You seem to be very free with your accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and that certainly is "not appropriate conduct". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just my opinion. I've heard it several times and places, especially since I'm a deletionist and don't have a problem in getting rid of crap articles. I did not assume bad faith either. I'm sure that both you and QG are doing this with the best of intentions. My statement above was factual and focused on what had happened and what should happen. No where did I state that I believed that either of you were acting in bad faith, nor have I asked for any sanctions for misconduct. I'm merely pointing out a better way to do it in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sure it is an opinion others share with you, and I respect it. TBH I didn't see any great link between stubbing the article and the AfD nomination, though I do now regret doing both in succession now because it's given an excuse for others to create a distraction around the article, rather than focussing on the content (which has always been the issue of substance here, so far as I'm concerned). In writing that QuackGuru appears to be in "a tag-team match with Alexbrn" you are at least being uncivil (see WP:TAGTEAM) in that this implies some degree of coordinated action. In fact when it began to look like the reversions and re-reversions were escalating into an edit war I backed off (and warned QuackGuru and another editor who had got to 3RR not to continue). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

QuackGuru II

He is doing it again, this time removing a huge chunk of content directly related to the trials . -A1candidate (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The real question is, why is he allowed to edit at all? It's because everyone knows it is throwaway account used to do the so-called "dirty work", and he's supported by a great number of editors and admins alike for this singular purpose. It's like having an account-for-hire, but one that you know will be blocked for disruption. He's completely supported in this endeavor by the community, which tells you everything you need to know, in other words, the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Don't expect the rule of law, justice, or equal treatment on Wikipedia, because you won't find it here. It's obvious and transparent that this account is solely used to disrupt Wikipedia. QuackGuru isn't interested in arguing with you or compromising, or backing down on anything. He will simply disrupt the encyclopedia like he has always done. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Gryffindor

Could someone please have a quiet word with the administrator User:Gryffindor who is currently stalking my edits and trolling by adding info boxes (full of errors) against consensus (even on a well known FA Buckingham palace) and generally being tiresome by making small meaningless edits and comments to other pages which I have heavily edited or begun and am known to be heavily involved with. It would be good if this could be nipped in the bud before it get's out of hand. Thank you.  Giano  09:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Giano, perhaps you should provide some diffs to support your complaint? And have you made any other attempts at dispute resolution before coming to ANI? - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the time or inclination to go digging about and copy pasting diffs where trolls are concerned. They are easy enough to see in his contributions. If admins won't monitor their own kind here, then I am more than capable of dealing with the matter myself. I just thought it was procedure to flag up problem editors here first. My mistake obviously - it won't happen again.  Giano  17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close. Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss does not constitute whatever User:Giano is complaining about. Gryffindor (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Gryffindor, do you think it's appropriate to ask that an ANI against you be immediately closed before it's be discussed and the issues evaluated? - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I see 2RR apiece from Gryffindor ([12], [13]) and Giano ([14], [15]). Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss is okay, but not if it's accompanied with a blind revert to the right version lacking an edit summary. Trouts all round. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am also referring to his stalking of pages which I have edited just to make irritating edits Vorontsov Palace, Buckingham Palace, Talk:Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Halton House and Marble Arch. Al in the space of 12 hours. He does not edit in the historical architectural field at all, so what is he doing there if not trolling. I'm in the middle of writing pages I don't want to have to spare time on his meaningless stalking and trolling.  Giano  10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better Giano, there's an infobox at Rainthorpe Hall that you can remove, and you have my word I will not edit war over its re-addition (although if you'd like to improve it to, say, B class, while you're there, that would be nice....). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That is very horrible indeed. I'll expand that later when I'm back from the Crimea, unless our new architectural expert transforms it into a GA first.  Giano  10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look through both Giano's and Gryffindor's contribs for the last few days, and I can't find any smoking gun that points towards stalking or harassment. It does seem unlikely for Gryffindor to have been editing the same articles as Giano by chance, but then checking another user's contributions is not outlawed unless there is other inappropriate behaviour. From WP:HARASS: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't see anything particularly offensive here, and I haven't seen any evidence of repetition of this before this week. And Gryffindor has also been editing a lot of architectural articles, so there is nothing that unusual about seeing him editing in the general topic area. Giano: what makes you think that Gryffindor is "stalking [your] edits and trolling" rather than simply trying to improve the articles in question? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that he is suddenly editing architectural articles....now. Stalking me and wandering in off the street onto pages where he's never been seen before and adding infoboxes against consensus and then edit warring with them seems, to me, inappropriate behavior for an admin - especially when he has filled those infoboxes with erroneous facts. To me, the adding of erroneous facts is the worst possible behavior - he either does it deliberately to annoy or he just adds boxes without bothering to read the page - either way, it's pretty poor behavior for an admin. Furthermore, at the same time as he's arguing with me about infoboxes elsewhere, he suddenly makes four completely pointless edits here [16]. Anyhow don't bother too much, I always regard this page as a futile, but necessary stepping stone to taking the matter into one's own hands, which is always more effective.  Giano  08:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have a few more questions: first, is there a past history between you and Gryffindor? Some links to past discussions would help a lot in investigating whether this is a one-time thing or not. Second, could you point us to some of the claims that Gryffindor has inserted into articles that you think are erroneous? And third, are there any discussions where you have asked Gryffindor about any of these specific claims? I couldn't find any when I looked around, but it's possible I may have missed them. And finally, what do you mean by "taking matters into one's own hands"? That sounds vaguely threatening and has me worried, so I would appreciate some clarification. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: I just tried searching the ANI archives for any past discussions involving both Giano and Gryffindor, but I drew a blank. If there is any past history here, it is not obvious. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Mr. Stradivarius. I suggest you address the questions to Gryffindor and ask him to explain his extraordinary behavior; he cannot be unaware that infoboxes are a controversial subject and that's when added without errors and with talk page consensus. I had previously never heard of him, and looking at his previous edits, there is no reason why I should have heard of him - I expect he was fulfilling some other person's agenda. Anyway, he seems to have learnt the error of his ways. Regarding "taking matters into one's own hands", well that is often the best method. Admins are hardly renowned for sorting each other out - are they?  Giano  12:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Comment from uninvolved editor @Mr. Stradivarius:, perhaps you should try wikistalk instead. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious referencing of other people's motives

Apologies for TL;DR. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to be able to stop repeatedly making accusations maligning the alleged disruptive behaviour/bad faith etc of other contributors in the circus that is articles relating to Austrian Economics. OK, she usually carefully avoids naming names but the circus has a small cast and far more often than not they are opposed across the entire gamut of these articles: it doesn't take a moment to work out to whom it is she is referring. The underlying content issues seems to me (who knows little about the subject) to be six of one and half a dozen of the other but Carolmoore is aware that we have processes for dealing with her allegations and yet she continues to avoid pursuing them in favour of continual whining across a wide range of forums. There are rarely any diffs provided. Some recent examples:

• at RSN
• at BLPN
• WT:Citing sources
• RSN again
• Talk:Ralph Raico (in fairness, later qualified with this)
• this amendment came out of my request following this
• RSN, the change coming after a request

That lot is a sample from the last few days. The problem has gone on for much longer (certainly prior to the examples in the lengthy thread here) and recently has included questions about application of WP:AEGS as if she is hoping that someone will do the dirty work for her (eg: here).

I do realise that the entire topic area is toxic at the moment and that Carolmoore is far from being alone in exhibiting dodgy behaviour. However, we've got to get a grip on this increasingly personalised timesink of a topic and the fact that she acknowledged the issue in the last diff of the list above but then continued in the same vein over subsequent days is worrying. I could refer her to WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP but I do not have the clout of an admin (everyone is born equal but ...). There have been moments when I've toyed with suggesting that all the major contributors should be topic banned because the behavioural problems do seem sometimes to be widespread. Right now, I'm not convinced that banning CM alone does the project any favours because of balancing issues but, please, can someone suggest a remedy here? - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I did decide tonight stop whining and take User:Sitush's advice and do a well formed WP:ANI of all the continuing problems in the Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions area, imposed October 26. I had gotten a section of diffs completed when I saw this.

But having spent too many hours today dealing with the same BLP violations, the same input of poorly sourced negative material, the same deletions of perfectly acceptable RS material, and the same personal harassment that happened before sanctions and during the last month, I'm a bit burnt out today. So I'll reply tomorrow afternoon sometime with those ANI issues, either here or in a separate ANI as others' advise.

Actually I did just look at the diffs and I do want to note that I'm still trying to get better guidance from WP:ANI on how often and in what context one can refer "publicly" to others frequently stated biases per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. Asked here twice before. This includes reacting to explicitly expressed biases to which I probably replied one or more times, if not necessarily in the diff presented. But not going to figure it out tonight.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc reply on Sitush diffs

Thinking about it more, after a long nap, maybe a quick response to each of Sitush's diffs is needed:

• at RSN. -- CM:looks like polite mention of a factoid well known by the editor I was speaking about, per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors
• at BLPN. -- CM: Isn't BLPN the place to complain that editors biases are being used to distort an article?
• WT:Citing sources. -- CM: No one there would know or care who I was talking about but if the editor was misusing citing it might be relevant; I still haven't figured out exactly what the citing html issue is, but the material was removed making it moot.
• RSN again. -- CM: I'm discussing advocacy group type biases in an administrative setting per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors
• Talk:Ralph Raico (in fairness, later qualified with this). -- CM: Yes, I'm whining about Steeletrap and SPECIFICO always removing well sourced material. Mea culpa.
• this amendment came out of my request following this. -- CM: I make a joke about Friedman not needing to bolster his ego and mention I'm not a paid editor, which I later removed since you did not assume good faith and assumed I was talking about someone in particular. I was just talking about me not being paid. Geez...
• RSN, the change coming after a request. -- CM: Yes, I complained in general terms about SPECIFICO following me to other pages in non-Austrian areas and commenting on my work, usually negatively. But I don't get impression anyone would do anything about it at ANI - and I did remove it after you complained.

Well, at least Sitush did do me the courtesy of providing diffs! Though I'd like to think they are far less serious than material I provide below in my WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP response to Sitush. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea why you started another subsection for your response above. Still my report is now a sideshow and can be closed. As per the section below this, things have moved on. If nothing to your liking comes from the points that your raise below then I think you'll need to draw a line in the sand. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, everything Carol has said below confirms your initial complaint. You state concern about her incivility and her reply is yet more incivility. All her sufferings and complaints have been litigated before and dismissed. They are full of lies, half-truths and of course more personal attacks. Why would you withdraw this ANI now? Carol's response is ample evidence of her inability to address any substantive issue without bringing on even more PA and other uncivil behavior. Why conclude that her recidivist behavior is going to change now, for the first time, after countless examples to the contrary? Are you satisfied that her writing in this ANI acceptably responsive, truthful and civil? I can well understand you may not have taken the time to read through the 13 noticeboard complaints she cites in her defense. I reviewed a few and I see the same behavior over and over. BTW, when she posts a link to a diff part way through an ANI or other thread, it's important to find the responses which followed when others read her assertions. I'll just tell you however that uninvolved editors who have invested the time to research her behavior in the past have been disgusted by what they found. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you should name those "disgusted" editors and stick the standard {{ANI-notice}} on their talk pages, or give some diffs. I doubt that would be construed as canvassing in the present circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, you did make me finally file a list of complaints, though like I said the timing is really bad and it's unlikely there will be much non-involved editor comment until next week. So your mission has been accomplished. If you are recommending to others that they post to MilesMoney or Stalwart (or anyone else?) who can be assumed to reply here, I'm assuming you are recommending I contact an equal number. I'll follow others' lead on what is and is not canvassing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if we assume all your allegations about "biased editors" to be true, repeatedly (on an almost daily basis) making these allegations, rather than filing them on ANI, is a clear violation of the spirit and policy of WP. Steeletrap (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth Sitush, those people like myself who have had to wade through this blather before (in my case at the BLP noticeboard) probably dont want to get involved. Carol is big on talking, not so much on factual evidence. I got fed up in the end and just tuned her out. Giant waste of time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush: As I wrote above, I took your comments about WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP as an invite to do so here. And when others started criticizing me based on your list, which I thought was rather innocuous, I thought I should respond to those specific issues. I'm not denying I've complained alot about certain editors' explicitly and repeatedly stated POVs and the way their POVs distorted their editing, in my opinion and that of others. Yet no uninvolved editor has yet replied here about whether or not the complaints were consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. Considering these three editors are making probably an average of 7 to 10 problematic edits to 3 or 4 different Austrian economics articles almost every day, the topic keeps coming up! (Look especially at SPECIFICO and Steeletraps contributions lists.)

Perhaps I was being too nice in not coming here two weeks ago when the three editors in question were dissing a dozen or more quality references calling Murray Rothbard an historian, doing it both on the Rothbard talk page and/or at WP:RSN on that topic. This after they were continuing to defend using very negative, low quality and/or self-published blog posts in Rothbard, Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute and Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Per this discussion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Carolmoordc is denying Sitush's concerns by stating her opinion that they are innocuous. And then she's denying her daily breaches of the core WP Pillar of civility by stating that her disparagement and attacks are justified because she disagrees with various editors about article content. As they say in Dixie, "That dog won't hunt." User Carolmoore has demonstrated over and over that she is unable to "comment on content not contributors". Her behavior has caused months of disruption which wastes editor and Admin time and attention nearly every day. For whatever reason she appears to be constitutionally unable to change her behavior. We've seen repeated promises to do better when it's appeared that the community was about to discipline her, but she soon resumes her disruptive and tendentious editing. Under the current Community Sanctions relating to Austrian Economics, any Admin is empowered to block Carolmooredc, and such a block is amply justified by this thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If wikipedia thinks complaining about issues is worse than the issues themselves, including constant need to go to noticeboards because of editors' intransigence and POV pushing on BLP and RSN, it's pretty sad day. As just one example, in the last 24 hours questionable BLP-violation edits have generated five talk page sections in just two articles (necessitating three editors dealing with them): 1, 2 (this needs to be applied to other bio also), 3, 4, 5. Exhausting... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply:Frustrating issues in Austrian economics community sanctions area

Obviously those diffs above express my frustration with various continuing issues in the Austrian economics General Sanctions covered articles. Thanksgiving week is a bad time to deal with this, but since User Sitush forced the issue above, here we go. Note that it's a lot easier to prove frustrated snippy comments like mine than to prove patterns of behavior like the below, so, yes, it's long...

October 26th ANI imposing Community Sanctions on Austrian economics article after a number of complaints about problems in the area, including my long listing of diffs & links here. (See sanctions page Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions where a few of us have now been notified and logged.)

In that discussion, two of us expressed similar concerns:

• Me, I have no love for Austrian School economists (I am in favor of government-instituted economic policies) and I am not at all an economist by training or practice, so I am as neutral on the general topic as can be achieved here on Wikipedia. When I was alerted to problems related to Austrian School topics I found Steeletrap and Specifico working their POV changes to put one faction in a bad light. It became clear that they were fans of a competing faction, and that their purpose on Wikipedia was to reduce the respectability of their ideological opponents. Whatever I do at those articles is intended to establish as neutral a tone as possible. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• As I've said many times, it's one thing to clean up an article with issues you describe and add NPOV info, including critical info. It's something else to emphasize adding highly negative material in a WP:Undue fashion while frustrating others' attempts to add NPOV material. [User:Carolmooredc]] ''' 12:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see these as continuing problems, either done or supported by Users: Steeletrap and SPECIFICO, and to a lesser degree by MilesMoney. Since the Community Sanctions were imposed, especially problematic articles include Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas DiLorenzo , Ludwig von Mises Institute, Robert P. Murphy, and lately Ralph Raico. Feel free to mention any other articles. Additions of negative, cherry picked and poorly sourced material; deletion of WP:RS NPOV neutral or (heavens forbid!) positive material; need to go to noticeboards because discussions drag on without resolution or editors refuse to admit they are in the clear minority - or that there are obvious BLP problems; refusal to enter into any dispute resolution. Related issues below:

Heavy negative biases

• Steeletrap is working on “independent research on the von Mises Institute (for the Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements)” and admitted early on to being “strongly biased against them”.(diff), writing later "(To put it plainly, I think they are cultish, ideologically-driven charlatans whose "economics" is just an attempt to justify their ideological priors), and also believe that a great many of them are bigots.”(diff). Steeletrap attests to having a minor [corrected: undergranduate degree] in economics & anthropology(diff) and believes such expertise is necessary so firmly that Steeletrap proposed in the Community Sanctions ANI “Sub-proposal: Require administrators who evaluate/sanction editors to be educated in economics’‘.
• SPECIFICO stated his biases when he wrote: I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition.(diff)
• I personally have refrained from such POV soapbox, though their searching around Wikipedia and the internet helped them figure out I’m a libertarian of some sort who knew Murray Rothbard 30 years ago. I have expressed very strong opinions about misusing Wikipedia and violating its policies to discredit those one disagrees with politically, something I've spent far too much time dealing with on other issues as well.

WP:RSN

• Oct 25-on: Steeletrap: Volokh_Conspiracy (as RS)
• Oct 25-on: Carolmooredc: 3 questionable sources in Von Mises Institute article.
• Nov 12, Carolmooredc: Rothbard as historian (re: rejection of almost 12 RS saying he was one)
• Nov 18, User TFD: Rothbard article (re: inaccurate ref)
• Nov 19, User:Carolmooredc: Demos blog in BLP of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (low quality ref in BLP)
• Nov 24, User:Carolmooredc: Institute bios in BLPs (Joseph R. Stromberg and Ralph Raico. (Removal of Institute profile factoids on views)

WP:BLPN

• Oct 26, User:Arzel: Von Mises Institute re: Volkh Conspiracy generalizations.
• Oct 26 User:Arzel 1 names MilesMoney who has been a problem in this area and Nov 2 User:Quest for Knowledge 2 an RfC, both regarding Rand Paul. (I would not be surprised if some see discrediting Von Mises Institute associates, including Ron Paul, as part of discrediting Rand Paul and his future career.)
• Nov 23, User:Carolmooredc: Removing BLP violating material re: Thomas DiLorenzo article after SPECIFICO refused to reply to a long list of issues and accused me of trying to White Wash the BLP.(this diff).

Continuing harassment
Obviously this has made me more touchy and whiny that I might otherwise have been.

• At earlier ANIs I complained about harassment by User:Steeletrap refusing to stop posting to my talk page and User:SPECIFICO harassing personal talk page messages
• October 31 User:Steeletrap again harassed me on my talk page which I reported to the admin who initially warned Steeletrap. I also had to make it clear to SPECIFICO that he had been banned for his past harassment, since my ANI and a poorly worded mention of it to him on someone elses' talk page did not make that impression.
• October 31 User:Steeletrap first harassed me on the Murray Rothbard talk page about alleged COI because I knew and associated with Rothbard a bit 30 years ago. Despite my replies Steeletrap took me to COI Noticeboard where it was clear there was no conflict. (See Murray Rothbard "Views" section for negative, cherry picked coatrack in action and this talk page section on POV.)
• November 23 Specifico edit warring notice and November 24 Specifico 3rr notice to me about edits that did not violate 3rr but did try to correct serious BLP problems discussed and linked to at the afore mentioned [[ Nov 23 BLPN discussion. (This after SPECIFICO made the "white wash" accusation.)
• [Added later:] Steeletrap's soapbox inferences I'm a bigot for trying to follow WP policy in Murray Rothbard, at this diff.

Refusal to engage in dispute resolution

• My Ludwig von Mises Institute talk page suggestions to Specifico and Steeletrap that we all discuss issues on WHERE at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard were totally ignored.
• Given that it’s not surprising that my later listing of issues we could discuss at Dispute resolution (diff) was ignored.

That’s enough for now, though I can present lots of diffs of individual acts of questionable entry of bad material, defense of bad material, removal of perfectly good material, etc. Note that I gave up on doing much in Wikipedia in August and September because I was disgusted with these issues. The Community Sanctions gave me some hope, but despite them it's been the same old same old for the last month. Thus my whining. I wouldn’t mind seeing us all banned from these articles IF other NPOV editors would clean up the most obvious problems and add NPOV material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

HEY! Don't be downgrading my econ B.S. to a mere "minor" in econ. Otherwise this is the same old tl;dr stuff that has been brought up by Carol on numerous ANIs in the past. Carol is WP:Forumshoping by raising these old charges again and again. (I was upfront in disclosing my bias, but it doesn't preclude me from editing these pages, any more than someone skeptical of Scientology from editing Scientology related pages; and for the record, my Master's thesis in anthropology is complete and made no mention of LvMI in its final form.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Funny, CMDC, my recollection is that you stated you would give up on editing for a while when it became clear that -- after your dozen or so failed Noticeboard complaints -- your specious ANI against me threatened to BOOMERANG against you with a topic-ban last August. I have nothing to say about your accusations and attacks. They speak volumes about you and your attitude and behavior here. I'll only say that the battleground personal attacks and ad hominem talkpage discussions in these articles began with your antics here last spring. What at first seemed kind of funny -- you remember: that time when you accused me of CANVASSING with faulty notifications of a talkpage RfC and then copied exactly the same words in your own notifications -- that opening salvo of yours has developed into what we see today. Thanks for the memories. There was nothing but clear constructive content disagreement here before you stirred things up. I'm confident the community will do the right thing here. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: I do not know what you are talking about in your allegations above and unless you can provide diffs or links reminding me and proving it to others I will have to assume you are making up exaggerated or false allegations in order to avoid taking responsibility for all the questionable editing I've pointed to. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who clicks on the links you've already provided and investigates the context and the rebukes of other editors, for example the thoughtful and articulate @Stalwart111: will be able to evaluate your behavior. I may provide additional diffs, or other editors may do so, but as I see it your behavior as documented by Sitush's opening statement, your writings here in this ANI thread, and the language of the Sanctions would justify a block. I am traveling and don't expect to be on WP for the rest of the day today, sorry. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, if anyone wants to know MilesMoney/Steeletrap/SPECIFICO's contemptuous opinion of Community sanctions and their admins see this user talk page thread (or if it's deleted the deletion diff): Mises Sanctions as a Horror movie plot: Anyone can die?'. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've worked with CarolMoore several years. She fastidiously finds and follows quality sources, avoids OR, seeks the neutrality that such leads to, and is very direct / blunt in conversations on such. The times that I've butted heads with her is when I thought she might have done this too thoroughly / rigorously. Although I don't consider myself to be enough of an expert or research to jump fully into the articles discussed above, I have been watching them and occasionally weighing in only in process areas. Carol's efforts of the type I described above (including following where quality sources lead) have led her to a collision with folks who to me appears have been working towards a negative spin on the subjects of the articles. Trying to use the bluntness aspect to go after her is trying to use a minor sidebar of this against her and I think out of line. And an even weaker construction after folks even admit that it was not about or to anyone specifically, and not even using the singular in her comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is true that I wrote the following in mid-October: "When I was alerted to problems related to Austrian School topics I found Steeletrap and Specifico working their POV changes to put one faction in a bad light. It became clear that they were fans of a competing faction, and that their purpose on Wikipedia was to reduce the respectability of their ideological opponents." I should add that MilesMoney joined this pair of POV editors to act as their heavy, throwing additional stumbling blocks at those who were trying to maintain neutrality on Austrian School articles. MilesMoney was topic banned, but I do not see the problem lessening with regard to Steeletrap and Specifico. They both have been reverting too many times in the last few weeks at Murry Rothbard, and they continue to try and reduce the respectability of Rothbard, for instance with this edit by Specifico in which Rothbard is denied the names of like-minded colleagues, and this recent change by Steeletrap in which a Ralph Raico statement is cast as being both trivial and conflicted. Little by little, Specifico and Steeletrap have been working to reduce Rothbard's legacy as much as they can get away with. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! Do those diffs ever not prove your point. — goethean 00:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Binksternet, you are saying that Carolmooredc is justified in filling nearly every "contribution" -- text, talkpage posts, and edit summaries -- with personal attacks and disparagement as documented by OP and others? And the justification for violating the Pillar of civility is that she has a content dispute with other editors? Is that your view? I'd like to know how many of the Admins who patrol this page agree with Binksternet that Carolmoore's personal attacks, incivility, and disparagement of other editors -- posting a stream of ad hominem attacks instead of responding to clearly stated content disagrements -- how many Admins agree with that? Anyone? SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am saying nothing of the sort. Did you see anything in my comment about Carolmooredc? No, of course you did not. I have not commented on her behavior because I see that it is uneven, that she makes good points sometimes and then she goes off on a jag. This whole thread is woefully unorganized because she was unable to clearly state her case. Still, there is a case to be made, difficult as it may be, so the right thing to do is figure out what the problem is and correct it. I see the problem as the continuation of POV editing by you and Steeletrap. Do I think Carolmooredc has perfectly clean hands? No, not really. I think that some of her contributions to Austrian School articles are poorly thought out.

I take offense that you would pin a fabricated viewpoint on me, drawn from whole cloth. Such misleading behavior does not win you supporters. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Misleading behavior like claiming I'm topic-banned when that's not the case? Let's stick to the facts: this report has nothing to do with anyone but Carol and her behavior. She keeps throwing accusations around, pointing at everyone else but herself, but even you admit that these don't excuse her behavior. She refuses to admit that she's made mistakes and take personal responsibility for them, instead playing the victim and repeating her performances.

As far as I'm concerned, anything Carol says here about others here is just more evidence against her, showing that she's unable to discuss issues without making them personal. As you admitted, she's terribly disorganized, so when she actually does discuss content, she makes a mess of things. And as you admit with your comment about clean hands, she is extremely biased, prone to misinterpreting sources, picking and choosing, and generally resisting anything she dislikes regardless of how well it's sourced. She shops around to forum after forum until she gets her way and she is, in general, quite tedious to deal with.

I am hardly Sitush's best friend, and that's mutual, but I think all of us see that Carol's behavior is a problem. Making excuses for her is highly counterproductive, as it only enables her misbehavior. Instead, she should come clean, admit that she's too biased to edit articles on people she knew personally, and agree to leave these articles alone. If this problem isn't dealt with now, it'll only come up again. Carol is currently the most disruptive editor on Austrian economics-related articles and we cannot ignore this any longer.

I've said my piece, I'm done here. Stick to the facts, stick to the topic, and stop making false statements. MilesMoney (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

For uninvolved editors who wish to see what Carol and her "suppporters" are talking about: - I just opened the link which Binksternet cites as a smoking gun against me to prove that I deserve to be personally attacked and that I am not editing in good faith: I hope that every reader will take a look: this is the edit. Now, Binskternet, it is hard to believe that you are telling the assembled editors and Admins here that the diff you cited proves that I am a bad-faith, biased, POV-pushing, etc. etc. editor. What's the problem? A copy edit which trims the names of two high-school students who accompanied Rothbard to Ayn Rand's place? I know that you're aware that this article is about Rothbard, and not the two students. False accusation of bad faith is a WP:personal attack and it's inflammatory. Please strike your message above. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Your bluster is unbecoming. The diff I showed is a small part of you chipping away at Rothbard, bit by bit. You have been creating this problem for a long time, with many edits. Few of your edits can stand alone as evidence against you, including this one. Instead, the overall pattern of your editing for many months is what makes the picture complete. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there's no further discussion. Do we need to put this up to a vote now? MilesMoney (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of ArbCom elections, we do not strictly speaking vote on Wikipedia. Neither is there any need for every discussion on a central noticeboard, such as this or RSN, to end in a vote. Some things just die a death and in other cases the consensus is clear anyway. Whatever the outcome of this thing may be, it should signal the end of Carolmooredc's repeated and often oblique references to generalised issues on other boards: she'll either get a favourable reaction here or she will not. In either event, there should be a line drawn under things. Personally, I think that there are problems on both sides: Specifico and, in particular, Steeletrap and yourself are causing huge amounts of disruption with point-y edits and ridiculous challenges to things such as clearly unreliable sources (what?) and the use of words like "historian". But, hey, when I'm in the mood to draw up a list of diffs myself then you'll know about it and until then I won't be referring further to it - you've had as much of a warning as I'm going to give and can decide whether to risk it or not based on things such as my past experiences when initiating reports here.

And before someone says yet again that this is a "bad week" for bringing things here, it isn't: Wikipedia does not go into meltdown just because some people in the US are stuffing their faces with turkey etc, nor when people are engaging in other annual rituals on 25 December of 31 December/1 January, Passover, Diwali etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I think there's agreement that Carolmooredc should not be permitted to continue her personal attacks and other disruptive and tendentious behavior which has been discsussed above. As I see it, the problem is that she's demonstrated that she's unable to control herself. If she were capable of changing her behavior, I do not believe that she would have continued with the same sort of disparaging and accusatory narrative in this ANI. My experience and knowledge around WP is much more limited than yours, but I am struck that on this thread nobody, not even those who have "sided" with Carolmooredc on various earlier talkpage and noticeboard threads, have denied your initial complaint, nor have they tried to excuse her behavior. In fact, when I interpreted Binksternet's comment as a rationalization of Carolmooredc's attacks, he corrected me and stated that even he -- who last summer accepted at face value her accusations and conspiracy theories about other editors -- did not come here to defend her behavior.

With these articles under General Sanctions, any Admin who has read this thread and reviewed Carolmoore's history of disruptive and tendentious editing, her personal attacks, and her steadfast refusal to limit her WP remarks to "content and not contributors" could block her. I have no knowledge of how Admins have traditionally exercised this authority in other areas under Sanctions, but I'd hate to think that with all the time and attention we have put into discussing Carolmooredc's behavior we are going to go back to the same old same-old. If that's all that comes of this thread -- some kind of warning or the wishful expectation that Carolmooredc is going to exercise a new self control which she has never yet been able to muster, then how can we trust this process or the GS enforcement to support the WP-efforts we invest in the future? So, I hope that Sitush as OP and the most experienced among us in these matters -- and all the Admins who must be watching this board -- can help take this thread to an effective outcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I read Sitush's PUT UP OR SHUT UP comments to be an invitation to make specific complaints here. Plus, now that I think of it, show that I and other editors have tried to do something about the problems I generally complain about with multiple noticeboard visits in the last month! (Where the community generally supported the complaints, if anyone bothers to read the noticeboard postings.) Maybe my listing above needed to be shorter and most of it done here next week instead; my apologies if so.

I certainly do encourage Sitush to come and list the issues he has with the editors in question, per his general discussion above. I've already got a big BLPN building up now for later next week if issues not addressed properly.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Clogging the Noticeboards with ordinary content discussions which belong on the article talk pages is one of the ways in which your participation continues to be disruptive, for example here, in this thread, where you continue your pattern of personal disparagement even after numerous warnings and this ANI SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And here we are, an hour later and Carolmooredc has posted additional gratuitous, and inaccurate, personal disparagement: [17]. It's clear that she is not able to control this behavior. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussions are a relevant place for problematic editing issues so this is a strawperson. Both links refer to bringing one editor to WP:RSN for removing Institute-related info from two different bios the same day. I did do a WP:RSN search, as inferred in original WP:RSN posting, and saw WP:RSN usually supports such use, but I was too burned out to do all the links on both talk pages and then have to explain them, when it seemed a cut and dried case with "problematic behavior by one or more editors" (as an uninvolved editor put the general problem in reply to last diff) just delaying the inevitable. Additionally, my comments were in reply to questions from another editor today about the objective situation and were relevant to the discussion, as behavior and POV editing usually are at noticeboards! All the other complaints were filed due to I or others being annoyed that discussion was going no where because of equal numbers of pretty much the same editors on each side of issue, among other reasons. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm the last person to endorse the tendency of ANI reports to turn into lynchings, so I'm not out for blood. I don't think we should ban Carol from this topic, or even from particular articles. However, I do think we should formally warn her that she has used up all of our tolerance for her personal attacks and that there is a consensus that the next one will trigger immediate sanctions against her. This way, if she really can control herself then she's safe, but if she's as out of control as some fear, they'll get their way. MilesMoney (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: probation

This means that if she engages in personal attacks, edit-wars, brings article disputes to drama pages (RSN,NORN,ANI) without first discussing them on the article talk page, or otherwise repeats the sort of misbehavior that led to this report, she is immediately blocked from all editing for one month. No excuses, no tolerance, no more. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support as OP. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have already given our administrators enough power in this matter at Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. You should know this fact very well as you are topic-banned by way of this method. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit fact-challenged, as I am not under any topic ban. I mentioned this the last time you made this error, but perhaps I was too subtle. Repeating this slur against me constitutes a personal attack, so you're going to need to redact it right now. I insist.

For that matter, I don't see what argument you offer against probation. Would you rather we just block or ban her now? Feel free to offer an alternate proposal, then. MilesMoney (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, it says here that "MilesMoney (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from engaging in any edits or interactions with respect to the article, Ludwig von Mises Institute". Has the sanction been removed? Let me know if it has and I'll update the general sanctions page. If it is still in effect though, you should stop saying you aren't topic banned. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bink is claiming that I'm banned from the topic of Austrian economics as opposed to a single article. MilesMoney (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I? Where did I say that? Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know the difference between WP:TBAN and WP:ABAN? MilesMoney (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The article ban is also commonly referred to as a topic ban, in casual conversation on Wikipedia. I see you did not ask Mark Arsten whether he knew the difference. You will also note the wording of your ban which says you are "topic-banned" from the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support CMDC's constant, disparaging speculations about the motives/mental states of other editors' constitute PAs; even if these speculations were meritorious, they should be filed in ANI complaints, not constantly splattered on article talk pages. OP's proposal appropriately threads the needle between a topic ban (which I hope is a route we can avoid, as CMDC is a spirited and gifted editor who can contribute positively to WP) and a slap on the wrist (which has proven woefully insufficient to improve CMDC's conduct). Steeletrap (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. No offense, basis. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If your concern is that probation is an unnecessary step, would you instead support an immediate block or ban for what she's already done? I prefer to be lenient, but if you insist... MilesMoney (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant that there is no basis for either. This looks like somebody trying to gin up/ overblow a few snarky comments not directed at anyone in particular into an ANI against someone that they are having a content dispute with. North8000 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

North, my old friend... Are you accusing Sitush of creating a falsely-stated ANI? I see no basis for that. Please review the entire thread. I don't recall any memorable content disputes between Sitush and Carolmooredc, and I have never seen Sitush confuse content issues with behavioral issues. Please review the thread and reconsider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, North. I'm sorry if I have not made myself clear but am also bemused regarding where that failing shows. There is a behavioural issue regarding CMDC. Happen there are probably behavioural issues regarding others also but in CMDC's case, which is that she sees such issues in others, the appropriate response is to draw admin attention to the perceived issues and not to tendentiously refer to them across numerous threads where admin involvement would be serendipitous. My complaint has forced the denouement, which is something I'd tried and failed to obtain previously. Whether people now choose to address her concerns or her actions alone is entirely up to the community. Once this is done, there should be no need for CMDC to reference all the historic stuff on an almost-daily basis. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. First, reviewing the diffs I just don't see the NPA aspect of CMDC's comments. Yes, some seemed snarky and some assigned motives to other editors. While CMDC's behavior may be irritating to some it doesn't come close to constituting personal attacks, at least in my book. Second, the proposal is WAY too vague. There's no WP:NODRAMA policy or guideline. It's unrealistic to expect any editor working on such contentious subject matter to jump through extra, unnecessary hoops before using the noticeboards for their intended purposes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Doc. Nothing was unmanageably contentious before Carol showed up. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc, Carol has a pattern of jumping straight to the drama boards, avoiding discussion on talk pages. MilesMoney (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

These don't sound anything like punishable offenses to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor, have you read all of the text above and followed the links and read the diffs and the surrounding threads? Have you ever seen another editor whose every utterance on WP is couched in first and second person narratives, speculation, and accusations and who freely distorts and misrepresents her narrative to manipulate WP process? If you haven't done the reading, I ask you to do so. It will be quite an eye-opener, even if it takes you several days. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that an editor's irritating comments are many doesn't render her comments any more violative of WP guidelines or policies. I went through the list of diffs in Situshi's original report and I didn't see anything objectionable. Sorry, no editor in their right mind is going to spend "several days" reviewing all of CMDC's many comments. Personally I'd rather wash the dishes. Ok, off to the kitchen... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that most of the problems in these articles originate with SPECIFICO, Steeltrap and MilesMoney who seem intent to add negative information to articles about libertarian writers regardless of the strength of the sources. For example, they added that Rothbard supported the campaign for governor of former KKK leader David Duke in a newsletter he co-published with Lew Rockwell. When I provided links to the newsletters which did not contain any mention of Duke during his campaign, rather than withdraw the information, they argued that their source was more reliable for the information existing in the newsletter than the newsletter itself. (See Talk:Murray Rothbard#Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable? and WP:RSN#Murray Rothbard article.) TFD (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. As you know, I personally invited you recently to become an active participant in editing these articles -- an invitation I am glad that you accepted. Why would I do that if I had the intention of adding negative information to these articles?? Secret strategy of misdirection or sleight of hand? I am surprised and disappointed to see you use weaselly language here. "they added..." WHO added? All 3 of us badguys at once? I know I didn't add that information. Nor did I have much to say in the extended discussion that followed, and certainly no fixed POV. I think you're a more thoughtful and intelligent an editor than to use misuse "they" in such a manner. But as to the matter at hand: Do you deny that Carol has behaved tendentiously, made repeated uncivil remarks, personal attacks and other violations of core WP policy? Or are you conceding that she has done so but saying that such behavior is OK? Please sort out who did what RE:Duke and strike or correct the false portions of you allegation above. Please also clarify your view as to why Carolmooredc should not be disciplined for her behavior which is clearly documented by numerous editors in this thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I'm disappointed in your assessment of my edits on these pages. Do you recall that it was I who added the glowingly positive Skousen material and deleted the race and intelligence material (it was later restored when multiple RS were added to support what was previously a primary sourced section)? As to the "endorsed" Duke stuff, that was an RS interpretation and was properly presumed to be true until proven otherwise. Steeletrap (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Carol has been around for many years and 27k+ edits, long before and/or with far more editing experience-wise than many of the other editors who have opined. IOW, she has contributed greatly in these topic areas well before others signed on and contentiousness has not stemmed from her efforts. Rather, difficulties have arisen from the interactions between editors. (I, myself, was (once) banned from her talk page because she did not always enjoy reading my comments.) I have observed difficulties in these various interactions, and a few months ago I proposed a voluntary interaction ban to apply to all of the editors engaged in the discussion. (And I was the first to volunteer for the ban.) I raise the IBAN proposal again, with the proviso that it be mutual for all "involved" editors. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the initial complaint presented by @Sitush: documented Carolmooredc's tendentious editing. Her incessant and egregious violations of the Pillar of Civility were then further documented and (amazingly) demonstrated in this ANI thread. The articles are under Community Sanctions. It's rather an open and shut case. Please state under what theory you believe that Carol's documented violations and the Sanctions should be disregarded here? I know you had hurt feelings last time your IBAN theory was rejected, but the proposal is even more unsuitable now, in the context of Carolmooredc's specific documented misbehavior. SPECIFICO talk 04:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall saying anywhere here that CMDC's comments were personal attacks/uncivil. They're a bloody nuisance but she has raised some valid points. My point was to cause her to raise the things ("put up") or cease ("shut up") the repeated vague accusations. She chose the former and I'm pleased that she has because there does seem to be some merit to them. I find it interesting that I keep getting "thank you" ping from both sides of the circus, the timing of the ping depending on whether they perceive my comment to be pro- or anti- the position being taken by the individual: I'm clearly neutral. I've raised a few diffs in a subsidiary message above - the quibbling about "historian" etc - but if I raise more then there is a possibility that the entirety of one "side" will find themselves sanctioned. I'd rather knock heads together and hope that the participants see sense because reasonable debate is healthy. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I don't even know that Carol would argue that contentiousness hasn't stemmed from her efforts, especially as regards her edits on the Palestine-Israel controversy. There is no reason for constantly disparaging other people's motives; it is tendentious, uncivil, and insulting. She should file an ANI posting if she's concerned about bias. Steeletrap (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Carol gets frustrated by these off-topic comments. Steeletrap, what was your involvement in any P-I controversy and how is any of that long-past editing relevant? Where did anyone get the idea that my feelings were hurt (and how would my feelings impact any of the previous discussion)? What sanction violations have been documented? Where is there uncivility? These recent (and earlier) comments demonstrate how an IBAN would (hopefully) help – the idea being that subtle and overt snipping is put to an end. – S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

• Steeletrap, please do not try to speculate on what I think about my edits on Palestine-Israel conflict. Plus, what is the relevance? Feels to me like some sort of "wink wink" negative inference, as it is quite appropriate to mention in an ANI. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration for how those of us who edit in the area still try from time to time to deal with conflict.
• Steeletrap, need I remind people of my and others' past noticeboard postings where POV of three editors in question was mentioned or the main topic: My listing above of "Heavy negative biases", as well as discussions at WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, WP:ANI. And all these past discussions since the spring: ANI, ANI, BLPN, ORN, 3RR, BLPN, NPOVN, RSN, ANI, ANI, ANI , BLPN.
• IMHO, some editors would like to ban any editor from ever mentioning their POV-distorted edits in talk page discussions or edit summaries, including the BLPs where most of the problems are.
• Question: If POVs are constantly disruptive do we constantly have to go to ANI to publicly complain about POVs , ala "NPOV Policy FAQ:Dealing with biased contributors"? All that Policy FAQ talks about is being polite, not how frequently one can mention them when they keep coming up over and over again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Only fly in the ointment, carolmooredc, is that you are not polite. What to do? SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be trotting out the Palestinian/Israeli stuff if you're trying to convince folks how reasonable you are, Carol. Anyone with the patience to dig into it will find you engaged in the same dysfunctional, elbowjabbing incivility we've seen on the Austrian aritcles. And just to complete the circle, the current relevance of this (aside from the fact that you brought it up here) is your anti-Semitic innuendo and misogynistic and anti-transgender on [[ping|Steeletrap}}. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Instead of innuendo based on innuendo, perhaps WP:RFC/USER is the best place for this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Middayexpress (talk · contribs) seems to have made various Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and other errors on the African Australians page, discussed on Talk:African Australian.

Removal of valid citations: Middayexpress removed various citations which were pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style, e.g. [18], [19]. Furthermore, the user's justification for this is erratic, most recently that the edit would have justified the inclusion of "New World" immigrants on the page in question, despite the source and statement making no mention of New World immigrants whatsoever. Discussing the matter is problematic due to this inconsistent and fluctuating reasoning.

Ignoring good faith questions: I have repeatedly tried to make simple, clarifying questions to determine the user's views or reasoning. The user has repeatedly ignored these questions. Related to this:

Clarity: Repeated attempts to discuss the lack of clarity on the page are completely ignored. For example, I have established I think the page definition is confused and poorly phrased with direct questions, e.g. "have you considered that the current page definition of "African Australians" is simply not clear?" This is completely ignored, and as any edits to the page are reverted, it is impossible to address.

Blatantly illogical use of sources: Various examples, e.g. user ignored the disclaimer on one source stating it is the view of "the individual author only", and argued it is more than the view of the individual author and that the source shows the government's view. However the user consistently deletes sources (from the government or otherwise) that are contrary to his/her opinion when they are added in. The user has further claimed evidence in sources yet ignores my attempts to receive a direct example of this. For example, arguing a report[20] is referring to immigrants when when it says "people of African descent", but ignoring direct queries to clarify exactly where this is stated. Furthermore, user removed this source despite claiming it supports their position.

I notified the user earlier of my concerns on their talk page, which hopefully was the correct thing to do. Appreciate any admin clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisoutofsight (talk • contribs) , this notice added by Jprg1966 ^(talk)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems like a content dispute to me. Aren't dispute resolution steps more appropriate for something like this? It appears that both of you are editing in good faith, so I would hate for ANI to be the place where it gets sorted out. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's indeed an ordinary content dispute. The Heisoutofsight account was created only a few months ago, so perhaps he/she isn't familiar with proper dispute resolution procedure. All of the claims above have also already been addressed in detail on the article's talk page [21]. Additionally, a Third Opinion was sought [22], so that should be coming in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I sought a Third Opinion as Middayexpress refers to. However, I felt that the user ignoring the specific Wikipedia:Tendentious editing guidelines I raised with him/her, and persisting in simply protecting one exact version of the page over multiple edits, was more appropriate to raise here. I am indeed unfamiliar with proper dispute resolution procedure, and I apologise if I have made a mistake. I will of course not persist with any discussion here if this is the wrong place for it.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This board is for reporting urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. It's not for ordinary content disputes, especially when a Third Opinion has already been sought (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Those multiple edits were and are also unsupported by what the government sources actually state, both in words and data figures. This has been repeatedly demonstrated on the talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for linking me to WP:FORUMSHOPPING (which I was unaware of), however it does state that "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable".

Middayexpress's dismissal of the rules in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is a different issue to the actual content dispute that I posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I stick by my claims regarding Middayexpress's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which is fairly unambiguous as it involves straightforward things like ignoring the rule under "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors".

If ignoring Wikipedia's policies outlined in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (after having attention explicitly drawn to them) does not constitute urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies and is not appropriate here, then I have simply made a mistake. If this is the case, I request this discussion be closed as it is simply entirely misplaced.Heisoutofsight (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect, you clearly do not understand what tendentious editing means since all of your claims have already been discussed and successively disproved on the article's talk page [23]. As also already explained, this noticeboard is for urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were unaware of the policy against WP:FORUMSHOPPING as well. Middayexpress (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I explicitly raised these specific concerns regarding tendentious editing on your talk page[24], as I have stated. You deleted them without discussion [25]. Therefore, it is incorrect to say they have been 'discussed and successively disproved'. They were deleted and ignored. Likewise, much was ignored on the page you linked to [26].Heisoutofsight (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I indeed deleted that notification from my talk page because it had zero relevance, as is my prerogative per WP:HUSH. The fact remains that all of your various claims have been successively addressed and/or disproved on the article's talk page [27]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have also noticed the behaviour involving user Middayexpress (talk · contribs) regarding several articles on Wikipedia, mainly the country article of Eritrea where this user have been involved in edit wars [28], this page is now page protected.

The user Middayexpress have been reverting and removing several edits and contributions made by several users. But also been engaging Wikipedia:Tendentious editing on several pages.This user is has been involved in 86 reverts in [Eritrea]] article [29] and has also been the user (active) with most edits on this page [30]. The user is active in stopping users from contributing, and revert edits as soon as he/she disagrees with the contributor.

As user Heisoutofsigh (talk · contribs) case points out, Middayexpress has been involved in a numbers of incidents that involves:“Removal of valid citations” “Blatantly illogical use of sources”

Here are some recent examples (there is alot more):

Eritrea Article. Here user Middayexpress reverts edits and removes valid citations in the cuisine section [31], that got three reliable sources, one including a WHO report on alcoholic consumption in Eritrea. These sources states that “Suwa” (beer) and “Mies” are traditional alcoholic beverages in Eritrea. Middayexpress removes these sources made by a user, throws in and refers to own sources and claims that Suwa is just a barley drink and not a beer. Middayexpress claims that “Suwa” and “Mies” are not traditional Eritrean alcoholic beverages, since half of the population in Eritrea is Muslim. User also claims that none of Eritreas Muslims drink these alcoholic beverages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eritrea]. How can you claim that half of a country’s population doesn’t drink alcohol with any sources? These are most definitely traditional beverages in Eritrea.

In the cuisine section on the Eritrea page Middayexpress has also constantly been adding illogical use of sources. Middayexpress claims that Eritrean cuisine “strongly” resemblesthose of neighboring Ethiopia and Somalia [32]. Using a source that not states this!The sources the user is referring to only states that “Eritrean and Somalian Cuisine are similar to those of Ethiopian cuisine ”, the source does not mentions anything about Eritrean and Somalian cuisines being similar to eachother. Still the user Middayexpress claims this and even states that they are “extremely similar”, which contradicts actual facts.

Tigre people Article.The user Middayexpress claims that the Ethnic group of Tigre is related to the Somalian Ethnic group. Which is not correct? There is no sources claiming this, still the user Middayexpress engages once again in edit wars and reverts the article, [33], using no sources at all. The sources on Tigre people article only claims that the Ethnic group of Tigre_people are only related the Beja_people of Eritrea/Sudan and the Tigray-Tigrinya_people of Eritrea.

Eritrean cuisine Article (extended). Once again Middayexpress uses a source that does not claim that Eritrean and Somalian cuisines are “extremely similar”. [34] . But also removes contributions and sorces regarding the beverages "Suwa" and "Mies".

Somali_People Article. Here the user reverts edits and adds that Somalian people are releated to all of these ethics groups Afar | Agaw | Amhara | Beja | Benadiri | Harari | Oromo | Saho | Tigray | Tigre. Without a single source! [[35]]

But, to make it look good this user throws in a reference to a book which does not claim that Somalian ethnic group are related to all of the mentioned ethnic groups above. [[36]] Can an experienced user or admin please go trough and investigate the behavior involving this user. A warning and a possible ban should be considired for this user.

Regards (Canevino16 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Canevino16 is a sock of User:Hiyob346, who was indefintely blocked only a few days ago. Most of the pages he links to above are actually now page protected because of his disruptive editing there via a series of ad-hoc accounts and dynamic ips. The administrators User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Gyrofrog witnessed this disruption. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected Agaw people and Tigre people. Interesting first three edits by Canevino16. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats a very odd thing too write User:Middayexpress, dont confuse me with a socketpuppet. You are mentioned in alot of pages that involves east africa, my area of interest. Everywhere there is a dispute your name seems to be there. I also noticed this discussion, where another user is accusing you of the exact same things. I don't know if thats a coincident ? User:CambridgeBayWeather, Yes recently I started my account, I did not know if I was obligated to have an account to post in this noticeboard.

Regards Canevino16 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You have a non-existent editing history other than your posts here, but this is belied by your posting style and content. Your arguments, links, writing style, posting times, gripes and pages of interest are also identical to those of Hiyob346, who coincidentally was indefinitely blocked shortly before you registered this account. That is what CambridgeBayWeather means above by "interesting first three edits". Per WP:DUCK, you are yet again block evading Hiyob346. Middayexpress (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This report here looks too early, discussion is taking place on article talk page. There's lots of accusations against Middayexpress, but with weak evidence to back it up.--Loomspicker (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks, edit warring etc by User:Orrerysky at Talk:Plasma cosmology and elsewhere.

User:Orrerysky, a new contributor, seems intent on rewriting the contentious Plasma cosmology article, and is not only edit-warring to do so, (see history: [37]) but seems intent on making personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with his/her objectives - see for example the latest efforts [38] and [39] (part of a longer history, as the talk page makes clear), where Orrerysky accuses a contributor of "insist[ing] on mangling the English language to advance a very suspect ulterior motive in order to mislead people about a field of scientific inquiry", and goes on to suggest that "If I need to get a 1000 friends in here from a few facebook groups then I'll be more than happy to build the army. (in a respectful way that complies with the rules of course)" - note also that there is at least reasonable grounds to suspect that a newly arrived 'supporter' [40] of Orrerysky might possibly be a part of this 'army'. It should also be noted that the article was the subject of an arbitration case, and that Orrerysky has been explicitly warned about this: [41]. And again warned about edit warring. [42] Though the only effect of such warnings seems to have been to inspire Orrerysky to place a bogus 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion' notification on my talk page: [43] - bogus, because Orrerysky unsurprisingly filed no edit warring report. I can only see this as an attempt at intimidation. Frankly, given Orrerysky's battlefield mentality (see his/her entire edit history) it seems to me only a matter of time before we have to block - and I can see no benefit in waiting until later to do something that is fully justified now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only agree. From the very beginning this editor has displayed strong ownership behavior, accused others of exactly what they were doing themselves, edit warred, and refused to accept any advice. They lack competence and seem incapable of learning from others. We seem to be dealing with a massive ego. I don't know if this could be the topic banned User:Elerner (see Eric Lerner), or just someone else with a manic obsession with this topic. They have obviously violated 3RR by far, and should have been blocked for edit warring, but that would be far too little to stop their disruption. A topic ban or total ban may be best as they aren't suited for editing here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I am curious if Andy & Ariane are sockpuppet accounts. Please investigate IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)‎

Me too. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ludicrous! Both are well-established editors. You are the newbie creating disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That'll be fine by me. Meanwhile, I see that Orrerysky wants to take this to ArbCom: [44] Somehow I don't think they will be needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, Orrerysky wants to take this to "the President of wikimedia"! [45] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Boomerang from that should be spectacular! Let's sell tickets. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

He just took it to WP:DRN, where I closed it. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Plasma Cosmology. Clearly he needs to take this all the way up to the president of the Internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only agree too. I too have had unsigned bogus 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ' notification on my talk page [46] I have also been notified on the Dispute resolution noticeboard WP:DRS on this. He/she has Also tried intimidation as well, stating "I am going to seek to have you banned from further contributions to this article." [47] and a unsigned " Personally, I were the admin here I'd toss you under the bus…" under "Bogus 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion' postings." [48] Both of these are clearly unveiled threats. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Orrerysky's ownership should result in a topic ban. (Their general disruption and edit warring should result in a total ban.) Here's the latest, referring to Arianewiki1:

• "I am going to seek to have you banned from further contributions to this article." [49]

Here's a previous one in which he expresses that he doesn't want any interference from the earlier editors:

• "The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article." [50]

Please topic ban Orrerysky. A total ban would be even better. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And now Orrerysky is making overt threats to start socking: "I would rather not have to create accounts and tunnel masked I.P.'s and make this a bigger issue." [51]. At this point, I can see no other solution than an indefinite block, per WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Biased individuals claiming to be admins, working at entrapment! I demand a new "admin" be assigned to arbiter this issue. BullRangifer, claiming to be an admin (and apparently isn't at all). Respected editors? Protectionism and cronyism. Refusal to allow edits. Breaking the 3 reversion rule. Possibly using their own sock accounts to contorl and administer a website. Defending a user who broke the 3 revert rule. Refused to provide arbitration or customer service support when requested. If BullRangifer is an Admin as led to believe then I request he be re-assigned to other topics and a new admin be placed here. They are guilty of topic camping and violating reverting rules, refusing to negotiate or fairly discuss editing. These individuals have already shown that they are not willing to negotiate with changes while also not willing to provide citations for the entries that they support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"...claiming to be an admin"??!! Why would I do that? I'm not an admin. I specifically and expressly told you that a long time ago: "I am...an ordinary editor who does not wish to be an administrator (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 40068 edits since: 2005-12-18)."[52] Is that clear enough? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a WP:DENY situation where a SPI and a block will help, if that doesn't work they can always read WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hell In A Bucket I would like to see the phrase "mostly rejected" changed to "an astrophysical" as there is no sociological data to support a statement of this effect. I removed the previous instance with a request that if it be re-inserted that polling data from a polling organization be furnished to support it. This is a scientific data point and should use Sociological Polling techniques, but no such data has been forthcoming by editors despite claims that they base their edits on material. What material? This appears to be nothing but their opinion and seems calculated to misguide readers with red herrings. Now, I would like to discuss the issues. They however seem content with whining and being taddle-tells. Quite frankly, I would like for them to just provide the data to support their sociological position. (which they can't do so they wish to conspire with entrapment) regardless. Please provide some kind of customer service rep or arbiter to address the issue of changing this phrase. I don't care about these stalkers, I'm more interested in conversing with other individuals in the community as these people are not assisting in achieving the project objectives for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Orrerysky, there is both an arbitration case about this topic area ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ) and a specific policy for fringe viewpoints in science ( WP:FRINGE ). These are settled Wikipedia policy and you - and anyone else coming to that article - must abide by them.

Among other things, they state that a neutral, independent assessment of what mainstream science considers within the normal scientific spectrum and what it considers fringe topics determines how articles are treated here on Wikipedia. You do not get to come here and call it a sociological issue; this is settled Wikipedia policy and consensus. You are welcome to contribute in cooperation with settled policy and consensus, collaborating with other editors, but if you attempt to impose your own judgement and assertions your contributions will no longer be welcome.

Please calm down, read what has been written to you, read the rules and policies here, including our core values in the Five Pillars, and engage in a cooperative manner.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Following further review, I have imposed 1 month of 1RR on Plasma cosmology on Orrerysky. [53] [54] This is under the Pseudoscience arbcom case and the as-amended Standard Discretionary Sanctions uninvolved administrator rules. It is my hope and intention that this will slow down the activity enough for Orrerysky to engage in an actual constructive manner with the other editors, as well as minimizing ongoing edit warring which is damaging the article, encyclopedia, and community.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if we need an SPI or not, but there is something going on with the plasma cosmology and Ruggero Santilli related articles. At Santilli we've had an IP claiming to be him (and almost certainly is him) and at least one SPA who has just arrived. With Orrervsky we have him adding a file to his sandbox[55] within minutes of it being uploaded by Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs).[56] And we have another SPA, Reid_Barnes (talk · contribs) editing the Santilli related article Stephen J. Crothers which was created by Wavyinfinity (who we also see supporting Orrerysky at Talk:Plasma cosmology[57]). And what non-Admins can't see is that Wavyinfinity's first edit was to create the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis. Wavyinfinity also created Grey dwarf, seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey dwarf. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We also have a new editor whose only comment is to praise Orrerysky in a manner that reveals some knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And another who only makes one edit to praise him. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Orrerysky (talk · contribs) has continued to edit-war, and I've blocked him for 31 hours. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And now we have another 'new' account continuing the edit-warring. [58] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Due to the surge of interest in plasma cosmology by first-time editors who don't participate on the talk page I've now semiprotected plasma cosmology. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note editor discussed here has created Plasma-Redshift Cosmology page.220 of ^Borg 23:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic-motivated edit warring by anonymous users

There is an edit war happening across a range of Serbian and Slovak towns regarding their Hungarian names, by 92.238.171.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/195.89.201.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on one and 79.117.186.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/79.117.177.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/79.117.180.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The former, "92" started it first, by head-counting Hungarians and insisting that "native name" in the Infobox must be Hungarian, because they're the local majority. "79" follows him around and reverts; 92 was briefly reported to AIV by 79 and by myself, but no action was taken. A few ethnic slurs were exchanged in the process [59].

I'm not sure what to do so I'm bringing it here: the IPs are dynamic, at least the 79's, and I can hardly discuss anything across a dozen articles. I wanted to slap a WP:ARBMAC or WP:ARBEE warning, but I cannot find the templates anymore, and I'm not sure which remedies are active nowadays after several amendments. Those pages, including WP:AE, are a bloody mess to navigate. At minimum, I'll notify the IPs involved. No such user (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but auto-confirmed editors were also preocupated to revert the inappropriate edits of 92.238.171.3 and 195.89.201.254. Please read what native name field in the infobox means. It refers to settlements where the English name differs of the name used in the respective country

You are free to ask for details about why the edits of 92.238.171.3 and 195.89.201.254 were reverted to other editors that reverted him: Yopie ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]), Iadrian yu ([70]), Biruitorul ([71], [72], [73]), Saturnian ([74]) .Even User:No such user participated at the "edit war" [75] 79.117.186.23 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I did say that 92 started it first, under obvious nationalist motives, and that included ethnic slurs, like "Суботица is the alien name of Serbian occupiers.", and yes, I did revert him myself. Those two IPs definitely should be blocked to protect encyclopedia. Your following him around was disruptive as well, and the "go back to Mongolia, nomad!" comment [76], although provoked, does not shed positive light onto you. In your defense, you did defend status quo, along with several other users you quote, and made a first report to AIV, but it is a chaotic place where reports not qualifying as "obvious" vandalism are quickly dismissed. No such user (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why were my edits disruptive, when I only reverted to the correct state of the articles? I follow him around because he keeps misusing that infobox field. The native name field is to be used when the English name is not the same with the official name - see template documentation Template:Infobox_settlement/doc#Complete_empty_syntax.2C_with_comments (like in the case of Bucharest, where the native name is București

I regret saying "go back to Mongolia, nomad!" and I publicly apologize for that, but his insistence is already annoying 79.117.186.23 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:No such user "I'm not sure what to do" - what about submitting a request to WP:RFPP?. I intended to do it myself too, but I was too slothful and I hoped 92.238.171.3 / 195.89.201.254 will go away. 79.117.186.23 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For those of us too busy to track down a buncha potential target pages, could you either RFPP or post the list here? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I submitted some requests for protection for the most attacked articles [77]. I also explained to the IP why his edits are not approved [78], [79]. From my point of view, the case is closed. 79.117.171.176 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The 79.117.x.x is a banned sockpuppeteer. Here's a link who. I've placed a week long rangeblock on the range. He's all over it. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Elockid, if socks and proxies are zombies, then you're Brad Pitt. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox

More than a month ago I created the article on Dialects of Serbo-Croatian in order to use at as a summary in the infobox of the article Serbo-Croatian. Before making any changes I left a message on the discussion page (diff 1) that the article was created and it would be nice if the style is aligned with the articles on Macedonian and Bulgarian. I noticed there wasn't any response on my comment and decided to be bold and edit the article myself, but I was careful and first left another message (diff 2) before changing the content of the box (diff 3). Quickly afterwards, the first comment appeared about the reasoning behind my change (diff 4), then my reply on it detailed all the points why it's good and necessary to make that change (diff 5) and the user subsequently agreed with most of my points (diff 6). However, my edit was unfortunately reverted by Kwamikagami (diff 7) who refused to join the discussion on my points and posted a message in which he attributed the change to my "personal problems with Torlakian" (diff 8). Normally, my reply solicited for using less confrontational tone and invited the user to join the discussion on my points above (diff 9). The user refused once again to join the discussion and mentioned that it was edited through consensus (diff 10) and building a consensus is necessary to make the change (albeit the discussion was open on building consensus with my points presented). Since he mentioned that consensus was reached in the past, my next question was to see that discussion where the consensus was built (diff 11). The discussion was staled for almost one week and then I came up to present some important points why it's good to have insight on the previous consensus (diff 12). Kwamikagami replied to it that the discussions were archived and it could be difficult to find it (diff 13), but then I left a comment to question the existence of consensus at all (diff 14). User Taivo joined the discussion to make me "lazy", to support the position of user Kwamikagami that he works on "thousands of articles" and to demand searching through the archived discussions (diff 15), but after carefully searching through the archives and presenting a list with all relevant threads (diff 16), his reply once again hailed Kwamikagami against my editing history and when he faced the facts that there is no consensus on the discussion page on Serbo-Croatian he attempted to transfer the issue out of that article and said that a consensus might have been reached on other articles (diff 17; albeit, according to the rule, the changes in one article are discussed only on its own discussion page).

It's also worth mentioning that Taivo requested several times from me to start a discussion to build consensus, though a discussion on the issue has already been started even before it, in which he and Kwamikagami refused to participate. I decided to file a mediation request to get some help with the case at all, but both users did not agree on it and the request was declined by the committee. The problem here is not that much about the consensus as these two users tried from the very beginning to play a game against me by introducing a non-existing consensus to revert my edit and thereby limit my freedom to edit Wikipedia. My concern that some users implement their own rules and standards to bite other users from some pages on Wikipedia has been already discussed on several conferences in the past and many people are worried that this is a formidable problem which increases the level of self-created elitism and thus decreases the rate of editors' retention (diff 18). We really need to change this in order to make Wikipedia a better place for our users. Fortunately, my involvement in the movement to promote its mission and goals will never let me disappoint and stop edit the Wikimedia projects because of things like this, but the same should not apply for many other users who are prone to succumb on such behaviour.

Some of my proposed measures for this one are the following:

• ban users Kwamikagami, Taivo and Kiril Simeonovski to participate in the discussion on my points presented on the discussion page (You may invite other users or authorities to discuss on my points, but don't forget that there is already agreement on the change and there is no consensus specifying the current format of the article's infobox);
• ban users Kwamikagami and Taivo from participation in any serious discussion on the article Serbo-Croatian for some time;
• warn users Kwamikagami and Taivo that they should have full respect to other users and their opinions on the discussion pages and comment on their points presented there;
• warn user Kwamikagami that using a non-existing consensus as argument is totally out of the spirit of Wikipedia;
• warn user Taivo that any attempt to justify the existence of consensus of any sort out of the discussion page on the main article in question does not comply with the rules on Wikipedia;
• warn user Taivo that a discussion page on Wikipedia is not place to compare one's edit history with other's.

These are only some suggested measures and you don't need to stick to them if you can come up with better solutions. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Kiril, having seen you in action at Talk:Bobby Fischer#Greatest chess player of all time? and Talk:George Gershwin#Was_Gershwin_a_.22Russian_Jew.22.3F, I meant to put forward here your behavior at Talk:Macedonian_language#Torlakian_dialects and associated Talk:Serbo-Croatian, but refrained. Now I spotted that you're bringing the matter for inspection yourself... and I'm not sure you will like the outcome.
So, in each of the cases I cited above, the story goes like this: you spot an "error" (a phrasing which you dislike, but was put there for a reason) in the article, usually in infobox or introduction, and jump on to "fix" it. You get reverted by another experienced user, with an explanation why the previous text was justified. You then pick a prolonged fight in the article and the talk page over a relatively minor detail, which quickly derails into name-calling, ad hominems, process-wonking and, finally, ends up at ANI. In the process, you manage to annoy and alienate several experienced editors (in the Macedonian case: User:Taivo, User:Kwamikagami, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and myself; in the Gershwin case: User:Soundofmusicals, User:Binksternet, User:Toccata quarta & User:JackofOz). Your complaints are not entirely without merit, and your opponents are not completely blameless, but your endless ruleslawyering does not make you win any sympathies, on the contrary, with time other people acquire a tendency to spite you. Instead of dropping the stick and walking away from an otherwise minor quibble, you produce kilobytes of debate, now ending at ANI.

Now, in the Torlakian case: please understand that, after all wasted time, nobody is going to appease you and remove Torlakian dialect from the Serbo-Croatian infobox, where it is classified by a majority of sources, and the remaining ones at least acknowledge that it is "often classified as Serbo-Croatian". It is not rocket science to acknowledge that this is a mere issue of categorization and nomenclature, and not of substance. If you get at least four experienced users against yourself in any debate you enter, it should be taken as a sign that some self-reflection is necessary. No such user (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember that you were one of those who participated in the initial part of the discussion (before the creation of the article Dialects of Serbo-Croatian), so it's highly appreciated first to read the whole discussion before drawing any conclusions. You're also welcome to explain me how you counted that there are four users against me since none of them decided to comment on my points presented on the discussion page and the only who did it was other user who agreed on most of my points to make the change. My suggestion for you is to stop referring to other cases on Wikipedia since they're not relevant to this one. We talk here about the behaviour of users Kwamikagami and Taivo and their game to refuse my willingness to discuss the matter with my points presented and introduce a fictional consensus just to prevent me edit the article. Please understand, this behaviour is totally anti-Wikipedian and must be sanctioned. If you think that my behaviour is even worse, then you're welcome to advertise the case anywhere you want. One of the crucial problems of Wikipedia that usually prevails as a serious problem and was even mentioned on several conferences in our movement is the self-created elitism and the very high level of bureaucracy that exhibits on the discussion pages of some articles. This is a fine example of those cases in which the article's content is locked and controlled by a closed casta whose members introduce their own rules to act upon them during each of the discussions and use insinuations in order to get favour of everything and bite the other users out of the article. We have to say no to these problems and conclude the case with overtaking some concrete measures. It's much better for Wikipedia if some of its users are punished for such behaviour instead of letting them upgrade their bureaucracy on any higher level.

It would be also appreciated if you stop intimidating me with phrases like "I'm not sure you will like the outcome.". Your opinion and the opinions of others complaining on me might be true that my style of debating is sharp and sometimes controversial, but it doesn't give you automatic encouragement to use threats or draw conclusions that my every request has to be declined.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The discussion could have been already over if: (i) the rules on Wikipedia were followed to come and comment on my points, (ii) my edit was not reverted by explaining my "personal problem", and (iii) no fictional consensus was introduced to defend a position. Unfortunately, some people thought that this is only another troll and felt so strange to violate some rules and cross over it to bite the "troll" out of the discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What a complete waste of time, Kiril. The problem is that you turned what should have been a simple process of consensus into a personal crusade against Kwami. When Kwami reverted you, instead of presenting a simple, clear proposal in a new section on the Talk Page, you continued to escalate the personal attacks against him because you felt wronged. Did you try the suggestion I clearly presented to you at least a dozen times? No. Not once. You refused to give up on your personal need to have your ego massaged and some sort of "apology" expressed. Your trivial change to the article simply got lost in your paragraphs of needless attacks and desires for retribution. Try my suggestion, Kiril, and see how fast you can get a working consensus--1) Stop ALL your personal attacks and begging for apologies, 2) Start a new section on the Talk Page, 3) Present your change clearly in a single sentence, 4) Give no more than two sentences why the change makes sense, 5) Let the other editors support your change or present a clear case why it doesn't make sense. You never tried this despite the fact that I have suggested it to you multiple times. You are simply wikilawyering instead of presenting a simple, clear case without the personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And your statements of "fact" above are wrong in several respects. You did not start a new, clean discussion on the Talk Page after Kwami reverted you. You simply buried your proposals in convoluted language couched within personal attacks at Kwami and filed after kilobytes of bandwidth in a discussion that began before you created the Dialects of Serbo-Croatian page and was generally on a different topic than your real proposal. That's no way to get a consensus. I always suggested that you start a new, clean section without any kind of personal attack. You never did that. You continued on your personal crusade to embarrass or elicit some kind of apology from Kwami. Drop it. You have a simple, trivial proposal to make, but you have buried it inside personal attacks, demands for an apology, searches to get other users to admit that they are wrong and you are right, etc. At no point whatsoever did you start a new section, state your new proposal simply in a single clear sentence without personal attacks, and then allow other editors to see the wisdom (or lack of wisdom) in your proposal. --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing/Disruptive editing by User:Cuchullain at Canada national football team

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

---

Canada national football team is about a team that is constituted for playing in American football, principally the IFAF World Cup. As such, it is fair to call it an "American football team". User:Cuchullain refuses to acknowledge this, both in the article and in a move request here to bring the article more in line with the other national teams in the IFAF (Mexico national American football team, Brazil national American football team, etc). Could somebody explain to him that this is a team that plays American football (i.e. NFL/NCAAF rules) when it is constituted? pbp 22:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're having content dispute problems, I feel bad for you, son; ANI's got 99 problems, but a content dispute ain't one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, it's a WP:CLUE issue: there are facts, and Cuchullain is ignoring them, to the point of disruption. pbp 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Request to review block of Joefromrandb

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

I recently blocked User:Joefromrandb due to his edit warring on an AFD page. The original report is here. My findings were that:

• Joefromrandb had added a comment to the AFD page, which he believe he had worded to avoid a BLP violation.
• User:Neljack claimed that the wording did violate BLP and redacted it.
• An edit war broke about between the two users with the comment being re-added and re-redacted.
• Neljack eventually opened a case on the BLP noticeboard.
• Shortly afterwards User:Nomoskedasticity reported both users at the edit warring noticeboard.
• Both users continued to revert after the edit warring report was made
• Neljack's last revert was about 40 minutes after the case was opened
• Joefromrandb reverted again about 5 hours later

I decided that Joefromrandb should be blocked (and that the block should be for one month) due to the fact that he continued reverting several hours later and the fact that he has a fairly extensive history of blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing (including a week long block that had only expired three weeks earlier). I decided to use my discretion to not block Neljack, because he had opened the BLP case, had stopped reverting shortly after the edit war was reported, and because he seemed to have a genuine belief that he was preventing a BLP violation. I have since discussed the block with Joefromrandb, and put it to him that

You seem to agree that you were edit warring, and have stated that you make no apology for doing so. Presumably this means that you believe edit warring is OK, and would be prepared to do it again. The fact that this is your second block for disruptive editing in three weeks, adds further support to this conclusion.

to which he replied

You're goddamn right I make no apology. The day I make an apology for reverting the sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester will be the day I die.

It has been suggested to me that Joefromrandb should not have been blocked because his comment did not violate BLP and so Neljack was violating policy by reverting his comment. I did not make a finding on whether Joefromrandb's comment did violate BLP. Instead I found that even if his comment did not violate BLP, and that Neljack did violate policy by reverting him, that did not provide Joefromrandb with an exemption for edit warring (here is the list of edit warring exemptions). It has also been suggested that the block length was punitive, rather than preventative. Per the blocking policy a block is preventative if the aim of it is to

• prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
• deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;
• and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

In this case, I believed and still believe that the longer block was necessary to deter further disruptive behaviour from Joefromrandb. I believe that his comment above reinforces the belief that he is unrepentant, and feels that edit warring is acceptable and previous, shorter, blocks have failed to deter him. I bring this here for your review as User:WilliamJE has made it clear that he is not happy with my decision to retain the block, and his belief that it needs to be reviewed. There has been extensive discussion on my talk page and Joefromrandb's talk page. TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Joe's original comment was not objectionable and Neljack had no business removing it. Perhaps Joe shouldn't have edit-warred, but when someone insists on censoring a comment that should not be censored, they are just asking for trouble. If anyone should have been blocked, it should have been Neljack. The fact that you brought this here for review yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do so allays my outrage slightly, but only slightly. At best, you've made a major mistake. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 23:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• My two cents: Joe was edit-warring with the other guy about restoring Joe's own comments which Joe had carefully written in a good-faith attempt to avoid any BLP problem. I don't see anything in Joe's block log about any edit-warring about Joe's own comments, so this seems sui generis. That's why a month-long block seems excessive. This was not an edit-war about article content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Since you asked, I would say that you probably should have blocked both and probably just long enough to finish out the AFD. I think Joe is very angry and will need to find a way through that anger without taking it out on Wikipedia. Probably the best thing to do now is end the block. Your motives were good and the fact you brought it here speaks well of you. JodyB _talk 23:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Jody, Automatic, Tiger Shark only came here after I made repeated statements today that I would be starting the ANI. Before that he ignored at least two editors who thought a review was in order or said his block was inappropriate and at least one of those comments was made two days ago....William 01:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • • WilliamJE, I think you know that is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Both TParis and Drmies raised concerns on my talk page and did mention that ANI may be required. However, I took significant time to address there concerns (including TParis's follow up) but then heard no more. In your case, I explained my reasons again, and asked yo to explain why you thought it wasn't edit warring, or why you thought that Joefromrandb did not need to be deterred from edit warring again. You ignored those key points (and they are the key points if you are arguing for a unblock) and instead tried to suggest that I had some nefarious intent, because I responded to your question on my talk page, and then said that you were going to take it to ANI. You also keep mentioning that TParis and Drmies raised their initial concerns, as if that explains why Joefromrandb had an exemption. Do you actually have policy based reasoning for why Joefromrandb's reverts were exempted, or is your reasoning simply your claim that I am acting in bad faith and that other people have questioned the block? TigerShark (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
        • TigerShark you have already shown appallingly bad faith via your actions.(BTW I brought up above WP:TPO in Joe's defense. Something you ignore.) I asked you two question on Joe's board. You didn't answer them there but on your own talk page instead in a two day old stale thread I had never taken part in. The only reason to do that- to keep Joe from commenting on any replies you made. I told you how I felt about that move(Never seen anything like it in 7 years here) and why I felt you did it, but you've ignored it though you've had almost a day to address it. Based on your non answer we can safely assume you did that move only to muzzle Joe. If there was any justice here at ANI, we'd be discussing your competence as an administrator.(Look at this ANI of yours. No differentials or userlinks when you began it. Even though it says at the entry window 'Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors.' I had to do that.) Unfortunately it is well known that getting acting against an admin is impossible. The well known case of Mark Arsten calling an editor a petulant piece of shit and getting away with it is damning proof. You know you can get away with anything. If you thought more about Wikipedia than yourself you would have already ended this ludicrous block. It is increasingly obvious here that editors other than myself think you went too far....William 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I was aware of that and I had actually considered inquiring as to when you would start the thread. As you know, Joe and I have had some very severe differences in the past, but yet I am tempted to make some very strong comments about this extreme block. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Removing BLP violations is a clear and specific exception to the 3RR rule. While Joefromrandb took some measures to keep his comment below the threshold of a BLP violation, in my opinion he did not go far enough, and the statement as it stood was a strikingly negative comment about a living person, whatever one might think about that person's character, which we do not take into account when determining if the BLP policy has been violated. (Facts about bad acts and the opinions of experts may legitimately be immune from removal due to BLP concerns, but most certainly not the opinions of Wikipedia editors.) Further, the wording used by Joefromrandb left little doubt about what Joefromrandb was referring to, when he could have used a number of other formulations which would have been much vaguer and yet gotten the point across. Because of these circumstances, the block of Joefromrandb was correct, and the non-block of Neljack was also correct. As for the length of Joefromrandb's block, it was possibly excessive, but I'll leave that for others to determine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not the only editor with concerns. Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TParis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have also voiced them.

What took place happened at an AFD[80]. Joe made this post[81]. Neljack came along and redacted[82] it as violation of BLP. Neljack and Joe went back and forth reverting each other more than three times each. To save time, I am not posting them but TigerShark didn't either. We're not in dispute on that aspect of this thread.

The changing of a editor's comments would seem to be a clear violation of WP:TPO by Neljack. When an editor sees this, isn't he or she allowed to undo it?

As for the BLP violation that Neljack accuses Joe of, TParis told TigerShark here[83] and here[84] that he felt no such BLP violation happened. TParis also said[85] no BLP violation took place directly to Neljack.

Without a BLP violation, this comes down to WP:TPO and whether an editor can be charged with edit warring for undoing changes to their own comments. If it is an edit war, then punishment should be handed out to both parties. TParis in one of the above posts I linked to above, clearly said he feels Neljack not Joe deserves the block. Right now Joe is blocked(by Tiger Shark) for a month. Drmies thinks[86] that is too long and felt these blocks should be reviewed at ANI[87]. I agree with Drmies.

Before today, I wasn't involved with any of this. I learned about it when reading Joe's talk page. You may want to read this thread[88] besides the one at TigerShark's page. There I asked[89] TigerShark two questions. TigerShark did the interesting course of action of not replying[90] at Joe's page, but in a two day stale discussion thread at his own talk page that I hadn't ever taken part in. I told TigerShark that I didn't appreciate that and that I strongly suggested[91] he did so in order for Joe not to take part in any discussion between TigerShark and I. Tigershark has had multiple chances to deny this but he has chosen silence. His behavior over that, his block of Joe and failure to do the same to Neljack, and his refusal to change anything in spite of multiple editors suggesting he do so, well I have an opinion on it. What do all of you have to say?...William 00:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor correction, I didn't say Neljack should be blocked now but I would've blocked Neljack instead of Joe at the time. At this point, we all need to find a way forward and blocking Neljack now isn't the solution. At this point, let's try to solve the dispute with some open discussion and cohesion.--v/r - TP 00:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WilliamJE, you comment that If it is an edit war, then punishment should be handed out to both parties. shows a deep misunderstanding. The blocks are supposed to be preventative. Taking into account everything that I have said above, it was clear to me that a block was not required to prevent future edit warring by Neljack, but that it was for Joefromrandb. To claim that two parties that have edit warred must both be blocked, for punishment is completely wrong. You are also still relying purely upon 1) claims that I acted in bad faith and 2) statements that other people have raised concerns. Furthermore, you keep wording your comments to suggest that I did not respond to those concerns, and that simply because somebody raised a concern at some point, that means that they still have that concern. Why don't you speak for yourself. Explain your policy based reasoning for why Joefromrandb's reverts were exempted. TigerShark (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Lots of fuzziness here: Borderline BLP issue, borderline decision to block one and not the other, borderline decision on duration. Nothing insanely wrong here on TigerShark's part, but my Reality Check Meter^(TM) is indicating that the sum total ended up being too harsh. Reduce to time served, since you're asking for other opinions. FWIW, I blocked Joe for a day a month or two ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Crokupedia is so cool, man. Lots of reasons to contribute here. Calling someone incompetent for misreading and or misapplying policies is a clear personal attack, but calling someone a sycophant of a child molester is borderline everything (BLP, NPA) etc. (as a long you put "alleged" in parentheses somewhere in there; should it be before sycophant or before child molester?) Kumbayah. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Not sure if all that was directed at me (I didn't say calling someone incompetent was a personal attack), but yeah, I was too flippant here. "Borderline BLP issue" was unclear, I was trying to use it as shorthand for "A BLP issue that some would block for, and some wouldn't". But I definitely didn't account for the clear personal attack in "sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester", that was unacceptable. It wasn't a reason for blocking, since it came after the block, but it's worth considering when deciding on unblocking terms. I still think 1 month is too long for one (sustained) outburst, even with the recent block history. But my suggestion of "time served", if not accompanied by some acknowledgement from Joe that you can't going around saying stuff like that, whether you're angry or not, was not really reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do not intend to comment on the block, but I do want to explain my actions. I redacted the statement because, after careful consideration, I concluded that it was prima facie libellous and therefore a BLP violation. I considered that the statement contained an obvious implication of extremely grave criminal conduct or purposes (and subsequently it has indeed been confirmed that this was indeed intended). It may not be well-known among non-lawyers that an innuendo can be just as libellous as an explicit statement. There are many cases where a person has brought a successful action for libel based on an innuendo which readers would grasp despite it not being expressly said.

I acknowledge that I should have brought the matter to the BLP noticeboard more promptly, and I apologise for that. All I can say is that in this somewhat stressful situation it took me a little while to organise my thoughts, compose a coherent statement and find the relevant diffs. Joe was reverting quite frequently in the meantime, despite the fact I had repeatedly indicated a willingness to discuss the matter and start a thread on the BLP noticeboard. In the interim, I felt I could hardly leave up a statement that I regarded as libellous (and I repeatedly pointed out the statement in the BLP policy requiring disputed material to stay out until it has been discussed and consensus gained for reinstating it). I note, also, that two of my reverts occurred after I had started the BLP noticeboard discussion.

Finally, I note that Joe's talk page contains a number of statements either expressly confirming the innuendo or repeating the original statement (or something that carries a similar innuendo). I suggest they should be RevDeleted as libellous and a BLP violation. Neljack (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Simple fact: this was a block for edit-warring, and both of them were edit-warring. As such, both should have been given the EXACT same block - this is one of the few times I don't follow normal escalation processes. The block log does NOT say it's a BLP-related block. The problem now: it's purely punitive because only 1 side of the edit-warriors was blocked, and it's too late to block Neljack, so you have no choice but to unblock joe. An unblock does NOT negate the fact that joe should not have been edit-warring no matter what ES&L 12:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To say edit-warring should usually result in symmetrical blocks is inaccurate. If one editor has edit-warred on one article, and another on 10-15 of them, should they get the same block? No. pbp 15:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What the heck does that have to do with the topic at hand? I gave a rule-of-thumb based on 2 people edit-warring on 1 article, not someone edit-warring across multiple ones? How many red-herrings are needed here? Stick with the program, please ES&L 17:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe a consideration in the block was the fact that Joe had a history of edit-warring. Had this been the first time he edit-warred, he would have gotten a much shorter block, or none at all. So it's not a red herring. pbp 17:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's try and keep this on-topic. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: While you're at it I suggest that you also take a look at the multiple other errors that TigerShark, an admin who over the past five or six years has only made just enough edits to keep his adminship alive but now acts as if he's as infallible as the Pope, has made over the past few days. Such as blocking a large number of IPs indefinitely in spite of being told by multiple editors, including admins, that it should not be done, and why (discussions regarding TigerShark's multiple errors have been spread out over multiple talk pages, possibly to make it harder for others to get a full picture of the multiple errors he has made...). With [92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108] being some, but far from all, of the IPs that have been given indefinite blocks by TigerShark, blocks that TigerShark refuses to reconsider. Other places with interesting reading would be on Drmies' talk page and these two threads, #1 and #2, on TigerShark's own talk page. Thomas.W talk to me 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Thomas what you point out above is very serious. Maybe I turn this thread into a discussion about whether TigerShark should be WP:Deysyoped. We have all those horrendous IP blocks, his actions towards Joe, his not knowing how to start an ANI thread, Multiple instances of [[WP:IDHT], and his talk page change with me at least. Based on all of that his continuing to have administrator privileges should at least be reviewed but knowing ANI as I do I'd expect someone to quickly close this thread and remove Joe's block so to avoid that potentially very embarrassing discussion....William 14:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I think it would be best if Thomas.W and WilliamJE stopped with the hyperbole; if your average editor came to this thread and saw people breathlessly making these overwrought comments, they would probably instinctively take the other side. Throwing everything you can at the wall to see if anything sticks is poor form, and an indication that you don't have strong arguments. The IP blocks are not "horrendous"; some kind of block of joefromrandb is hard to argue with; "doesn't know how to start an ANI thread" is... devoid of meaning; he is talking to anyone who shows up at his talk page, and making reasonable points, so there is no IDHT; his talk page change was not a big deal; and you can't desysop someone at ANI. If you want to stir up drama, keep on going. If you want to work towards an unblock of joefromrandb, focus on the issue at hand and suggest to Joe that he reconsider his personal attack. Hatting this was smart, unhatting it unhelpful for an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the block Normally I would be inclined to agree with ES&L, as both editors were indeed edit warring. Joe's behavior on his own talk page is quite frankly, deplorable. He clearly doesn't care that he violated policy (both EW and BLP), and directly states that he would have no problem doing it again. Therefore, this block isn't punitive, it is preventative, as joe would certainly continue editwarring and BLP violations if the block was lifted. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I can't support an unblock after some of the rhetoric Joe has been using, i.e. "the land of enablers for child-molesters and their sycophants". While calling other editors sycophants should not normally be justification for a block, I think this is a bit of an exception. This kind of rhetoric is disruptive, and the block should be maintained as a preventative measure until we're certain it won't be used again. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That "the land of enablers for child-molesters and their sycophants" doesn't come anywhere close in comparison with calling someone 'a petulant piece of shit' You should know that, Mark....William 15:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the excesses of others don't give Joe the right to break our rules. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support immediate unblock how is it fair to defend a bad block based on the way the user reacted to being given a bad block? Yes, I wish Joe would tone down the rhetoric, but I'd imagine many of us would react unpleasantly if we were given such an egregious block. Even if Joe did deserve a brief block for edit-warring, he should be unblocked for time served. And yes, Neljack should have been blocked as well. Joe's comments were not a black-and-white BLP violation and repeatedly insisting on removing them only served to further this mess. If Neljack can't be blocked now because it would only be punitive, Joe's month-long block should come to an end because it is also punitive. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 15:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose there are two interpretations. The one I believe you are putting forward is that the block was not necessary to deter Joefromrandb from further edit warring, and that his later comments where he claimed to be unapologetic and gave the impression that he would edit war again were simply a result of his anger at the perceived unfairness. The other interpretation is that he did need a longer block to deter him, because he believes that edit warring is acceptable and would do it again, and that his comments simply reflect that. Given his history of edit warring and disruptive editing, I think that the second interpretation is far more likely. TigerShark (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock per AutomaticStrikeout, for fairness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I have little to add here but support for an unblock for time served. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I would endorse this block; I would have made the same block had I been reviewing the edit-warring report. I would have blocked chiefly for the BLP issue rather than the edit-warring. One month seems an appropriate duration although there is an argument to made for an indefinite duration pending credible assurance that the problematic approach would not be repeated. I would also not have blocked Neljack; the removals of the remarks in question I would have considered as covered by the BLP exemption for edit-warring.--CIreland (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock -- just give everyone a break. If it continues, we'll go from there. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per AutomaticStrikeout, Couldn't put it any better myself. Davey2010Talk! 19:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per Sportsguy17. Enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Question Sportsguy17 recommends that we unblock and "just give everyone a break. if it continues, we'll go from there". What exactly would that entail? A week long block did not prevent further edit warring, and a month long block has been responded to with claims that he "makes no apology" and would do it again. If the block is removed now, why would that deter Joefromeandb in future? A week long block didn't, so I can't see any reason why making this a 4 or 5 day block would help. So, I'd be interested to hear thoughts on what "we'll go from there" would actually entail. Would it be another block? For how long? What would happen when that one gets appealed? In the face of unrepentant edit warring, I can't help but think that we need to try longer and longer blocks, not shorter ones. How else do the community send a message that this has to stop? TigerShark (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Now would be a good time to remind everyone of this. pbp 22:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

TigerShark, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have not acknowledged that this situation was unusual in that it was not about article content. It's much much much more unusual to have comments reverted than content reverted. Right? But you seem to be treating it all as one and the same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that BLP policy is in force everywhere on en.wiki, including in the comments of editors, so there is no real content/comment distinction here, as there would be normally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The distinction is that very unusual things are less likely to recur than very usual things. Isn't this the only time that removal of Joe's comments has occurred? And the only time he has protested such removal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would normally be true that the lack of precedent for the behavior would be a mitigating factor, but it remains true that Joefronrandb has, so far, at least, failed to back away from the comment, and has said that he would do it again – see the comment above about the day he backs off from it would be the day he dies – so precedent alone can't carry as much weight, because he's apparently still harboring the same feelings. Now, a statement from Joefromrandb that he won't do it again (it doesn't have to be an apology, just a statement about his future behavior in this regard) would change everything, and I would think that time served would be sufficient, as there would be no longer anything to prevent. Until he distances himself from his comments, though, which still variously qualify violations of BLP and NPA, there's still something to be prevented. Giving WP:ROPE to someone who says that they'll do it again seems to me like a foolhardy choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

TigerShark let me clarify what I meant. First of all, we could always apply WP:ROPE, give him another chance and if he continues disruption, you (likely) indefinitely block him until you receive credible assurances that the problem won't reoccur. As for you, Purplebackpack89, by linking to that RfC, you really tossed a boomerang, considering that the RfC ended up having a good chunk about how you and Gabe (mostly you) had been treating Joe, which earned you a one-week block about a month ago for hounding/harassment of Joe (although it hasn't seemed to have been a problem since). Just saying. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 22:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have taken no position on Joe's unblocking, I just want people to get the facts. People seem to be portraying Joe as completely innocent, when the fact is he's edit-warred a great deal. We gave him plenty of ROPE already (two blocks for edit-warring since the RfC). There is no particular reason why any action should be taken against me for saying that. pbp 23:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't an interaction ban between you and joe already suggested more than once? Perhaps it's time to make it official as well? Good opportunity to kill to birds with one stone ES&L 09:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that's needed at this time. pbp 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Sportsguy17 I tend to agree in principle, but I believe that we really need the credible assurances now (after all, this is far from his first block). Of the people here who have agreed that the block should continue, I think most of them have said (in one way or another) "until we get credible assurances". If he provides them and acknowledges that future edit warring will result in an extended block (or maybe even a ban), then I think that most (myself included) could support an unblock. If we don't get them now, and unblock anyway, I think we lose this opportunity and reinforce that we are not committed. Would be good to hear your thoughts on this. TigerShark (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Anythingyouwant tested the waters a little with regards to this by asking if Joe would edit war again in a situation where he felt his comment had been removed without good reason [109] and Joe responded with "To give you a quick, but honest answer, I don't know." [110]. I don't knock Joe for being honest, but I think it shows that we are not there quite yet. I hope he can find his way to agreeing that he won't edit war again (even in situations where he believes he is right). It is the belief that edit warring might be a valid tool when we are right that is often the problem in these situations. TigerShark (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock per AutomaticStrikeout. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock per AutomaticStrikeout & Gerda. GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• So, then unblock conditions: WP:1RR across the entire project, and what used to be called "civility parole". Implement an IB between pbp and joe. Move forward with enough WP:ROPE for all ES&L 12:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the interaction ban is needed at this time, and it's off-topic anyway. This thread is about Joe. Earlier you were saying I need to stay on topic, now it's you who do. pbp 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it's off-topic, Purplebackpack89, and you might not be happy with the idea, but I'm almost certain Joe would have no problem with it. When the two of you interact, it is far more disruptive than constructive. I see it like EatsShootsAndLeaves does: unblock on a 1RR restriction and civility parole and an IBAN between PBP and Joe. I also agree with TigerShark that the next block will/should likely be an indefinite block. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 15:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll support the 1RR, but the interaction ban doesn't solve the problem. It's clear that even when I don't interact with Joe, he edit wars with other people. And it's likely an interaction ban wouldn't cover this anyway: I didn't edit-war with him, I didn't comment on his talk page, and I didn't start this ANI. pbp 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm coming late to this (wasn't even aware it was being discussed) but I was watching this revert war in real-time. I urged both participants to calm down, and since a BLP claim was being made, and since Joe claimed it wasn't BLP I asked him to please explain why it wasn't. From my vantage it sure looked like one. But as I have known to be wrong before I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. He didn't feel like explaining, perhaps because there is some bad blood between the two? In any case this flare up seems to be related to other interactions that have been seething for some time.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I personally feel that the interaction and civility stuff should be kept out of this, because the waters are already muddy enough, with all kinds of allegations and points being raised that have nothing to do with the current block and how we deter Joe (and others) from edit warring. I hope we are close to a resolution, but it seems that there are enough people that place little importance in deterring edit warring, that getting consensus to take action which supports the policy may be tough. TigerShark (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Comment – just unblock the user so that he can participate in this discussion, then re-block him. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Joe is unblocked, but must adhere to 1RR or expect a very long block

Actually proposed by ESL or Sportsguy17 above

• Support pbp 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose if you want to give Neljack 1RR, fine. Just unblock Joe and move on. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 15:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Almost support As long as we mean "no reverts" rather than "not more than one revert", and Joe should also give an undertaking to not edit war. Also, I think that the proposal would need to define what the block would be. Otherwise, someone will give Joe a long block, and then we will be back here with half of the people claiming that they never supported a block of that length. I fear that this may be moot, given that Joe has stated (in response to my post above) that he will never accept a conditional unblock [111]. Still, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't define what those conditions would look like. TigerShark (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The conditions probably should be imposed when he returns even if he isn't unblocked, given his history of edit warring. As for "how long", maybe make a suggestion in the "Definition of a long block" section below? pbp 16:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with AutomaticStrikeout.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Support sounds reasonable from a neutral standpoint. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition of a long block

• Oppose per AutomaticStrikeout. GregJackP Boomer! 20:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AutomaticStrikeout -Davey2010Talk! 00:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Joe is unblocked, but if (for any reason) he reverts another user on a future occasion, he will be blocked for two months on each occasion

This means that Joe would need to leave others to revert obvious vandalism, BLP, or anything else that usually exempts reverts. I think we should drop any suggestion that Joe should agree to these conditions, because he clearly won't, and as long as the conditions are clear it doesn't really matter. However, I feel that this proposal needs strong consensus to be implementable. It will be useless if there is no strong consensus, because then we will just be back here, arguing for and against "time served". TigerShark (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this laughably bad proposal. The first thought that entered my mind after reading the above- Is this serious? Reverting vandalism and BLP violations can get a person blocked. He's protecting wikipedia but can't be allowed. If this was a serious proposal, it just further strengthens my view that this person shouldn't have administrative functions....William 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarify I favor unblocking Joe but not with these laughably bad conditions. Tiger Shark, end Joe's block before you make another proposal or say something that makes the above seem reasonable in comparison....William 18:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Oppose because vandalism reverts and self-reverts can get him blocked for two months. That is the most unreasonable idea I have heard in this discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal clearly shows that TigerShark is totally out of touch with reality. There is a clear support above for unblocking Joe because of his one-month block being seen as unreasonably severe, yet TigerShark proposes an even more severe punishment, a totally unlimited 0RR-limit that would give Joe an automatic two-month block for any revert he makes, even on his own user pages (since there's no mention of an exception for that in the proposal), and even of the most obvious cases of vandalism. And forever, since there's no time limit in the proposal. So could an uninvolved admin please close this, and enforce the consensus above, i.e. to unblock Joefromrandb? I would also like to point out that I find it very unsavoury that an editor who obviously has some grievance against Joe gets free rein here, more or less smearing Joe at will, while Joe (an editor that I don't know and have never encountered on WP), because of his block, is unable to defend himself.Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I find it unfortunate that you've ignored Joe's previous blocks for edit-warring (Four in the last six months). Then when I bring it up, you accuse me of "smearing him at will". TigerShark's proposal is coming about because (and only because) of Joe's history. pbp 19:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor All of these blocks for WP:3RR. Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It usually takes two to tango. And being all over this case here at ANI, cheering on everyone who opposes lifting the block or writes something unfavourable about Joefromrandb, is equally unsavoury. And not cricket (to use a phrase my grandfather often used). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We're past the point of punishing Neljack for this. If Joe wanted to comment, he could request unblock and/or request that another editor transclude comments from his talk page to here (those are things to make it cricket to discuss an editor when he's blocked). He's done neither. What's really concerning me now is how critical you are of me, TigerShark and others who find his history of edit-warring reprehensible, particularly to the point of inaccuracy (cheer on every person who opposes the block? I've done no such thing!) pbp 20:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

So since we, because of stubborn resistance from TigerShark and legal wrangling here, are past the point of punishing Neljack for his part in it, Joefromrandb should serve his unfair one-month block. Where's the logic in that? His block doesn't become fair just because we can't give Neljack the block that he IMHO ought to have been given. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue Personally, when I looked at the diffs, it seemed to me that Joe's comment (before it was edited by Neljack) was not wrong. Other people might say otherwise. Epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool down, remember, and lets end this thing. Thomas, Purple, please do what I just suggested. The remember part involves this- Joe's EWarring involved him reverting another editor who was changing what he wrote in a AFD. The other editor was violating WP:TPO and you have to take that into consideration when judging what Joe did. None of us are happy if someone comes along and reverts what we did on in non article space. A few weeks ago an experienced editor reverted my wikilove message to another editor, would you believe that? Back to Joe, so if you are going to still punish him, remember what was the underlying cause of this. Also, TigerShark should have taken this to ANI right away instead of waiting 2-3 days to do it. TParis and Drmies, both administrators, had problems with the length of this block and told TigerShark but TigerShark stuck to initial position. I'm the one who forced TigerShark here, because I said I would start the ANI if he didn't....William 22:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Per WJE, Epi. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WilliamJE. -Davey2010Talk! 00:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I move that Joe be unblocked by a uninvolved administrator

A tally of straight block or unblocks shows this-

Unblock- Me, Epicgenius, ESL, Drmies, Automatic Strikeout, Gerda, Sportsguy, Davey, Thomas W, GregJack, wehwalt, Floquenbeam, thewolfchild, and maybe TParis who he would have blocked the other editor. Jody B and Anything seem to favor unblock. Correct me if I'm wrong. (16 for unblock)

Continue the block- TigerShark of course, Mark Arsten, Admiral, Clreland, Beyond My Ken, Loomspicker. PBP I think too. (7 for block)

A couple of people are fuzzy but I have it around two to one in favor of Joe's unblocking without restrictions/just a warning. I think its time to end the arguing....William 22:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe I am uninvolved and could close this discussion. A couple of editors might take issue with that conclusion because of my action to hat one portion of the discussion, but I disagree. I have been following the discussion and have avoided closing it for two reasons. First, many people were still commenting, and, second, the lack of focus made it difficult to determine consensus. William's idea here to bring the issue of whether to unblock Joe back into focus is a constructive one, but I believe some clarification of his vote counts is in order. I'm not doing this just to disagree with William's interpretation, but with the hope that some editors who have previously commented will make their positions clearer now. In favor of an unblock without restrictions: Automatic Strikeout, Gerda, Drmies, Sportsguy, Davey, Wehwalt, Thomas, Gregjack, and thewolfchild (9 total). Against unblocking (and that includes anyone who wants conditions): ES&L (originally favored an unblock but then proposed conditions), Floquenbeam (originally favored unblock but changed to conditions), Admiral Caius, Clreland, Beyond My Ken, Loomspicker, and TigerShark (7 total). TParis hasn't voted. PBP's vote is unclear (at one point he took no position and later supported an unblock with conditions). EpicGenius doesn't seem to have actually voted except on one permutation proposal, just commented otherwise. If I were to close this now, I'd probably close it as no consensus, although because the vote counts are close, I'd have to struggle with argument weight and other factors. I've read editors' comments, and I gotta tell you that would be tough as generally the voting editors are experienced and either make credible arguments or implicitly agree per precedecessors' arguments (Drmies's is a good example of that).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, very bad precedent but typical around, if no consensus is the decision. A month block for an editor reverting edits that violate TPO(remember the block was for edit warring), Nothing at all for a administrator when they violate WP:CIVIL and acknowledge it at this page. We have a block done here by incompetent administrator. He actually proposed an indefinite 0RR for Joe that would have damaged Wikipedia in an effort to punish Joe. That tells you alot about the administrator who did the block we're talking about. Why would anyone here want to validate the judgments of a person who would see Wikipedia harmed so that his judgment be not overturned?...William 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

In most circumstances, decisions made by admins intended to represent the will of the community are not supposed to be made on the basis of tallies or headcounts, but by weighing the policy-based arguments presented. I would hope that any uninvolved admin will remember this, and read and evaluate the entire discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well BMK, I think that it's going to be hard for uninvolved admins to decide the outcome of this discussion, given its complexity. Epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That's possible, but I've seen much knottier problems be unraveled by closing admins. In any event, just counting heads is not rhe appropriate methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Comment – reduce both block lengths. It was at the AFD, which is now over, and it was over whether a comment should have been removed or not. Cannot support unblock as both users have history of edit warring, and cannot support an unblock of Joefromrandb at all because of their comments above suggests user thinks edit warring is acceptable.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at things here: I agree with BMK that head counts don't cut it. That said, their is definitely leaning consensus toward an unblock. IMHO, Joe and PBP should not be commenting on or interacting with one another. Now, policy-wise, let's look at WP:BLOCK: As I see it, the AfD/PROD or whatever it may be has closed and I honestly think that Joefromrandb has some small interest in improving, even if he doesn't make it completely transparent. As I see it, unblock and make it clear that further disruption/edit warring could result in an indef block. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 01:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There is clearly not consensus here, nor can consensus be achieved by people just voting "time served", or just focusing on attacking other users. There is a legitimate concern, shared by many here, that Joefromrandb will continue to edit war and that he needs to be deterred from doing so. Any consensus can only be reached if that concern is acknowledged and addressed, either by putting forward arguments that no such threat exists, or by proposing a way to deter it. Proposing conditions for deterring future problems is an attempt at consensus building. Focusing on attacks on others, or just saying "unblock", is not. That is not to say that people can't comment as they wish, just that many such comments do nothing to actually achieve consensus. TigerShark (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Over a dozen editors stated good reason to end Joe's block. You're practicing WP:IDHT just as you are by not withdrawing that laughable proposal up above that's got not one iota of support because of the bad judgment it shows in you. An administrator is out of touch when they propose blocking someone for reverting vandalism....William 14:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I fully agree with Tiger's concerns. Joe's history is poor. However my concern is whether this event with the ensuing block was appropriate move. I think given the one-sided nature of the block we should end it now and move on. If Joe fouls up again in editing he will be dealt with as an serial offender. But this is just not the best way. I encourage Tiger to unblock him especially since the root discussion is done. JodyB _talk 15:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Jody, although I don't think that the root discussion is quite done. The root is how we deter Joe from edit warring again. It would see that a key idea is that we "let him off this time", and only deal with it if it happens again. I can't see any justification for this, especially given Joe's history and defiant comments made since the block. As I mentioned above I think that it is easy to reach consensus for an unblock (including support from me) if it is done on the condition that further violations will result in a pre-agreed response. What those conditions are, I think, is really the root discussion, but it is not a discussion that some people seem to be prepared to engage in. I think the conditions need to be unambiguous, and I have suggested "no reverts" and "a two month block", but that is only a suggestion, and anyone should feel free to suggest changes. But a response by some, along the lines of "ludicrous proposal...unblock immediately" is simply an attempt to avoid the question of what the conditions should be. So let's try to decide what those conditions should be. TigerShark (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
      • TigerShark, make it very clear that a recurrence will result in an indefinite block. And while there is isn't perfect consensus to unblock, there is a lot of people telling you to unblock, including fellow administrators. Lets also remember that it takes two to tango in edit wars and since one of the offenders got off without a block, it's not fair to continue the block on the other side: the edit war has stopped, the AfD closed, and as I stated very far up, lengthy blocks tend to anger users more than get them to understand. If you want Joe to have an epiphany about his actions, then do so, but continuing the block will not. This is my last comment. Best. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 15:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • It's easy to overlook, but Joefromrandb's comment was indeed a too-thinly-veiled highly insulting remark about a living person, the removal of which by Neljack was justified, and the restoration of by Joefromrandb was not. This is what justifies the unequal treatment of the two editors.

          The question of the length of the block is another matter altogether. I'm convinced by the discussion here that there is considerable sentiment for reducing Joefromrandb's block to time served, but I agree with Tiger Shark that doing so without some kind of statement from Joefromrandb that he won't engage in the same behavior again does not serve to protect the project.

          This puts his fate into the hands of Joefromrandb. If he has no intention of making BLP-violating comments and edit-warring in support of them int he future, all he has to do is say so, and I feel sure that Tiger Shark would unblock him. However, this is not the case, since Joefromrandb has explicitly stated on his talk page "I have no interest whatsoever in any conditional offer of unblocking." Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

User:113.168.106.105 is a currently blocked User:Thainguyencc. He was blocked based on behavioral evidence found here [[112]] and is again using an IP to continue the dispute and making personal attacks [[113]] which mirrors this edit [[114]]. Personally think that the ip should be blocked and registered user's blick extended for ip socking and block evasion.

• Also consider comments at 3rr board "What do you think if a map not show California, Texas... are not an English-speaking areas without source? --Thainguyencc (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)"
• and ":I can't talk? but What do you do with a linguistic map show your state is entirely non-natively English-speaking area, make from non-specific source [Ethnologue (2009, 2013)]. --113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)"

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In Vietnam, most of IP address are dynamic IP address--113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you stating you plan on continuing your disruption editing? Hell In A Bucket (talk)

No, I need only page(s) and/or link, and add "as per Ethnologue" in Kwamikagami's fake linguistic map.--113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, you should reduce the block to a set time because now it is an indefinite block on a dynamic IP.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Bumping this. 113.168.106.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) still has an indef block on it and AFAICT it is not an open proxy. Could an admin adjust that to 6-12 months or whatever the appropriate time might be. Rgrds. --64.85.216.132 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe have it blocked for how long will the IP may remain with the blocked acc? 98.114.104.129 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Cue Thainguyencc should have their block reinstated and extended for block evasion. I find it unusual that no one has done that already. Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor deleting Islamic content

I warned User:StAnselm on the 13th of November about his deletions of Islamic content, but he has continued his behavior today. [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]. He's also making pov page moves such as this. And thats only today. Previous examples include [121], [122], [123], [124], [125] among other occasions. What can I do about this editor who wants wikipedia articles to reflect the Christian point of view and rejects coverage of Islam? I'm not sure why he opposes Islamic content. Pass a Method talk 12:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs you give, here StAnselm clearly is correct, a character that originates in the Bible shouldn't be mentioned first as being in a sura. What matters here (the lead) is the origin of the character, not where else he or she is present. The same applies here and here. Perhaps a case can be made to add the Qu'ran after he Bible in the lead, but putting it in front (when chronologically it clearly comes later) is wrong. Furthermore, your links, e.g. here, weren't helpful for readers, as they pointed to the wrong page anyway. It looks to me as if the problem is not really with StAnselm's edits, but with yours, e.g. this or certainly this as well is just trying to push your POV. Here Islam was and is mentioned from the second line on, but still you want to include it as first in the lead anyway (this one hasn't been reverted yet). Fram (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that similar changes you made to other articles have been undone by other editors, e.g. here, so it isn't just StAnselm who has a problem with your edits in this regard. Fram (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

First, are chronological rules based on your opinion or on a wikipedia guideline? Second, even if chronological rules exist, we are both wrong since Anselm is not moving it chronologically but removing it entirely. Pass a Method talk 14:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the additions look shoehorned in to me, and in at least some cases the issue seems to be one of emphasis rather than actual rejection. Which in your view are the most egregious? JohnInDC (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

When you see an editor editing in a certain, rather tendentious fashion, and that editor has been warned (and reverted) before, then it isn't strange that not every edit is given extra care to see whether the added content would be used somewhere else in the article, with additional polishing. His earlier reverts, e.g. here, did keep but reorder your info, but apparently you find fault with that as well, so... Continued POV pushing is a sure-fire way to get outright reversions. Looking at e.g. [this diff I gave above, and seeing that it is part of a pattern in your edits, I can't find fault with his other reversions. An edit like this one, where you complain about the reversion a well, is borderline trolling or serious incompetence. "Biblical epics" is a standard way to describe these (e.g. [126][127]), while Quranic epics is basically your own invention[128][129] As for applicable guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is of interest, e.g. the section "Relative emphasis", as is WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, Pass a Method: please use correct edit summaries. If you first remove a line[130] and then readd the exact same line in the exact same spot[131], then you aren't "formatting" and you certainly aren't "adding content", you are undoing your mistake or test or whatever it is. Fram (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't claim to be a scholar of religious texts so I don't know what's defensible substantively, but the POV page move you describe was to undo one you'd made from Lot (biblical person) to Lot (Abrahamic). (You similarly moved Tree of LIfe and Job.) It's religion. People get touchy. I suspect page moves like that would go down more easily if you discussed them first. Plus if other editors keep moving them back after consensus then the case against them is much stronger here. JohnInDC (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is wp:verifiability. Here are 4 sources which use the term quranic epic:

• One,
• two,
• The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, volume 25, page 176.
• four Pass a Method talk 15:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, my computer has a virus right now so forgive me if i act weird. Pass a Method talk 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that Fram overstated it when he said that the term "quranic epic" was your invention. That being said, Google returns 78,000 hits for "biblical epic film" and zero (!) for "quranic epic film" or "koranic epic film", so it seems a real stretch to include the term "quranic epic" in an article about Epic films, and even moreso to include it in front of "biblical epic". JohnInDC (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources he gives merely conjoin the words "Quranic" and "epic", every time in a different context with different meanings, quite different from the term "biblical epic", which is consistently used as a name for a type of movie. It's archetypical misuse of keyword searching to find sources. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason for that is because the Quran has around a dozen transliterations whereas the bible has only one. Also because of conservative islam's reluctance to incorporate possible fiction as being Islamic. Pass a Method talk 17:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mm. It's still mighty thin gruel there and I am not surprised that you are encountering resistance to the prominence you are trying to give it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason for that is twofold: 1. The Bible, both Christian and Jewish, has numerous stories that can be dramatised cinematically. The Quran is not written in that way. 2. Islamic attitudes to images, though far from uniform, militate against the creation of "Quranic epic" films. I'm such no-one wants to exclude Quranic content from articles on characters who are mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran, but it makes sense to give Biblical references first where the figure originates in the Bible. Paul B (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my (involved) experience, this type of behavior is about par for the course for User:Pass a Method. The pattern goes something like this: PaM makes bold and controversial POV/Undue/not-well-thought-out edits across multiple articles, ignoring any past consensus, and using vague/misleading edit summaries. Somebody reverts the edits. Instead of discussing, PaM either edit wars, or immediately jumps several dispute resolution steps by filing an RfC or retaliatory ANI. I don't think any action is necessary here, except perhaps a trout for the OP. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fram, you are dealing with a very troubling editor in Pass a Method. Here is a bit of evidence for my two cents on this user being troubling.[132][133][134] Yeah, I'm biased in my opinion of this user, but not without good reason. You can tell Pass a Method to follow WP:DUE WEIGHT, use edit summaries the correct way, and a lot of other things that are supposed to be done as a Wiki editor, and it won't matter a lick. Johnuniq knows this too. I'll be starting a WP:RfC/U on Pass a Method as soon as I compile all of the damaging evidence well (currently have a user page just for that, which Pass a Method surely already knows about). Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Another legal threat concerning Nova Science Publishers

Please see this edit. This is a new user, so perhaps a stern warning is enough. On the other hand, she does not really seem to be here to collaborate and form a consensus... --Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have left her a warning on the talk page. This seems to be clear case of conflict of interest mixed with edit warring and said legal threat. And that's not the mix that makes Wikipedia work effectively. De728631 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also disturbed to her mention of "our Editors", implying possible meatpuppetry.--Auric talk 13:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sock of just-blocked editor

The just-created editor User:You find the truth painful appears to be a sock of the just-blocked editor User:Cognoscerapo. YTheir contribution list is short enough to peruse for the evidentiary diffs, but see this and this in particular. The block was based on a violation of WP:ARBMAC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Ponyo per WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A CU might want to take a look, and if there was block evasion, extend Cognoscerapo's block, although I think WP:DUCK is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The geolocation between You find the truth painful and Cognoscerapo certainly makes a connection  Possible, however due to the IP range hopping I can't lock down a rangeblock. A liberal dose of reverting, rev-deleting, blocking, and semi-protection will essentially deny them the platform they're looking for. If they continue with the physical threats then it may need to be brought to WMF attention for a more thorough check. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As Ponyo found out, our friend is now actively IP hopping. De728631 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cognoscerapo is, in turn, likely a sock of somebody else. He cites a policy in an edit summary via shortcut WP:RS in his tenth edit overall [135], and knows how to use ref tags and cite web template in the twelfth [136]. It's not rocket science, I agree, but it is consistent with someone having significant editing experience.No such user (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue In this case, a SPI might need to be opened and then have a checkuser compare the accounts. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:You find the truth painful is an Evlekis-sock. Another AN/I thread on Evlekis has recently been closed, below. I think that Cognoscerapo could be somebody else's sock, but I'm not certain. If a sock, the sockmaster would appear to be somebody on the opposite site of our Balkan disputes, although it wouldn't be the first time that Evlekis has used false-flags... anyway, I think there is still a real possibility that Cognoscerapo is a real editor, it's not an open-and-shut case. bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Technical question

Why does this page start with empty <noinclude></noinclude> tags? Debresser (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I presume it's a typo, now removed. GiantSnowman 13:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Telegraph Totter

This is a newish user, with a chequered record (see User talk:Telegraph Totter), who is insisting on making edits to articles - specifically, removing dates of birth from opening sentences - contrary to guidance at WP:OPENPARA and despite being advised not to do so. I'll revert him once more, but a few more eyes on his activities would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Given my dealings with this editor and their IDHT attitude regarding policy, I don't believe they should be editing any BLPs, period. But I'm not exactly unbiased.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No Jezzy I'd say you are totally biased and the reason for removing the dates from the opening par is because it looks daft to have them there AND the fact box AND the opening line of the bio section.--The Totter 01:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If it "looks daft", perhaps you should start a discussion at WT:LEAD, rather than trying to change one article at a time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

While TT is a bit of a bull in a china shop, and would do well to invest more time learning his way around, he's right about one thing: it does look silly for the lead to say (January 5, 1912 - June 3, 1952) and the infobox to give Born January 5, 1912 and the article body to open Smith was born January 5, 1912 in London. I think all that's needed here is for someone to explain to him that, of these three, the last is the expendable one -- Smith was born in London is enough in most cases. EEng (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think EEng has a good point here. Including dates of birth by rote in multiple places looks silly. It's not the first thing that readers are looking for, so why do we have to cram it into the first sentence of so many articles regardless of how well it scans? WP:OPENPARA suggests that the date of birth should be in the opening paragraph but all the examples push it into the first sentence, immediately after the name. Maybe we could discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. bobrayner (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Telegraph Totter: - your signature violates WP:SIGLINK, please rectify ASAP lest I have to initiate a softblock. GiantSnowman 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sonny1998

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

---

Sonny1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): all of this user's edits are unsourced. He/she never explains them in edit summaries, never discusses on talk pages. Has been blocked twice for the same reasons last month. Now the block has expired and Sonny1998 continues unchangedly. I just left a message on the user's talk page an hour ago, asking very politely to review our policies and guidelines, to please provide references or to explain using the edit summary. No reaction: continues as though nothing had happened. I don't know how to solve this as it is impossible to communicate with this user. --RJFF (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This user's pattern of edits is very reminiscent of serial sockpuppeteer Greekboy12345er6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). It might be worth doing a CU on the account. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Greekboy hasn't edited since 2010 and is therefore stale with respect to a possible CU.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

But several socks have been blocked since then, most recently last June. Is there any point in taking this to SPI? The account has been indeffed, and has never engaged in talk page discussion, so is unlikely to challenge this. But Greekboy has a long record of creating socks to make large numbers of disruptive edits, so a record of this latest appearance could be useful. RolandR (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

June is well outside the useable time frame for technical comparison, although there is nothing stopping an SPI being started to be judged on behavioural evidence.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Evlekis

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

---

...is continuing to spawn numerous sockpuppet accounts, some of which are used only to battle bobrayner. This is getting ridiculous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to give us just a little more information, Joy. Are you referring to named accounts and/or IPs? If so, which ones? A sleeper check was done just a couple of days ago here, and several named accounts were blocked and tagged. You yourself blocked a different named account, and Mark blocked an IP. I am sympathetic with Bob, but what it is that you want? (If Bob wishes, we could always semi-protect his talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have also been targeted lately by Evlekis's socks. Sadly, I'm not sure anything more can be done except vigilant reporting and blocking. He is waging a private little war, and the rest of us will have to carry on. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just had to block Gameover2000 (talk · contribs) which was posting deceptive edit summaries, purportedly editing against Evlekis' sock, but actually reverting bobrayner's edits. It's just plain bizarre. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's his m.o. -- to hound Bobrayner, with whom he had numerous feuds that eventually led to his de facto banishment. He also tries to intimidate other editors who "protect" Bobrayner. That's how I got involved with it yesterday, which was my first introduction to this mess at all. I was minding my business on Huggle, started reverting a disruptive IP, and quickly found myself a target. (See "Hashim Haradinaj" above.) Quite a pathetic hobby for a grown man. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest is to contact an admin, including me, if you don't want to go to the trouble to reopen the SPI. The admin can then evaluate whether a block can be issued without an SPI. Unfortunately, there are some socks who delight in attention - thus, the more the merrier. Not much one can do about it except pick them off one by one and otherwise ignore them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered about my talkpage. I'm used to people disagreeing with me and the more time he spends on my talkpage, the less time he's messing about with articles. Good content is more important than keeping a tidy user-talk page.

However, feel free to block the socks. Evlekis likes to revert-stalk and, although it only takes a minute to undo each sock's revert-spree, it would be nice if they could be stopped automatically. I would also like to express frustration at other editors cynically cooperating with Evlekis-socks in order to pov-push on controversial articles, but maybe that's a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement case for some other day when I have more time on my hands... bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway; thanks for all your help. Sorry about the mess. bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone stop this nonsense? This sockhounting is started to affect negatively the project. Bobrainer by reverting me is becoming disruptive by reinserting red-links and pipped links only because he favours Albanian names for setlements and refuses to accept that the articles he is linking are not written the way he wants. I already called his attention on this and asked him to procede properly, to make a WP:RfM is he beleaves the articles should have another title. I don´t care about socks, but in this case, the text sock is defending is actually correct, and Bobrainer is using the "sock" excuse just to implement his POV in articles. FkpCascais (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockhounting should not be an excuse to disrupt pages and once an established editor is reverted that is not sockhounting anymore, but disruption. FkpCascais (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to resume Evlekis' crusade that placenames in Kosovo should always be in Serbian, rather than using the actual Albanian names, perhaps we could have a centralised discussion on that (I've considered starting an RfC once the current sockfest is over). But bringing it up at AN/I is likely to lead to closer examination of editing behaviour rather than of the content dispute; are you sure you want to go down that road? Making proxy edits for a blocked editor is a Bad Thing, and you've been doing a lot of it lately. bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You are as hypocrite as one can be. I told you to open a discussion on that matter. If anyone wants to examine my contributions, is welcome. I just brought here another exemple of your disruption in the Kosovo-related area where you refuse to change your behaviour and keep using the "sock-excuse" with everyone who desagrees with you. FkpCascais (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

A.D.D.E.

Hello, today I am reporting AmericanDad86 for disruptive editing on The Simpsons becuase he doesn't get the verifiability policy, as of the edits [1] [2]. It all started when he wanted to defend Grapesoda22's edit by adding a non-reliable source on the article. I have told the user about that, but the user started to change the subject, in which of telling people about how I edit instead of talking about the content, and tried not to reference what I said about the non-reliable part, and had to end up repeating myself in the article's talk page, when I said it already on the Reference Desk. Also, in which the user did the exact same thing on The Simpsons' talk page, starting talking about me instead of the content, in which I don't know if that results to personal attack, in which he did it twice. I later reverted it's edit, and said on the edit summary is to read WP:RS, but the user refused, and reported me to the edit warring noticeboard. The user currently doesn't understand something between a reliable source, and a non-one. If the user did know, it wouldn't of never putted that source on the article, or reverted the disruptive edit he made. The user's source that it added was a search from Google, describing a book written by authors that had nothing to do with the project of The Simpsons, and the whole book isn't even about The Simpons, it's about non-fiction facts about television shows in which that is a non-reliable source. I tried all I can to tell the user, but as I said above, it doesn't understand the verify policy very well (or not at all). Yesterday I started a discussion of the reference noticeboard, Itsmejudith responded in the the edit summary that it's not reliable, and added a common message in which can be viewed by clicking this link; Since that was cleared out, we all know that if I revert the edit he made three days because the source is not reliable, we all know he'd revert it, in which because mostly he's doing tendentious, and disruptive editing, as of what it says in the symptoms in DE in rejects or ignores community input, the user is resisting moderation and/or requests for comment (for example, as I told the user to read the WP:RS, the user pretty much didn't want to), continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors (in which is me), as of the statement he made at the articles talk page to prove that he was right without minding the source that he inserted, in which I can find that hard to believe that he actually is right. Blurred Lines 20:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

{Edit Conflict] :I call WP:BOOMERANG.[137][138][139][140][141][142][143] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute over a genre. To the extent it's a conduct dispute, Blurred Lines is more of a problem than AmericanDad. Although AD may not be the most diplomatic or detached of editors, Blurred Lines was the one blocked for edit warring, and they've been in a great deal of trouble lately for their conduct. After BL requested an unblock from the latest block, EdJohnston stated, "I hope that other admins who review this will take note that this is your third block since October 1. You seem to find it difficult to follow our policies." ([144]) BL later withdrew the unblock request and sat out the block. My suggestion is the parties engage in the usual dispute resolution. From reading the short discussion at WP:RSN, I don't see a clear consensus for whether the source backing up the genre is reliable, which, of course, is a separate issue from how to classify the series.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Me being the big problem because I was blocked doesn't resolve anything as you are trying to point fingers. Also, the users has made it clear, the source is not reliable, and you can't argue about that unless you want to make a conclusion on the noticeboard that it is. Blurred Lines 21:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Some eyes please on Patrick Califia

There has been a concerted effort to associate Califia with pedophilia for several months now. The talk page has had to be revision deleted a few times. And may need at least another round as someone has generously quoted several sources. I've removed a statement two times now that presents the material in what i see as an WP:Undue, and WP:POV way violating WP:BLP. I think there is some room for some content but that it has to be presented with context, and done so neutrally. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I read the articles (ours and the source) and meddled a bit. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Long-term "Alvin and the Chipmunks" vandal under different IP addresses

There is very strong evidence (because of similarities) that this IP user is using different IP addresses to disruptively edit and to evade blocks. There's a persistent long-term pattern of disruptive edits over a sustained period of time. The same type of unhelpful and poorly sourced content about Alvin and the Chipmunks is put into numerous different articles about songs, for which there is simply no relevance to include such poorly sourced content.

The IP user has previously had numerous warnings and a 3 month block, but simply comes back again under a different IP address to put in the same irrelevant and poorly sourced content into song articles. This has been going on for a long period of time and has a disruptive impact on the Wikipedia community.

Please could I ask for an investigation and a rangeblock to be calculated and checked. Please see the following contributions below for evidence.

Given a 3 month block for long-term disruption as:

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

Suspected evasion of that block as:

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

Most recent pattern of disruptive edits:

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

Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

IP's may be related somehow by being in the general St. Louis area, but this seems stale and I'm noticing some good contribs from the latter, and all three are currently stale. At that, this is the wrong place to ask for a rangeblock/checkuser; this should be filed at WP:SPI. Not that I would support a rangeblock anyways since all the numbers are so far apart we'd have to block all of Charter's IPs just to deal with some easily controllable A&TC vandalism. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm a gentle type of person and not someone who is prone to arguments, so I guess we may just have to agree to differ on this. But all three are stale ? The latter edited just yesterday, on 28 November 2013, putting the same type of unhelpful content in again about Alvin and the Chipmunks.

"The IP's may be related somehow". I would suggest that there is an extremely good chance that they are related. Is it just a mere coincidence that all three IP's happen to all come from the St. Louis area of Missouri ? That seems to me to be a very big coincidence.

"Some good contribs from the latter" ? But also some bad and unhelpful ones too I would suggest. He or she was requested to provide reliable sources. A detailed look at contributions show he or she has ignored that request with edits in November and the contributions between all 3 IP's show striking similarities.

If, as I very strongly suspect, the IP's are related, he or she evaded the 3 month block on 97.86.5.61 by continuing to edit during the period of the block on IP address 198.246.7.69

A viewing of the total number of contributions from all three IPs, shows that numerous warnings have been given and ignored. It has been frustrating to see song articles so frequently disrupted by the same type of editing.

If you do not feel that action is required on this, I may keep tabs on the situation and later report the matter to WP:SPI Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is connected but I recently tagged a hoax Chipmunks article for deletion IIRC about a week ago. Details may be found at my log. KonveyorBelt 00:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Completely different vandal (or vandals); listed IP's don't engage in article creation it seems, and the creation of additional A&TC 'sequel' articles is a regular annoyance among children's show/films article followers like me; we get about five-ten of those a year. Nate • (chatter) 01:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Need diffs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Y'know, if we had mandatory registration and sign-in-to-edit, this situation would not exist. Just sayin'... Carrite (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Been there, tried that, lolno'd by WMF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

153.107.33.156 et al

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

---

User talk:153.107.33.156 has been blocked nine times, most recently for three years. First post-block edits (made today) are vandalism, used in tandem with User talk:153.107.33.154 (which has five previous blocks). See also:

• User talk:153.107.33.151 - 5 expired blocks, and blocked again for 3 years earlier today
• User talk:153.107.33.152 - 8 expired blocks, has vandalised today
• User talk:153.107.33.153 - 8 expired blocks, has vandalised today
• User talk:153.107.33.155 - 8 expired blocks, has vandalised today
• User talk:153.107.33.157 - 8 expired blocks, has vandalised today
• User talk:153.107.33.158 - 7 expired blocks, has vandalised today

Thanks. -- 82.132.213.125 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a three year block wasn't long enough... StAnselm (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I just added more detail to my original post. Is it possible those 8 IPs should be blocked together - ie so that all their blocks expire at the same time? 82.132.213.125 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done I did a /28 range block beginning at .125. Anyone can modify as needed without my input. If that is not sufficient, let me know. JodyB _talk 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I changed to a /25. The 28 was too small. JodyB _talk 15:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI: At this point, there are three overlapping blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Dropped the two and kept the final one on that IP, I'm unsure if it really matters but I'm happy to make a change. I just want a tight range blocked to try and alleviate this problem. JodyB _talk 16:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, I changed the blocks to remove the overlaps and reinstated a narrow rangeblock that will cover the vandal ip's. JodyB _talk 16:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Overzealous addition to local spam blocklist

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

---

I have found out from another site that User:Ckatz stuck http://www.ccel.us/ on the local spam blacklist back in the summer of 2011 in this edit. This was apparently in response to this spam taunt, but it's quite unlikely that this threat was honest since CCEL (now titled Evangelical Christian Library) is simply a repository site for well-known theological and religion-related texts, most of them PD. I would not be surprised to see links to its materials throughout religious topics on Wikipedia; the case which caught my eye involves a reference in J. Z. Knight to an on-line edition of a book by Russell Chandler, once a religion writer for the LA Times. This looks to be a perfectly reasonable reference, and an online copy is surely preferable for an online encyclopedia. Therefore I would like to ask that this entry be removed from the spam blacklist as unnecessary and inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? They'll be more apt to remove it than anyone here at AN/I. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Done so, thanks. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Medgeorgia

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

---

• Medgeorgia (talk · contribs)

I find this user's comments unnecessary and often offensive. I tried to be as civil as possible, though he doesn't seem to care about the basic rules of Wikipedia.

Earlier today he added "Georgian-Armenian" as Sayat-Nova's nationality. Note that he linked "Georgian" to Georgians (the ethnic group) when it is widely known that Sayat-Nova was an ethnic Armenian (something that he also admitted in the talk page "Was the son of Armenian immigrants"). And then I tried to remove Georgian from the lead, since it it unsourced and somewhat irrelevant. In order to avoid an edit war I went to the talk page and gave reliable several sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica and Great Soviet Encyclopedia‎ that simply call him "Armenian") and his response was a comparison to Kim Kardashian!?! He ignored the sources I provided and instead claimed that people born in Georgia are automatically Georgian.

The above, however, is just a content dispute. His last comment is what made me come here. He said "U r inadequate my bro! I am active in ka.wikipedia, and I am writing here because seeking to falsify the history by Armenians. But I do not hate Armenians, contrary I love them." --Երևանցի ^talk 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well,Very bad behavior from the Armenian friend. At the end of the discussion I offered him a way out, but ignored it. Sayat Nova never lived in Armenia. He was born and lived in Georgia. He died and was buried in Georgia, Tbilisi. Had an Armenian mother, who lived in Tbilisi. His father was from Aleppo, who moved to Tbilisi. After this, Sayat Nova's article mention of Georgia is Mistake?--MEDGEORGIA  talk  22:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not an excuse to make statement like "falsify the history by Armenians". You might also want to accuse Encyclopædia Britannica and Great Soviet Encyclopedia‎ in "history falsification". --Երևանցի ^talk 22:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You do not want to recognize the truth.--MEDGEORGIA  talk  22:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue And what is 'the truth' as you say? Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yea I think that last statement clearly indicates a WP:NOTHERE issue and a topic ban is unlikely to work. We don't need uncivil nationalistic POV pushing editors, we got enough as it is. Gone, indef. Secret ^account 01:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible vandalism

The article Foro de Sao Paulo has been stable for 8 long years, but for no apparent reason an user is now trying to start nonsense edit wars like this. I hope someone can help me solving the issue because I don't want to request blocks for no one, since I don't edit wikipedia for this. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I recommend engaging with the other editor on the article's talk page. Soman is an experienced, productive editor. Rather than "nonsense" or vandalism, this seems to a fairly routine content disagreement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti-semitic attacks & legal threats at Talk:Ruggero Santilli

Ok, this post by an account with the name of an organisation is the last straw. The report mentioned is at [145] and is titled "Documentation Of Jewish Dishonesty And Corruption On Prof. Santilli's Article At Wikipedia". The editor User:ScientificEthics quotes someone atTalk:Ruggero Santilli saying ""hi luca / we have completed our investigation over wiki's scam on dr santilli / all editors are jews / all non-jews are cut out / all decisions are made privately via emails now monitored / talks are just a smokescreen / the boss is the level six zionist weinberg s / rubin a is just the puppet executioner / the fringe dubbing is their slimy signature prohibited by wiki's rules calling for response in kind / we provide in attachment names and profiles of all these scammers and their nicknames so that your committee can deliver a legal punch in their most tender personal and academic spots / adnan ". See various other comments by SPAs and an IP who is almost certainly Santilli. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support block for outright trolling. The comments aren't even serious, and if one wanted to make a comment that they were, then the editor is suffering from severe delusions. Signed, Level 7 Zionist.
• Support indef block for ScientificEthics (talk · contribs) and his little sock too (Zkurko (talk · contribs)) for very obvious trolling and WP:NOTHERE. LouisTheSmall (talk · contribs) is problematic too, but I can't tell if they are a sock of ScientificEthics. - MrX 15:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Indefed. Either its plain racism or racist trolling. Now the conspiracy will spread to include white males, I guess. Or I will have my ethnicity changed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics

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

---

HiLo48 is engaged in an incivil behavior at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics#The most expensive games in history. They may have a point, but instead of discussing it in a civil manner they resorted to personal attacks, talking about my and other editor's English skills and making up some phantasies about my political views. Whereas I am prepared to discuss the issue, I am not prepared to discuss it in this manner. Note also edit summaries like WTF. I vaguely remember having some problems with the civility of this user in the past, but frankly not a single detail. I posted yesterday morning ate the Editor Assistance requests, this unfortunately did not attract any interest.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have two comments to make. Firstly, I draw everyone's attention to my use of the word "almost" right at the end of this post. I do this because Ymblanter then posted as if I hadn't used the word (after extensively refactoring my comments), and ignored my pointing out that I had used it, and has continued to post attacks on me as if I hadn't used the word, right up to this very time. Secondly, I have been and am still confused by several of the posts made by some editors in that thread. As I politely suggested, this may be at least partly because they are being made by editors who are not expert at using English. I explicitly said "That's not a criticism on its own", but Ymblanter described it as a personal attack. I'm sorry, but at this point I give up. Am to be condemned for being ignored and confused? HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks by Hilo, and Ymblanter brought up Putin first anyway. I also had trouble following some of the conversation due to the broken English. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? Did I write that I have "a rampart desire to prove evilness of Putin"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you write it then? Can you prove that I have such desire? Am I may be a POV editor of other articles? Do I regularly express anti-Putin views on other talk pages? Why did it happen right after I requested you to remain civil? Is this your understanding of civility?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to revisit your own definition of civility and compare it to ours ... just sayin'. I mean, if you're complaining about an edit summary of "WTF" ... you just might want to rethink your approach, AND look carefully at your intent ES&L 12:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is my hobby. I am a pretty succesful person in my professional life, and I have no interest to somehow prove anything by my Wikipedia activity. Obviously in my capacity as administrator I have to deal with problematic editors, and I realized that before running an RfA. But in my capacity as an editor I just do not see why I should deal with problematic editors. I avoid editing in problematic topics. But here an editor comes to a talk page of an article which is in my watchlist for a long time and where I have a dozen of edits, and makes a suggestion. I politely disagree, providing my argument, and then they start the next reply with WTF and suggest that we discuss the topic accurately and constructively. Subsequently they attribute me some political opinions, and when another editor disagrees with them as well, complains about our bad English. And now I am recommended to continue the discussion and not to pay attention. WTF, is this the editing atmosphere we are aiming at? I have plenty of topics where I am pretty sure I would be the only non-bot editor for the next ten years.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you are way out of line here. HiLo has not done or said anything in the discussion on the nominated talk page that warrants any sort of administrative sanction. I very strongly recommend you review your own words on that page, which have been far from flawless. Your post immediately above this is almost entirely non-sequitur to this AN/I thread - it is full of self praise, but says little gremain to the point. With all due respect, if you have difficulty understanding and using everyday English as seems to be the case here, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you really do want to edit the English Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I disagree that HiLo's behaviour in the thread was appropriate and am posting some remarks on his talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

European Commission editing on own subjects

Please take a look at IP editors like User:158.169.131.14 and (to a lesser extent) User:158.169.40.9. These IPs trace to the European Commission, and they are adding self-interested content that seems problematic for Wikipedia and its free license. For example, note the "copyright" claim on this edit. Nothing wrong with government officials wanting to help expand the encyclopedia, but they need to be aware of WP:CV and WP:COI, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Percolaytor (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The copyright claim is about the underlying material being discussed, ie the copyright status of EbS programming, not the content of the Wikipedia article. Unless the article content is copied from somewhere, I don't see any issues on the WP:CV front. WP:COI always applies, but it the edits don't seem that bad, and there hasn't been any attempt to sort it out at the article, or on user talk pages, so that aspect isn't ripe for review here. Monty₈₄₅ 15:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Monty, I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you looked carefully enough at the content. Look at the text in section Europe_by_Satellite#Copyright_for_EbS.2C_Credit_.C2.A9_European_Union. Just pick any sentence, e.g., "All other kinds of video material available on this website may be edited for EU information and education purposes." That's a direct copyright violation of copyrighted content found on the EC AV page here. The government IP is blanket copying copyrighted content, then pasting it into Wikipedia. I don't have the time today to "sort it out", but I know it's a problem, so that's why I brought it here, for someone to tend to, not to dismiss it as unripe. Percolaytor (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Abuse by Greenclayton

This is unacceptable. Could someone please take action against such an indefensible breach of one of the five pillars? - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well we are a load of idiots. Is there a pattern of this type of behaviour? If not, maybe they're having a really bad day or their account has been compromised. In any case, it looks like they're retired.- MrX 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)