Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846

Destructive edits by new user Deleteasaur and unregistered user 65.220.37.9; possibly company editing its own page

I am concerned over a new user (Deleteasaur) and an unregistered user (65.220.37.9) at the GMAT page that have continually deleted credibly sourced items or entire sections from the page. Given their take that the page should exclusively reflect the opinions of the primary source, there is the concern that they are representatives from the primary source (GMAC). They may even be the same person as they both spell cite as "site" on the talk page.

The Deleteasaur's deletions:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

--TDJankins (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a very interesting issue in light of the recent change to the Terms of Use (see Paid contributions without disclosure)

As I read it, @TDJankins: is accusing @Deleteasur: of being a paid editor for the Graduate Management Admission Council which owns the Graduate Management Admission Test, and Deletesaur is accusing (somewhat more subtly) TDJankins and others of working for The Princeton Review a test prep provider. Both the Princeton Review and GMAC sell GMAT test prep material.

After reviewing all 3 of the articles mentioned above, it is not hard to conclude that all of them rely on primary material from the owners of the company and/or test. The marketing style text is the main give-away. Talk pages and edit summaries reveal this in vague and not so vague ways, e.g. see edit summary at [6] for a very active editor there.

Note that the only dispute since June 15, 2014 (date of the ToU update) is for the GMAT article.

I hope everybody can see the applicability of the ToU here. No way can an NPOV encyclopedia allow dueling paid editors to determine the contents of these pages. The solution to the problem, as always, starts with polite notifications on user talk pages, and hopefully that will be all that is needed. Further steps are available if needed - and I hope admins understand that it is best if the Wikipedia community takes care of this. I will ping @GeoffBrigham (WMF):, just in case even further steps have to be taken later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No Smallbones, it sounds like you are accusing me of being a paid editor. And just who the heck would I be paid editing for? As it stands right now, the GMAT page is heavily reliant on primary source material, so much so that it has earned the primary sources tag. Deleteasaur seems bent on removing anything that doesn't come directly from GMAC.--TDJankins (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Deleteasaur is a bit more subtle but the idea comes through, e.g. in the following recent exchange of 3 messages on the talk page:

I agree that citing the Princeton review about what the GMAT measures is inappropriate. This should not be a page of opinions. Or at the very least if there is an opinion it should be presented as such. Furthermore, citing the Princeton review's opinion about the GMAT is like citing McDonalds' opinion on food. In general a test preparation company shouldn't be sited on a GMAT information page. This section strikes me as a bunch of unsubstantiated fluff that should be removed. I would like to hear other people's ideas on this. Deleteasaur (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Deletasaur. A page is not to exclusively have opinions from the product owning company itself. This page has even earned the "This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources" tag because it is so out of whack. So yes, we need opinions from other experts on the test such as The Princeton Review.--TDJankins (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Calling the PR an "expert" or "credible" secondary source is a massive stretch. This page should focus on the facts about the GMAT exam. It is even struggling to get those straight. If I didn't have to waste time deleting advertising for test prep companies I would have more time to help get those facts straight so that this page could help more people get credible information about the GMAT. Please help me do that. Deleteasaur (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Particularly the part, "If I didn't have to waste time deleting advertising for test prep companies..." Correct me if I'm wrong but that refers to an edit of yours? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine as to what he is referring to. I'm not aware of any advertising on the page. He may think that any information sourced from a test prep company is essentially advertising, but even if that's what he believes, to accuse me of advertising for all of those companies would be wacky even for him.--TDJankins (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what Deleteasaur believes, you shouldn't have written a sentence that presumes that I'm a paid editor ("No way can an NPOV encyclopedia allow dueling paid editors to determine the contents of these pages."). Clearly I'm not a paid editor. I contribute to many, many pages on Wikipedia while Deleteasaur contributes to one (if you can call deletions contributions).--TDJankins (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looks like Deleteasaur is removing blogs and advertisements from the GMAT page. I see no problem with that. I think a curved object may be heading for TDJankins as he (or she) insists or putting the advertisements back in. Kosh Vorlon    21:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually there's no advertising to speak of unless information sourced from any company's website is advertising. I think that nobody cares what a banned editor thinks.--TDJankins (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Examples of advertising from [7]

• "Test preparation courses can be very costly, but very effective."
• Changing the "Registration" section to "Registration and Preparation"
• "The GMAT does not measure business knowledge or skill. Nor does it measure intelligence. The GMAT is simply a test of how well one takes the GMAT." referenced to a Princeton Review link.

That edit (all the text) is essentially all you've added to the article during a month of slow motion edit warring. One of the problems with paid editors is that they get so used to adspeak that they can't distinguish an advert anymore from just regular text. My product is "very costly, but very effective" is an advert and always will be. Another problem with paid editors is that they never quit arguing, even when they are caught in the act. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

• That Deletesaur and all employees and contractors of the Graduate Management Admission Council be banned for two days for sockpuppetting, edit warring and/or undisclosed paid editing. This should be just enough to get their attention and prevent it from happening again. Note the IP in the title of this section traces back to the town that's their HQ, and there are many editors in the article history adding public relations type material cited solely to GMAC. If GMAC responds here in time and says they won't do it again, then no ban or block need be imposed. (I'll notify Deletesaur on this proposal)
• That TDJankins and all employees and contractors of The Princeton Review be banned from editing for two weeks for edit warring and undisclosed paid editing. This should be just enough to get their attention and prevent it from happening again. The "extra time" is because TDJankins's complaint here shows that he knows that edit warring and undisclosed paid editing is against our rules, but did it anyway (aka boomerang).
• Support as proposer Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It was always called the "Registration and Preparation" section. "Test preparation courses can be very costly, but very effective" is a true statement as evidenced by the sentence that follows it and it's something that's just well known. I am strictly not an employee or paid editor of the Princeton Review (or anyone else) and have added information sourced from many of their competitors. The citation sourced from the Princeton Review is from one of their books, not to a link. Thank you for confirming that I was right about the unregistered user being a representative of GMAC. Please stop your unfounded, belligerent accusations that I'm a paid editor.--TDJankins (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban of TDJankins - no evidence of a COI.--v/r - TP 21:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm. There is zero evidence presented anywhere that either TDJankins or Deleteasaur have any relationship with any company. Trout for Smallbones and TDJankins for making personal attacks with zero basis. There ~may~ be an issue with WP:NPOV - if so that is a matter for WP:NPOVN, not this board; more narrowly, there may be an issue of whether a given source is reliable (a matter for WP:RSN). Recommend blocks on Smallbones and TDJankins if they continue making accusations of COI/paid editing with zero basis - we cannot have people making unfounded accusations like this, especially with the new ToU in place. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I'm not asserting that Deleteasaur is a paid editor, I was just concerned about the possibility and was hoping someone could further investigate his account and the account of the unregistered user given their desire to remove anything that did not come directly from GMAC and the fact that they solely edited the GMAT page. And it appears that my suspicions were confirmed at least about the unregistered user. Anyhow, thanks for your time.--TDJankins (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You "raised a concern" about another editor's RL identity with when you wrote "there is the concern that they are representatives from the primary source (GMAC)" and you had no basis for that. You can see where Smallbones ran with that and how what you started came to bite you back in the face, with just as little justification. And when it was done to you, you reacted with indignation. Let that be a lesson for you not to go there without solid justification - like the person actually saying it. We don't WP:OUT people here. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Being concerned that something is so does not mean you are asserting it is so. I will reiterate that clearly I did have reason to be concerned given (1) Deleteasaur and the unregistered user's desire to remove anything that didn't come directly from GMAC, (2) the fact that they solely edited the GMAT page, and (3) the fact that it appears that my suspicions were confirmed at least with regard to the unregistered user. At the end of the day, it appears that nothing has been accomplished here other than the harassment of someone who came here to try to solve a problem. Unbelievable. --TDJankins (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

TDJankins, my comments are focused solely on your bringing unfounded allegations of COI. Again, we do not WP:OUT people here, and you were wrong to speculate about COI with no evidence about the RL identity of Deleteasur and the IP. Two bad things happened because of that mistake that you made: 1) Smallbones ran with it and turned it back on you; 2) I and others here have told you that you did something wrong. Your concern about Sock was clearly justified; there is a legitimate concern about sources (both the ones you wanted to keep and the ones left in the article), and you could have framed your concern about edits by the Deleteaurus and the IP with respect to WP:NPOV. Those are all distinct from the COI "concern." When you go to the drama boards, things can blow up in your face and boomerang on you, especially when you make mistakes. You can learn from this, or not. But please do not continue making accusations of COI without clear self-disclosure from the editor about whom you have a concern. And if you have concerns, the proper way to handle them is described in the COI guideline, in a section called "How to handle conflicts of interest", which you can find here which I strongly encourage you to read and follow. If you want to fix the problems in the article, I suggest that you look for reliable secondary sources (not blogs!!) and edit the article according to them. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I couldn't support a block on Smallbones. Despite feeling he is wrong, he is acting in good faith and is part of all of our attempts to figure out how the new ToU is implemented. We are in a very grey area with an infinite amount of shading and I don't think Smallbones behavior is outside what could be acceptable while we are still discussing what acceptable behavior even is. This needs to be a demonstration of boundaries, but we can't react negatively ex post facto of those boundaries being defined. Even now, this boundary is cursory. I also couldn't support a block on TDJankins, Deleteasaur's edits are very focused. If they are not a paid editor, they at least are a SPA.--v/r - TP 22:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommended: "if they continue making accusations of COIU/paid editing with zero basis". Not now. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.--v/r - TP 23:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose - That curved object really flying close to you now. Quit while you ahead. No evidence of meat or sock puppetry has been shown, further Deletasaurus has been removing blogs and advertisments, which are legitimate removals, you however, have been placing them back in. Kosh Vorlon    16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi All - sorry I'm late to the game here. I've been super busy. I am in no way affiliated with GMAC. I find it pretty sad that TDJankins had to sling mud at me to cover up his work on the GMAT page. If you look at my edits you'll see that all I've been doing is deleting opinion which seems to support or promote certain test prep companies. It also seems that the advertising is mainly coming from TDJankins. Why he/she is consistently re-posting the advertising when other people edit it out is beyond my knowledge. For some reason TDJankins keeps adding Shawn Berry, Optimus Prep, and Princeton review to the page. Again, I don't know his/her motivations but regardless of the motivations I think that representing test prep companies on the GMAT page is not appropriate. I'm new to wikipedia - so I have to apologize if my approach to whole thing was incorrect. I'm happy to be a part of whatever the solution is for this page. There still is a lot of work to do. I hope that in the near term we can get this page in good shape. Thanks Smallbones for notifying me of this discussion. Deleteasaur (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin relisting an RM in order to give one side more time to respond

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

---

A requested move was filed on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, asking for it to be moved to Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (without the "The"). This evening, admin Jenks24 relisted the discussion with this comment:

Relisting comment. Obviously an issue that is very important to some people so I'm giving this another week primarily so that those who are opposed to the move have the opportunity to make a better case. If I closed the RM at this moment the consensus would be to move it. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purpose of re-listing any Wikipedia discussion is to allow more discussion where there has not been sufficient discussion to allow a decision to be rendered, it is not intended as a device to allow one side of the debate to rack up more comments than have been posted so far. I suggest that Jenks24's relisting was an abuse of admin privilege, and that it should be considered whether Jenks24 understands the proper roie of an admin sufficiently in order to continue to retain the bit. BMK (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Jenks is a calm, even tempered, unbiased, excellent closer. He is a role model closer. The relist comment was obviously intended to help ensure a proper consensus would be reach. This complaint is unbecoming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Bullshit. BMK (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• There is nothing inappropriate about that decision. This move discussion isn't about icosahedrons but about rather about religion. Some topics are simply more near and dear to some people's hearts. It wasn't required that Jenks24 do this, but neither do I have an objection to them doing so. NW (Talk) 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So, with the discussion open for a longer period, and more people (possibly) use the opportunity to respond on the side of the request that Jenks24 seems to prefer, will Jenks24 then keep the discussion open longer to allow more folks from the other side to respond? #1 I don't think so, #2 when does it end, #3 will Jenks24's personal opinion be the determining factor? This is, very unfortunately, where admin prejudice come into play. I am, in general, a strong supporter of admins, but I don't see this as a proper use of admin power -- but OK ,let's see how things develop now that admin Jenks24 has given one side of the debate additional time to respond. BMK (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm generally loathe to express an opinion on an ongoing RM because I feel it precludes me from closing it and there is a pretty large backlog at RM as it is. But in this case where I'm accused of being prejudiced I will say that I am a supporter of WP:THE, I have supported a lot of RMs with that rationale and if I was forced to vote in this particular RM it would definitely be in support. I also have absolutely no affiliation with this church or any of its members. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• I find the non-close reasonable too. The point here seems to be that the debate showed (and still shows) a rather clear numerical preponderance of "oppose" votes, and he was saying that, on the basis of the arguments proposed so far, a close against the force of numbers would be proper. In such a situation, given the numerical force of good-faith opinion on the other side, it may be quite a reasonable idea that that side might still have stronger arguments that just haven't been stated properly yet, or in any case that the debate could benefit from some more input clarifying the consensus either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• I thought a lot about my decision, it was not spur of the moment and I did put a good deal of consideration into just closing it. But I elected not to, I felt that many of those in opposition had what I would describe as reasonable opinions in the 'real world', but weak ones on Wikipedia, possibly (it seemed to me) because they were not as experienced and Wikipedia's many titling policies and guidelines can be arcane to less experienced users. So the relist was essentially a warning to them: 'your arguments do not hold much water on Wikipedia and if you want the article to remain at its current title you will have to provide a much stronger argument in terms of Wikipedia policy/guideline'. Perhaps I didn't word it well, or perhaps BMK would have disagreed like this had I worded my thoughts perfectly. I felt that my decision was within reasonable admin discretion (though I will note that anyone can relist, not just admins) and I still feel like that after taking some more time to think about it. However, as I said on my talk page, I make mistakes like everyone else and if the consensus here is that I should not have relisted (or should not have relisted in that manner) then I will reverse my decision to the extent it is possible and will keep it in mind when closing/relisting future RMs. Having said my piece, I will continue to watch over this RM and wait for a consensus to develop unless directly asked a question because no one likes it when an admin constantly badgers people who have disagreed with their opinion when it is up for review. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your re-listing was, in point of fact, a supervote on behalf of one side of the debate, which is a blatant misuse of the admin bit. I don't really care if others see it that way or not, I know what you've done, and I will know for the future that you sren't a honest straight shooter, that you use your bit in a dishonest and biased manner. No matter what happens here, whether your admin fdriends rally around you or not, 'I know the truth about what you did, and my memory is long. BMK (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Your threatening attitude "my memory is long" is not in keeping with a collaborative environment BMK; please desist. Pedro :  Chat  11:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Pedro, what do you want me to say, that I'll immediately forget a blatant abuse of administrative power? Not gonna happen, dude. BMK (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• The funny thing, of course - by posting about this here on ANI where thousands will view it, you'll start to get more 3rd party input into the RM, which might just be the polar opposite of what was wanted the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Looks like a perfectly sensible relist, to help determine consensus; I see nothing inherently wrong with asking for "better" arguments - but more importantly this appears to have been a good faith action. Good faith being singularly lacking in posts that intimidate people. I really don't think this is the kind of thing people get desysoped for BMK and your aggression there and above in this thread is utterly unwarranted. Pedro :  Chat  11:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear. Unexpected, unwarranted, unfathomable, unredeemable, unhelpful, unflippingbelievable the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hardly the first time I've been wrong -- but, actually, in this case I'm not wrong. Admins ought not to be making decisions that prefer one side over the other, as Jenks24 did. I'd be much more interested in hearing the opinions of uninvolved non-admins here. (And make no mistake, when I become King of Wikipedia, this kind of admin override of normal cirxumstance will be punishable bu 100 lashes woth a wer noodle.) BMK (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here it is then: relisting a discussion to try and ensure that a decision is made based on the broadest unput from the widest number of people is the core concept of Wikipedia, and is never EVER a bad thing. Wikipedia has zero time limit, so extension is not at all hurting either the decision OR the project. The fact that much of the existing discussion had zero relevance to policy, but was more to a "I like it" perspective, the true, overall number of useful comments is quite small. Making a closure decision on that tiny sampling would have been tremendously inappropriate. Threatening with desysop for doing the right thing, taking aggressive tone for doing the right thing, bringing it to ANI for doing the right thing, and most importantly ascribing different motives to someone's actions for doing the right thing is so 180 degrees contrary to WP:AGF, but indeed the core principles of the project. In short, BMK, you're off your rocker on this one the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DP/ES&L: you're really a good guy, and I like you (truly, I;m not trying to butter you up. that's an evauation based on your previous comments and actions that I'm aware of) but really, comeon, when an admin -- any admin -- says "This has to stay open so that one side can get more chance to respond to it" that's clearly a problem. WP admins need to be neutral in theses matters, but Jenks24 seems to have taken sides. If he didn't mean to, he'd best publicly express his neutrality, because "I'm lkeeping this open so that one side can make more responses" isn't exactly unbiased. BMK (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So, by your sole reasoning, there's no problem here whatsoever: if he had closed it opposite of what the current set of arguments was (instead of relisting), then we'd have a clear and obvious problem. As you've been told, the relist wording most certainly does NOT prevent people from all sides of the issue commenting - he also did not head over and start canvassing the other side to comment. You've made a paper mountain out of a molehill, and you really have some apologizing to do the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Mebbe so -- but I'll just note one more time that enks24 did not relist the discussion in order to get more imput from all sides, his stated reason was that he was re-listing it in order to get mote input from one side of the debate. So, if that seems reasonable to you, so be it, BMK (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Jenks24's relisting comment could have been worded better, but I read it as soliciting better quality, policy-based input, not simply more input, and both sides are free to comment. Also, please realize that nowhere did Jenks24 use their admin tools, so desysopping isn't really on the table here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

But in order to become King of Wikipedia you'd first have to get down from that glass dome and get rid of the spandex suit, don't you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Spandex?? Gee, I'm 60 years old and totally out of shape, there's no way I can wear spandex anymore (as if I ever could). No, I'm up here with a nice bespoke suit, the lines of which are totally screwed up by the parachute I'll need when the Wiki-mob comes after me. BMK (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an allusion to WP:SPIDERMAN WilyD 12:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Spandex goes great with out-of-shape! It has plenty of give. I'm quite close to the perfect shape, so I know! On the substance: First, note that nothing at all precludes both sides from adding arguments, no matter what the stated reason for the extension is. As for that reason: I see two possibilities: Either the side in questions has many more good arguments not stated so far. In that case, we should definitely take them into account - we don't want to make a bad decision just because users are not perfectly aware of how to state their arguments in perfect wikiesque. Or they don't have those arguments. In that case, the extension won't make a difference. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to BMK's observation that the relisting explanation specifically supports one side over the other. Unfortunately, the neutral statement of this concern was muddied by an over the top suggestion that this one action is so abusive it calls for a de-sysop. That is unwarranted, and may be preventing some from engaging in the original subject.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The statement could have been worded better, sure, but the effect won't be any different anyway, as folks on either side can continue to weigh in. Perhaps Jenks will decide to leave the close to another admin when it comes time again, but to be honest the perpetual backlog and lack of admins knowledgeable and interested in closing RMs is a much worse problem than any one relisting statement.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Removal of information from Michael Henderson

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

---

Hello! A person claiming to be Michael Henderson (Asubmariner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has edited his article (Michael Henderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), removing his birth date and birth place ([8], [9], [10]). I've tried to explain on his talk page why this is not acceptable, but he has edited once after said explanation (third diff). What should be done? I've reverted his edits and don't want to edit war. He also nominated his photo for deletion on Commons; it was kept, but it seems he wants these deleted due to identity theft. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I warned the user and reverted his latest removal of the date. It is sourced, regardless of who he is, removing it without any attempt at consensus can be construed as bad faith. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:DOB the birthdate should be removed if he wants it removed, unless the date is widely published (I take that to mean by many sources, like for Barack Obama's birthdate). I don't think the sourcing in the Henderson article is enough for that. I'd take the date out. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I took out the month and day but left in the year. I'll notify him that I did that, and if he's satisfied then I hope we can leave it at that. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

...And I have reverted. If he wishes for it to be removed, WP:OTRS is there to help verify he is the subject, and provide a faster way to ensure there is not a debate over sourcing vs. privacy. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take it out again. Per WP:AGF if he says he's the subject we should assume he's the subject unless he's doing something that could adversely affect the subject if he's faking. That's not the case in this situation. We don't need the full birthdate and we're just causing him distress. If you insist on leaving it in, I hope you'll at least put a polite note on his talkpage about making sure it's really him, without any templates (the amount of templates on that page makes me want to cry). 173.228.123.145 (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This has been really poorly handled so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. This is hardly a subject trying to whitewash his or her article. It can stay out unless and until someone establishes it's well-known anyway. EEng (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't aware of WP:DOB that clearly applies here, also removed the warning I left, but left the IP user's comments intact :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) and without comment on how it affects policy, but it does seem to be very widely published, perhaps partially as disambiguation, since both his given name and surname are fairly common.—[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC) (edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

But most of those web hits appear to be Wikpedia mirrors or other pages that re-use and re-shuffle data from the likes of Wikipedia. Few if any are independent reliable sources, let alone authorized ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd also want recent authorized publications. The existing cite is from a 1998 edition of a book originally published in 1991 and there was nothing like the current Internet in that era. So we can't infer from the book that the guy was ever ok with having his birthdate on the internet. Or more pragmatically, if he asks OTRS to take out the birthdate, they will probably take it out, so we may as well skip the bureaucracy and take it out ourselves. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Request Can someone figure out if there is something like consensus by now to take out the DOB or leave it in, and make appropriate edits? Solarra, do you still want it in? Mdann, do you still think we need authentication? I don't see much encyclopedic value to keeping it, so I still support taking it out per the subject's apparent request. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I already removed it before I saw your last comments. I left a message at User talk:Mdann52 asking them to not restore it. There is no consensus here for the inclusion. I also asked User:Asubmariner to contact OTRS anyway to prove who they are. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing, Vandalism by Jumada

This user had added several towns on the Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map without any type of source. When I removed them following WP rules (content must be sourced), he started accusing me of vandalism, when I suppose that adding unsourced content is what could be considered vandalism (I have warned him about it). And his final serious wrongdoing has been deleting two sections I've added to the talk section about the attitude of him and another user, claiming that, quote: "removed unnecessary sections. Everything related to HCPUNXKID vandalism will be discussed under section HCPUNXKID". Of course, he aint made a cut & copy of the text of the sections I added (that could be acceptable), but simply deleted all the content, in a clear attempt to avoid other users to see my arguments, funny thing, when he claims that I dont have discussed issues on the talk page. It seems difficult to me to discuss with someone who deletes your writings, dont you think so?. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 17:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just scrolling through your talk page I can see a dozen other users with similar complaints regarding your edit wars and unwillingness to compromise. I am merely one out of many, and since I stood up to you and didnt give up after a week, you have taken it personal. I am glad you brought this here and I hope someone will look through your profile, your talk page, your history and contributions and examine the amount of confrontations and edit wars you are involved in across an array of articles here on wikipedia. You have been warned by wikipedia staff multiple times in the past, and also blocked for 48 hours for edit wars. Your talk page is full of your unpleasant history and I am sure this tells us a lot about you as a user. Jumada (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so instead trying to refute my accusations about your behaviour on the Iraqi insurgency map, you try to bring here my past blocks as an argument against me. WOW, so poor, and then its you who talk about "taking it personal". If WP worked like that, everyone wich had being blocked in the past would not have any option on a discussion against any other user without blocks, for example with new unexperienced users, even if they are veteran users with years of work on WP. It would be a mess. And beware, talking about that is a double-edge weapon, as reviewing your talk page shows that adding content to WP without any type of source or explanation is something very common to you, in blatant contradiction with one on the main rules of WP: Content must be backed by sources. I can only assume that's a recognition of your vandalism & POV-pushing by adding unsourced content and deleting other user edits on the talk page, otherwise you would have tried to refute my arguments, I repeat. Honestly, if you accept the advice, you should try to refute the arguments of other users instead of using ad-hominem attacks...--HCPUNXKID 16:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't stopped your edit wars and unwillingness to talk or compromise since you opened your account, your history and talk page are full proof of this and so hence you're not like any other member who didn't know any better and stopped after being warned/blocked, instead its seems to get worse and now that you're aware of WP rules, you try to use them for your own advantage while overlooking all the other rules you break daily, the things you accuse me of are the same things you do. I will not talk to you about this any more seeing that people have tried to before and your counter argument has been the same for every conflict you start, it is as if you copy paste your argument for a dozen or so other users and now you're doing it with me. Please don't be angry with me that I exposed your past in this section, I know you came here to report me but the tables do turn and someone did say "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". As for me exposing your past blocks, well when a bank wants to give you a loan, they check your history before they do it because that tells them a lot about the person. I will leave this for someone who can justly look into this and examine the whole situation. regards Jumada (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To both User:HCPUNXKID and Jumada... Please note that vandalism is a pretty narrowly-defined term on Wikipedia. It necessitates demonstrating willful damage to Wikipedia. It doesn't mean doing something that you think is incorrect, or even generally against policy. It means that someone is doing something as a joke, or out of a mean spirit, or any other motive that is not in the interest of Wikipedia. I don't see that either of you are guilty of that, so stop accusing each other of it. Accusing someone of vandalism without evidence is a personal attack and is itself something you can be blocked over. So knock it off, both of you.

Jumada, specifically, you were removing another editor's talk page discussion which is a violation of WP:TPO. While the material you removed on the talk page might not have seemed particularly relevant to improving the article, it was not the sort of WP:NOTFORUM off-topic info that would necessitate removal. Especially when some of the material you removed was a complaint about your own behavior, that seems unduly self-serving and unfair to remove someone else criticizing you. And again, our policy says that you can't do that.

HCPUNXKID, the reason we maintain block logs is because a person's past behavior does matter. If you show a pattern of misbehavior, that can indicate an overall problem for an individual. If you're engaging in the same disruption that has led to a block in the past, not only is it acceptable to bring it up, it's helpful to bring it up. Over the past few years you have been blocked 4 times for either harassment or edit-warring, behavior you're again exhibiting.

To the both of you, again, stop this sniping of each other. Right now I'm tempted to block both of you for misbehavior. Instead, I'm asking you to stop this unhelpful escalation. This seems like a content dispute, and if you can focus on what you disagree about the template then maybe you can come up with some sort of progress at a place like the dispute resolution noticeboard. But I'll warn you, the next person who calls the other a vandal, or tries to otherwise attack someone personally, is going to get blocked. -- Atama頭 20:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

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

---

I've encountered a truth that might be valuable to the neutral point of view of an article on this site, Wikipedia (yes-yo):

To get a bit more detailed, it is about a series of articles, all concerning one topic (but quite unfortunately, there seems to be a single person trying to prevent changes of the curren (POV) state of things.

But get yourself an impression, first hand,

It is about this circumstance:

Talk:Imperial_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition#Warning_by_Local_Fishermen

(Which gets a lot more interesting when you consider the allegations raised against other historical protagonists "being engaged" in that topic area, like R.F.Scott)

But the most interesting point will probably be whether some enemy with a fixation will just delete the issue raised (due to partiality)...

Nevertheless,

have a nice day and

keep up the good work!--37.230.7.70 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not an incident. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't get it. There've been no non-automated edits to that article since the end of May. And no edits to the talk page (other than yours) since March. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still there! An information not glorifying a certain person has not been deleted by a certain admirer...Wow.--37.230.7.70 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Need help at Oathkeeper article

A recent topic here was an edit-war that had spanned weeks at the Oathkeeper article. It resulted in two editors (I was one of them) being blocked for the back and forth edit war.
At the heart of the problem was a seemingly intractable disagreement as to the use of primary sources as evaluative material and the appropriateness of blog (or dead) links as secondary sources. The other editor in the dispute is under the bizarre impression that she was given permission to make evaluative statements based upon primary sources, and can support said sourcing by using blog and fan and dead sources. There are other editors opposing her usage, but she is unwilling to listen to the consensus.
I totally realize this is a content issue, but I have exhausted the dispute resolution progression, and simply do not know how to proceed. We desperately need some experienced editors to drop by and help guide us in the usage of the aforementioned sources. It would be a tremendous help to the discussion, and prevent other sourcing issues from cropping up - an ounce of prevention, and all that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ROFL - I was expecting a political contest about the Oath Keepers, but this is a pay-TV episode. It's hard for me to work up much concern about the material you're cutting out, but my view is: I'm an inclusionist, and I don't think Wikipedia does or should ban primary sources. A modicum of care is needed with them, that's all. Unless you think the data is actually wrong there's no reason to cut it out even if it were unsourced, though some of that i.e. the list of chapters would best be transferred to explanatory text within the reference itself that names the main source. But no, I'm not getting involved editing this. :) Wnt (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your take on it, Wnt. My problem isn't with a piddling tv episode. Its the idea that primary sources shouldn't be used - even in a tv episode - to make evaluative connections. Imagine how, in other articles of considerably more importance, that could be grossly manipulated through primary sourcing evaluation. The reason we use secondary sourcing is to keep Wikipedia out of the Original research busness. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IP user claiming to be banned user Russavia repeatedly removing a CSD tag

An IP user (220.129.146.201 (talk · contribs)) claiming to be banned user Russavia (talk · contribs) has twice removed a CSD:AG5 nomination from Kendeffy Castle, an article which was created by another banned user. Diffs here and here. I'm requesting a block per WP:EVADE.- MrX 16:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

When an IP claims to be a sock, it's likely he's not. "Disruption" is a good catch-all when there's uncertainty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a CU check? (t) Josve05a (c) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha. Checkusers won't do anything with IP's due to "privacy" issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And the article is not speedy deletion material, as a 1782 building is pretty likely to be listed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you might want to familiarize yourself with WP:EVADE and WP:CSD#G5.- MrX 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G5 is an option not a mandate. Deletion is at the discretion of the admin handling the request. --Versageek 01:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate early closure

I am asking assistance for my opponent in AGF :-). I am involved in TfD:Distinguish. Today it was closed early by User:Ktr101 (self-declared non-admin) -- now my opponent. From my procedural follow up at their usertalk [11], I got the impression that the closer did not oversee the whole process (while, as XfD's go, this one was getting hot). My question here is that maybe the damage could be limited by finding an early revert-option. But I am not familiar with what it could look like. Any suggestions for Ktr101? -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I also !voted in the TfD (opposite direction of DePiep); honestly it seemed pretty overwhelming against deletion. But you did raise some good points that I was hoping to respond to later. I wouldn't object to it being reopened. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since Ktr101 specifically said on his talk page that re-opening it would be OK with him, I've done so. I note that, as usual, De Piep was unnecessarily snotty in his comments on Ktr101's talk page, but I suppose it would be poor form to refuse to do a reasonable thing just because it was demanded in an unreasonable way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not going to contest Floquenbeam's actions here, DePiep, it is a really bad to bring someone to AN/I just because you disagree with their closure of a discussion which was closed even though there was overwhelming consensus against you. Also, if by "hot", you mean the badgering of users you disagree with even though there was an almost overwhelming consensus against you, then I guess it was pretty "hot". I told you that you could revert me, so there was no reason to bring this to a higher group of people when I told you that I wasn't going to contest any of you actions there as long as it was within reason. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I've seen many other afds be snow closed for far fewer votes than that many, and all by different editors as well. If we're going to be deciding on whether it should've been reopened, I guess it could stay for the minimum time mandated by TfD, but honestly, if it's that unanimous in consensus, it should just be snow closed. Tutelary (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Going to ANI is not a criminal prosecution (although some may see it that way). And no way I am going to undo a closure. I'm glad that implicitly Floquenbeam agrees. I expect that the arguments are read and weighed instead of !votecounted, resulting in an argumentation. Otherwise, this can frustrate this TfD and any future XfD (why spend time on arguing?). If that frustration shows in my writing - so be it. It is a response to the brute treatment of the TfD discussion, and an effort to improve the quality of closures. As usual. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The minute you called someone an "opponent", you showed that you lost touch with the community nature of the project. We don't have opponents...we're supposed to have confreres in the battle to produce an encyclopedia the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Someone who has a opposing opinion I can call an opponent ("in this" you might add). I used it here to make clear asap that I had such an opposing opinion with the editor, nothing to hide. Opposing opinions can appear in the community. And then you introduce the word "battle" for the wiki process? -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

While "opposing" and "opponent" have the same root, use of the latter has a strong connotation of an adversarial process, as well as making the other editor (rather than the opinion) the focus of the dispute. Wikipedia works by a collaborative process. That's why the term is seen as troubling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That subtlety I was not aware of, thanks for pointing that out. I only know that in formal debates "my opponent" is regularly used to address the person with an opposing opinion. And maybe even, in this situation, the 'adversial' adjective could be applicable. Still unresolved is how or why User:EatsShootsAndLeaves tried to explain me something in this by introducing the "battle" wording. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S. Senate, which has been called "the world's most exclusive debating society", Senators when speechifying have the tendency to refer to their opponent as "My learned colleague" and other phrases along that line. BMK (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, YOU are the one who "introduced the battle wording". Just reminding you not to do that the panda ₯’ 23:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And that would have been inappropriate as well. SNOW is not supposed to be a way for dissent to be rapidly shut down by a mass of squirming bodies being shoved in front of any debate. Nobody can honestly suggest that the current overwhelming head-count lead is due to anything other than people overreacting to seeing a TfD tag at the top of random articles they're watching. I was honestly debating whether to noinclude it for precisely that reason, but I foolishly thought it better to brave what I'd hoped would be a little knee-jerking for the sake of a robust discussion. Instead, while I was asleep the well was not so much poisoned as stuffed entirely full of gerbils. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Misbehavior at the Ari Teman AfD

A flock of apparent SPA socks have been making disruptive edits on both the Ari Teman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article and its AfD. There have been instances of personal attacks, legal threats, and creating an illusion of support with !votes and article edits from multiple sources.

Named accounts

These are the five named accounts. While they're all pretty obvious socks, only NYClay770 has any abusive edits. NYClay770 edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman to !vote for "keep" in addition to his "keep" arguments as several anons diff. Then actually tried to !vote a second time with the same account diff. There also seems to be some WP:OWNership issues diff.

• YoHal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AriTeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TemanAri1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NYClay770 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tipclaysailak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (This last one's odd. Created the same day as NYClay770, and only editing the same articles, including the new one NYClay770 created. Not sure of its purpose)

These four were all used for separate "keep" arguments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman, to attack other users diff diff diff diff etc, to make WP:LEGALTHREATS diff diff etc, and to delete a template from a deletion sorting page diff. They're all from a provider in the Seychelles, and I suspect they're an WP:OPENPROXY.

• 137.63.63.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.63.63.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.63.63.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.63.63.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This one, like the ones below, is from Verizon Broadband IP in Manhattan. Possibly a WP:Straw puppet?

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

The rest of these are the series of IP addresses with similar editing styles to those listed above, that have edited the Ari Teman and associated articles. The first IP is the one that wound up in the edit war that attracted my attention to the article. Their edits all aim to the purpose of promoting the subject diff, removing the WP:PROD with an attack in the edit summary diff, removing maintenance tags diff diff, and deleting any negative material -- even when properly sourced diff diff. Most of them source to Verizon FiOS/Broadband IPs in Manhattan, NYC. One's a mobile edit on a Sprint IP, and one's from a ComCast IP in New Jersey (visiting a friend, perhaps?)

• 173.56.18.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 173.52.50.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.183.226.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.108.248.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 108.46.17.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 184.75.16.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24.193.177.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 173.56.80.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.183.248.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 108.30.243.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.87.117.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From the similar editing style and tone of writing across all these accounts, I believe they're all the same person. To my judgement, this all adds up to a user with a conflict of interest and ownership issues.

I didn't bring this to WP:SPI because with the behavioral issues and open proxy, it seems more complicated than that. I don't enjoy making dramaboard reports, too much commotion for my taste, but I've grown weary of the repeated attacks and deceptions of this user. I think some rangeblocks may be in order. Ashanda (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, there's been misbehavior on both sides of this. ArtTenak, on the delete side, has been blocked, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any credibility to the claim that one or more editors have in fact been sued in connection with this article? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strangely user:Ashanda neglects to mention vandals: user:KLetters, user:ArtTenak, user:Demenac234, user:68.143.198.222, user:108.30.243.78, user:38.96.141.68, user:38.108.195.50, user:47.23.40.34. I have nothing to do with user:Tipsclaysailak, YoHal, etc. and a check will confirm that. Ashada also mentions his bias and loss of temper at ("Striking my personal comments. Sorry for losing my temper at the repeated accusations. Ashanda (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)" . Compare at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ari_Teman&diff=615980220&oldid=615737727 NYClay770 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed the polemical subsection heading NYClay770 added the preceding comment under, and moved it to the bottom of the thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And the attacks diff and legal threats diff continue. Ashanda (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Yep that's a legal threat. Not a credible one, but definitely a legal threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And another attack diff. And another diff, where he gives away the sockpuppetry -- he didn't make the sexist accusation from that account. Ashanda (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am seriously tempted to IAR, close this AFD early, delete and salt the title for six months. Never mind the personal attacks and pointless keeps from SPAs, the chilling effect from that claim about a defamation suit being served to a Wikipedia editor is the kind of bullshit (pardon my French) that we've already seen at Yank Barry. We as a community need to be a lot more aggressive against that sort of thing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think that would be an IAR action. The article subject has now made a credible threat of legal action and has asked that his article be deleted. On the basis of the subpoena issue and BLP, I would suggest we take swift action, as User:FreeRangeFrog suggests (tho I was of the "keep" camp). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The subject's request for deletion at least weighs heavily in favor of deleting even on a no consensus outcome. Since it's been relisted once already we can probably close at any time. I don't think anyone could reasonably say there's a rough consensus to keep. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've struck through my keep to facilitate that, hopefully. There's been appalling behaviour on both sides but this needs to end soon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That is most definitely a legal threat, I responded to it directly and warned the user on their talk page. I have no way of verifying if that is in fact the article's subject, but I think WP:DOLT applies here due to the veiled legal threats made on the article. As there is no way to verify the credibility of the threats as there was with Yank Barry not quite sure if this should be SALTed or protected. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I actually wrote a close and considered closing it myself now, but I know that it will go to DRV no matter what, will be another pissing contest there, and not sure that is how I want to spend my next week. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a glutton for punishment, I suppose. Closed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If an admin could respond to this legal threat it would be appreciated. WP:NLT clearly applies here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Since he claims to have pending action, I politely blocked him for the duration, and explained our policy on pending legal actions. I think we are done here. If the socks show back up (doubtful except to recreate) they can go to WP:SPI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mysticseaport

Can an administrator please look at the contributions of User:Mysticseaport — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Newspaper (talk • contribs) 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked before I saw this report.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: I'm guessing you clicked the button too quickly, but it'd probably be useful if you re-block with a reason in the block log. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Full protection of article Yank Barry

Note; I am not here to judge the merits of the legal dispute or the dispute on the article. All I'm here to bring a discussion about is the protection type which is currently used on the article. On June 25th, 2014 User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry fully protected the article until August 29, 2014 and used this as the reference to do it in their edit summary; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Yank_Barry. Note that the discussion did not mention full protection the event of legal dispute, and only did the end of it actually link to an administrative noticeboard, which unfortunately I can't find the archives to at this moment. I went to the protecting administrator's talk page and they declined to unprotect the article, citing the possibility of editors becoming defendants. Then, I went to WP:UNPROTECT where I proposed that the protection be removed. It was declined, and was instructed to go to WP:ANI, so here I am. Yank Barry has been mentioned on multiple admin noticeboards as the subject has brought Wikipedia users to court for defamation, and is currently an ongoing legal proceedings.

My main qualms with the current protection is that there was seemingly no policy justification for it and that it creates a bad precedent. Chase me ladies used WP:LEGAL as the policy justification for on the article. There is no protection policy outlined on WP:LEGAL. I objected to the protection type and a few other editors have as well. The reason why it creates a bad precedent is that people will see the Yank Barry article and may just use legal proceedings to ensure that the article is locked. Full protection locks out everyone, including the valid contributors who were trying to ensure the article adhered to WP:BLP, WP:V and other content policies. As well, as outlined at WP:GOLDLOCK, fully protection is only warranted in degrees of content disputes and in case of 'history only review'. This article does not outline nor meet that criteria. I propose that the article be unprotected/reduced to semi protection due to the lack of justification in policy for the protection type and the bad precedant that it creates. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps pending changes would be more suitable. If we can review anything before its put up thats potentially libelous etc might be a way forward. Amortias (T)(C) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the benefits of PP on this article, or in general. Speaking to WP:LEGAL there is little benefit, indeed WRONGVERSION constraints could make the protecting admin liable. However this specific article is pretty much only edited by consensus, so I don't see much harm either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Per "citing the possibility of editors becoming defendants", I doubt, from a position of ignorance, whether it is possible to sue someone for acts not yet committed, though of course additional defendants can be named, and indeed this is presumably the reason for the "Does 1-50" in the original application to the court. I would imagine the court would look dimly upon a plaintiff who had not taken the trouble to establish at least the user names of the defendants, but then I am not the court. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, I added that back in due to the fact that I wanted to be fair to Chase me ladies and make sure that their side was accurate and told. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• While there are no policy-based justifications for protecting an article under these types of circumstances, I consider this a case of IAR and common sense. On the other hand as far as I know, the supposed legal actions are based solely on the conduct and comments of individual editors in the talk page, not the article content, and the edit war, such as it were, was between several Yank Barry-friendly accounts and some of the regulars there. There are also precedents to this type of admin action - Donald Arthur for example was stubbed and fully protected for weeks while Wikimedia Legal duked it out with the subject's lawyers and eventually bounced it back to us. So let's call this a bit of justified cautiousness, set up pending changes just in case and move on. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the primary distance with that case is that there was an OTRS ticket which I can speculate was a specific legal threat, and that the blanking and the stubbing was done by an WP:OFFICE action, which override consensus. If the WMF foundation sees it fit that the article be fully protected in the notion of the legal dispute, I will respect that, but not when an administrator sees it fit on their own thoughts and reasoning. I do support semi protection/pending changes as a solution. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't an Office action, it was an admin realizing the severity of the problem and responding to a temporary semi-protection request from me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• My concern is that a non-pseudonymous editor might be added to the suit for what we would consider to be a benign edit. I consider page protection to be a reasonable tradeoff between inconvenience and benefit, but setting up pending changes would accomplish the same thing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• While I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, I consider the possibility of editors being unknowingly dragged into this ongoing lawsuit real and dangerous, not hypothetical and unlikely. I endorse protection per WP:IAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• BLP states: "As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article." This is like allowing the subject to choose who gets to write the article by taking legal action whether it goes to court or not. A straight across the board lock seems appropriate here for now. I endorse protection as well per the Foundation's Resolution:Biographies of living people which states: "Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report problems". When a subject is taking legal action against editors of their page, this may well be the best mechanism for this instance.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I am against pending changes as an option in this case. There is already a clear chilling effect and as a reviewer I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Other's might be willing, but doesn't that just add potential issues such as a reviewer passing through content that then also becomes a legal matter and now we have two editors involved and not just the one?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - The real problem here is that the WMF has not said anything after the lawsuit was filed. They should have said something, as to whether they would protect the named editors or the Does, or would not protect them. Shame on them. They can cure the shame by saying either that they will defend the editors, or that they will leave the editors on their own. In the mean time, Shame on them. They should have responded quickly, rather than consulting for ever. That is my opinion. WMF: Can you say something to the sued editors, or do you really just plan to leave them hanging? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Robert, if the WMF has had any communication with the defendants (I don't know if they have), I'd expect it to be private. I wouldn't get worked up about this without actual knowledge. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I generally despise full page protection as many of the best content people are not administrators and protection is often used as a tool in edit wars to lock down a favored version over an alternative version. In this case, however, with a pending lawsuit which lists "John Does #1 to 50," I think full protection can be rationalized as a protective measure to prevent passersby from actually becoming embroiled in an ugly legal situation. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not opposed to protecting the page to reduce the risk of people getting themselves involved in a potential legal case without realising. That said, it seems to me very have an interesting situation. I believe, and it seems to be supported by some of the comments above that the legal case currently is only supposed to involve talk page comments. While I don't see any reason talk page comments will be pursued but not article edits (if anything the opposite), is it possible we may actually be increasing the risk of editors becoming defendents by pushing them to the talk page rather than editing the article directly? (I presume we're not planning to protect the talk page.) Also while I'm generally a strong supporter of PC, I have to agree it seems a bad choice here since we risk just increasing the people who may involve themselves. While perhaps there would be a small number of editors willing to accept that possible consequences and monitor the PC, I don't see a way to prevent others just thinking it's a normal situation. In fact, is it more likely an editnotice will be missed by reviewers? Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You raise an interesting point, but I think the distinction is a bit of a red herring: the suit concerns not talk page comments, but defamation. It's pretty meaningless where it is alleged to have happened, whether on the article, talk page, or even here on ANI: the risk of getting swept up in the suit, all else being equal, is equivalent. But all else is not equal: someone forced to go to the talk page is going to see, writ large, that something is going on and that they ought to act accordingly. Yes, that will chill commentary. Forgive me for being paternalistic, but I think in this situation, a brief period of chilling isn't too harmful if it means keeping our valuable editors from being SLAPPed around. But all said, I think the points raised by this incident at least make clear that we're just not sure how to approach these situations. What should we do during the pendency of a potential SLAPP? There are policy arguments favoring multiple approaches. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • To be clear, my concern wasn't much to do with chilling commentary (except that I'm not convinced we're willing to go so far as to fully protect the talk page). Rather I'm not sure we have any particular reason to think people are less likely to write the allegedly defamatory stuff on talk pages? If anything it seems they may be more likely to do so since they'll feel freerer on the talk page. Experience editors may recognise that full protection is rare, and try to work out what is going on. But one would hope experienced editors will also read an edit notice and perhaps hidden commentary. I'm less convinced inexperienced editors are going to realise there much be something going on. And while I'm not sure how likely it is inexperienced editors will read an edit notice, I'm also not sure how likely it is they will notice existing discussion on the talk page about the legal case. If anything it may be easier for them to miss, since they'll just click "add section" write some crap and be done. (I mean how many times have you seen an editor post something which is discussed one or two threads above? Heck some editors still manage to post to the top of the talk page.) In other words, the more I think about it, the more I'm unconvinced protecting the article is actually going to achieve what we are hoping it will achieve and in fact could actually do the reverse. The only chance it may is if enough people just don't bother because they can't edit or are aware of the situation but don't take it seriously but do when they see full protection because they believe it must mean there is something serious. P.S. Let's remember that there is potentially a risk outside the article on it's talk page too and so people may need to be careful with their commentary. I've purposely avoided saying anything about the merits of the case for that reason (like possible SLAPP issues). Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose protection, propose semi-pro and an edit notice instead an edit notice notifying editors of the pending litigation, paired with semi protection to block brand, new editors, seems adequate without the more drastic action of the full protection. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • While I prefer full protection for this because of the concerns mentioned above, I'm not as in favor of an editnotice. Call it WP:DENY-like reasoning (though I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling that rationale with my approval of protection). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • But if you're interested in protecting editors, does it really make sense to choose the option which may put them at more harm based on some weird principle which you admit you aren't really consistently applying? Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As one of the people named in the lawsuit, I can say that 1) it's a mess, and 2) it's being dealt with. I'd suggest maintaining the protection for a while longer, pending further developments. As of right now, nobody has a request for an article edit on the talk page, and there's not much controversy. So there's no urgency to do anything. John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose protection, propose semi-protection and an edit notice instead Word for word agree with User:VQuakr.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The "edit notice" concept is worrisome. What will it say? "You may be sued if you edit or comment on this article?" That's more intimidating than full protection. There are major policy implications to such a notice. It might well encourage other suits against editors. John Nagle (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This, absolutely. I knew there was a reason I had a visceral revulsion to the idea of the editnotice. It's not so much a WP:DENY issue as a WP:BEANS issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the edit notice contain an attention grabbing (stop sign with exclamation point?) icon, and say something similar to, "Please note that per the Terms of Use, you take responsibility for your edits. Be aware that as noted in this article, in the past editors who have edited this page have been subjected to legal action. More information can be found [[<link to archived discussion about lawsuit>|here]]." WP:DENY is an essay about vandalism, and is being given undue consideration in this context. My take on this is pretty simple - we do not need to big brother the article by fully protecting it - if WMF legal thinks it should be locked, they can do it via office action. Otherwise, nothing in the protection policy supports this protection. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with either John or my points to which you're replying. I already said the issue is more a WP:BEANS one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: yeah, weird; the second to last part of my reply above does not really follow. I must have misread your post. Of course WP:BEANS is just an essay, too. The example it gives is not to write, don't click on this link or you will crash Wikipedia - pretty different than please don't sue the editors. I do not really see how it applies, or how an edit notice could in any way increase the probability of legal action. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a great big banner saying to other article subjects "Hey, this guy sued and got a big ol' fancy banner on his article to scare away people who said things he didn't like. Why not you?" That's where the beans come in. In my mind, protection is a bit different because it doesn't make absolutely clear why the article's protected to anyone who happens to click "edit". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Comment I support the protection as a means of reducing both the potential for drama as well as the potential for there to be further publicity generated as a result of edits made to the article while the lawsuit is pending.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose protection, pending changes, banners, etc. When there's no reason for protection (and no valid reason has been given) an article should not be protected. The end date is inexplicable -- if anyone thinks the lawsuit will be over in August, he doesn't know the American legal system! If the true intent is to keep protecting this version forever, or until the lawsuit is resolved (whichever comes first), then that is something that should be left to an official OFFICE action. I can excuse an admin applying brief protection until they had a chance to hear about it but that time is over. I think it's important for people to read the suit for themselves; so far as I can tell it is not based on what people added to the article, but only talk page comments and what they did not put into the article (see "false light"). In the absence of official legal guidance, Wikipedia should just go by its normal procedures. Either those are defective and leave editors exposed to lawsuits for legitimate editing, in which case we need to flex our political muscle and push for liability reform overall, or else they are not and there is nothing unusual to worry about. Wnt (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Oppose Protection I second everything User:VQuakr has argued. While I am not opposed to an edit notice or banners, I do agree and second everything User:Wnt just stated. I believe the full protection may have good intentions, but it is not the proper way to handle the situation. Taking action that is not backed by Wikipedia policy is a slippery slope. What if the intent of the lawsuit IS to protect the current version? I doubt it is, but what if? As stated above, the lawsuit quotes are from the talk page, there is no need to fully protect the article. Finally, I am not for an edit notice or banner on the article page itself, but perhaps on the talk page. I DO believe editors have a right to know why the article is fully protected and I don't think a link to Slashdot is sufficient. It's as basic as an editor having the ability to weigh in on this discussion here. If they don't know why it's fully protected it would be difficult to form an opinion to support or oppose the full protection.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm wondering if any other Wikipedia article has ever received full-protection because of possible or pending legal action...is "Yank Barry" the only one? Or how about this...since the subject has taken legal action in a California court and editing on the article itself and edit-requests have been somewhat chilled by WP:LEGALTHREAT, it would seem to me that the content could be considered sufficiently legally dangerous, even though under full-protection, to administrators who now edit the article and to editors who just post requests on the talk-page (since the talk page is the target of the lawsuit and anyone who has posted on that talk page could be one of the unnamed "Does 1-50") that the article as well as its associated talk-page should both be removed completely from public view, the name/subject receive create-protection and that readers, instead of seeing the expected content when they bring up the article and its talk page, would instead see a template that states something along the lines of "During the time that this article and its talk page are the subject of filed legal papers, they have both been removed from public view to protect editors from possible legal action". Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That might make sense, but that is the sort of thing left to an office action. Ordinary editors and even ordinary admins shouldn't have to decide whether a legal threat is "serious enough" and it's time to censor the encyclopedia. Censorship should be limited strictly to those times when the best legal advice the foundation has actually tells them that they risk the site by not doing it. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I oppose such a drastic step unless the Office decides to take it. I don't think we should be doing more to potentially give Yank Barry press exposure. Let him pay for publicity. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose censorship pretty much universally. There are exceptions. I'm not in favor of EVERYTHING the ACLU defends, but for the most part I don't think information should be taken away. I don't believe this situation warrants drastic measures. I believe the full protection is a bit extreme. I'm not sure how many lawsuits of this kind there have been, no one has answered my precedent question, but it seems, to me, to be fairly notable. It's in the article, poorly worded, but it's in there and I believe it should be.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the information would be taken away, I was saying that WMF Legal/"the office"/etc might decide, in order to protect the project, that the content of the article and its talk page should both be removed from public view pending any the outcome of this lawsuit. The temporary stubbing (as happened on another BLP) and then full-protection while legal efforts are ongoing would seem to serve somewhat the same purpose. Shearonink (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As for previous lawsuits, Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation is helpful, although that article is out of date. There's been a recent lawsuit against an editor of the Greek version of Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation issued a statement.[12]. Nobody, as far as I can find, has ever collected damages from a Wikipedia editor. John Nagle (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The article does not appear to be the issue for Mr. Barry and his lawyers, while the opinions expressed on the talk-page and the talk-page itself are. I'm just saying that if editors are posting requests on the talk-page isn't it possible that they are opening themselves up to possible legal ramifications? The "office" and/or WMF Legal should decide if anything else other than basically freezing the article while offering a tincture of time is the best remedy for the situation. Shearonink (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by user RaulEEsparza

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely as an impersonator

Rauleesparza (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing the page Raul Esparza in order to start drama on Tumblr. I would like any help I can get here. 2601:8:A880:A6:B15B:7BED:345F:B6EF (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• What's to stop you from using WP:AIV? If they vandalize again (they're currently only at two incidents) then report them there. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I posted here because it wasn't simply vandalism, there was harassment involved as well. The more recent edit had a personal attack left to a certain Tumblr user. 2601:8:A880:A6:B15B:7BED:345F:B6EF (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother doing that; I have semi-protected the page for a week and will add it to my watch-list for a while. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. 2601:8:A880:A6:B15B:7BED:345F:B6EF (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked that user indefinitely as an impersonator. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Doc James obstructing improvements

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

---

In the past few months I have made it my pet project to update articles about autism to reflect more current research and maintain a neutral point of view. User:Jmh649 has been obstructing these changes through persistent edit reversion, even after a style-related consensus was reached on Talk:Autism and the changes were specifically in accordance with said consensus. This reversion is one example. He offered the excuse that I've also made other minor corrections (I figured if it's broke, fix it.) Surely there is a reasonable limit to requests for comment; we don't need to halt progress for every minor change in wording. I believe User:Jmh649 is being intentionally disruptive and preventing articles from being improved. Muffinator (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. So what is the issue with Muffinators's edits? If you look at this one [13] he has changed "200 children without autism." to "200 allistic children". I had no idea what an allistic child was. I do know what a child without autism is.
• Here is another one [14] "normal individuals" changed to "neurotypical individuals".
• Muffinators wishes appears to wish to use the vocabulary of the autistic community rather than standard commonly used English. This I oppose.
• Now with respect to Muffinator's specific dif [15] there is no references added. Thus unclear how this is updating to "more current research" Additionally the term autistic spectrum disorder is not the same as autism thus not sure why the change.
• Now Muffinator did get weak consensus to change "person with autism" to "autistic person" but this is not what they have done in the first 7 changes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Muffinators wishes to use the vocabulary of the autistic community rather than standard commonly used English." This blanket statement is not at all true. Assuming good faith means not ascribing motivations. The above example was the only time I added the word allistic to an article, which I only did because I couldn't think of a better way to re-word it at the time. As stated on Wikipedia_talk:MED, I'm open to any alternate suggestion, as I do not own the article.
• This is the first time it's been stated that the problem was lack of references. Muffinator (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment it would be helpful if Muffinator could give a link to the style consensus discussion mentioned. It's not on the currently active article talkpage, but there are 14 archive pages and I didn't try to look at them all. I used the archive search box on the term "allistic" and found just one occurrence, here, where it was used only in passing. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The style consensus mentioned is in Talk:Autism under the heading "Autistic person" versus "person with autism". I apologize for the formatting here as I do not know how to link directly to the heading. Muffinator (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Discussion was already taking place here [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a content dispute to me. ANI isn't really the right place for this. It sounds like discussion is going on. If there's need for outside intervention, it can be found through the dispute resolution processes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at "Talk:Autism" was about "person with autism" vs "autistic person". That discussion is totally irrelevant to this one. (The analogous implication is that "persons without autism" would prefer to be known as "non-autistic persons". Of course there is no evidence for that.)

From WT:WikiProject Medicine:-

" If you know a more appropriate alternative to "allistic", please add it, because "without autism" doesn't make any sense and we have already determined consensus on person-first language. "

— Muffinator

That's entirely wrong. "without autism" makes complete sense. Also, the consensus was to use identity-first language for autistic persons, not person-first language.

" "Normal" is not a diagnosis and is frankly presumptuous. There is no reliable source to say those individuals were normal. "

— Muffinator

Our articles should include similar text to that used by the sources.

For this edit, the source states "200 children without autism", not "200 allistic children".

For this edit, the source describes "individuals with high-functioning autism", not "[unqualified] autistic adults and autistic children".

For this edit, a source describes "children with ASD [autism spectrum disorders]", not "autistic children". Given the previous consensus about identity first, it would have been reasonable to change this to "autism-spectrum children". If the edit would subsequently be reverted, then it should be discussed on the talk page, with a link to the previous discussion & consensus.

" A person on the autism spectrum is autistic. That's why it's called the autism spectrum. "

— Muffinator

No, that's wrong. The opening paragraph of our "Autism" article states "[Autism] is one of three recognized disorders in the autism spectrum (ASDs), the other two being Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified (commonly abbreviated as PDD-NOS), which is diagnosed when the full set of criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met." Reference. Indeed the "autism spectrum" is so named because it includes more than just autism.

Summary: Muffinator is pursuing his/her own agenda of re-defining "autism spectrum" as "autism" and "normal" as "allistic", contrary to the sources and in the absence of consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well... many people technically identified as PDD-NOS and Aspie (whose only DSM-IV difference to the "Autistic disorder" criteria is that speech happened on time when they were a baby) identify as autistic, and per the DSM-5 at least, people identified as either of those should fit in the new unified "autism" diagnosis, which folded both of the other ones into itself (as in they don't exist separately in DSM5). Further, though this may be relevant within an article that discusses sociological and cultural aspects of autism (though I feel it's difficult for that article to portray either perspective without undue weight and should be split, but eh, very little to do with the price of tea in China right now) or other social model topics for instance, it's true that it's not entirely appropriate to use "autistic" for the spectrum when talking about the spectrum within an article that discusses medical aspects unless most sources in that vein do so. It's nonspecific (or too specific?) and confusing. Shoot, this ended up being more comment on the content disputed than the editor's behavior. Dang it. Oh well. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

With this edit [17] Muffinator has changed all of the section titles in his/her talk page to 'trolling' which 1) they are not and 2) show a lack of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Acting out on my own talk page is irrelevant to this discussion. Muffinator (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I read it. Edits that I made on my own talk page (which I already reverted, by the way) are not relevant to a discussion of edits I made to article pages. Muffinator (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

They can be put under scruntiny nonetheless if they violate policy. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And calling perfectly civil comments 'trolling' certainly violates AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• As much as I think this thread could be closed, I'm -> this <- close to suggesting a 6-month topic ban for User:Muffinator. This single-minded behaviour that is damaging the article, and is in fact insulting those on the Spectrum, and it might just be time to temporarily provide restraint from such behaviour the panda ₯’ 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No matter Muffinator's other issues, we should absolutely not be using "normal" to describe non-autistic persons. Not only is it a POV value judgment, it's factually inaccurate: non-autistic persons can have all kinds of neurological, psychiatric, etc. conditions and still not be autistic. The difference is between autistic and non-autistic, not between autistic and "normal". --NellieBly (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The whole concept of a spectrum is that it encompasses all wavelengths. In the ASD context, that analogy would include a tree sloth toward the longwave end and a hyperactive chipmunk toward the short. Saying "non-autistic" simply makes no sense: we all live somewhere on that spectrum. "Normal" just means one is somewhere in the range of the bell curve occupied by 68.2% of the population, equispaced around the mean. See normal distribution. It isn't a POV or a value judgement. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That seems at odds with what our autism and autism spectrum articles assert, which is that a person who falls under the autism spectrum is a person diagnosed with either the autism disorder itself, or Asperger sydrome, or a pervasive developmental disorder. The "spectrum" does not include every human being within its definition, and it certainly shouldn't include tree sloths, chipmunks, bumblebees, or paper shredders. It seems pretty extreme, or WP:FRINGE to suggest it should. -- Atama頭 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Speaking as a parent of a child with autism, the term to define someone who does not have autism is neurotypical, not normal. I generally don't favour referring to someone as an autistic person (although I know other parents who do) because it is not particularly nice to define some one by their disabilities. Do we refer to someone with cancer as cancerous person? Of course not.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
          • "Neurotypical" seems more accurate than "normal". In my particular case, I could probably be described as "neurotypical" but nobody who actually knew me would ever call me "normal". (I don't think normal people are allowed to be admins on Wikipedia.) -- Atama頭 21:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
            • The word "normal" means "typical" or "common".[18] If you're going to invent a term called "neuronormal", the antonym has to be "neuroabnormal", and then you're right back where you started. Also, check the term "allism" on Google and it's clear it does not mean "without autism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
              • I'm pretty sure you won't find "normal" in this context in anything peer-reviewed in the last quarter of a century or more. "Neurotypical" and "developmentally normal" are acceptable alternatives. For the sake of precision, though, it should be noted that "neurotypical" and "non-autistic" are not synonymous. A non-autistic person with ADHD, for example, is not neurotypical. It should also be noted that this is not really about political correctness gone mad, but about avoiding ambiguous language where specific language is called for. I'm not sure "allistic" has entered into general usage. Formerip (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'd like to point out that for a lot of people this (fairly understandably) appears to be a difficult subject to speak about without emotion or prejudice or speculation or opinion or personal experience/viewpoint or non-specific guesses like "I'm pretty sure". Hence all the radical disagreement on this thread. I think it worthwhile to step back and realize that terms like "normal" or "control" are not aspersions or prejudices, and have been used clinically for centuries in differentiating groups with major presenting conditions or diseases and groups without major presenting conditions or diseases. We do not have to invent a whole new vocabulary when no prejudice or aspersion exists. (My opinion.) Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm actually fairly certain that you won't find "normal" in this context in anything peer-reviewed in the last quarter of a century or more. My use of "I'm pretty sure" should not be taken to indicate that I'm guessing. It is just to give me a little cover when someone contradicts me by citing an article from a 1989 issue of The International Journal of Bumwiping. Formerip (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Allism is a silly neologism, and I feel roughly the same way about 'neurotypical' though it has gained some traction. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  A very poor neologism as well, since in spoken conversation it would be very easy to mishear "alltistic" as "autistic" and vice versa. BMK (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to BMK: Allistic doesn't have a T after the Ls, and it's pronounced with a short A like allopathic, so it wouldn't be quite as confusing as you think. That said, I think it's thus far a very obscure and faddish (if not bizarre) neologism (I see no official online dictionary at all has it) and it certainly has no place in Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Softlavender - Thanks for that, I was obviously misreading it (another reason, perhaps, that it's not a great choice as a neologism). BMK (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• The most obvious antonym of "autistic" is "non-autistic". That leaves terms like "normal", "typical", etc. out of the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I don't understand why anyone would have a reasonable objection to that. It seems pretty obvious and sensible. If "non-autistic" is meaningless because "everyone is on the autism spectrum" as suggested earlier, then the term "autistic" is equally meaningless. Fortunately that's just not the case. -- Atama頭 23:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Atama, but the original complaint was this, for example, changing autistic child to child with ASD (people-first language). In this case the opposite would be child without autism. As I mentioned above, the latter is my personal preference, but I am not that dug into my position to worry that much about it (I think I made one such set of changes a few years ago, but generally don't have ASD articles on my watchlist). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm the one who closed the discussion at Talk:Autism last month that Muffinator is referring to, and I just became aware of this via one of their pings. Looking briefly over how the issue has developed, I just wanted to stress the "weak" part of "weak consensus." I suggested continued discussion in the close, and it seems to me that this has happened; more importantly, the question has attracted new, substantial arguments that were not made during the RfC. IMO this is more than enough to make the previous close obsolete. Sunrise (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Suggest closure this truly is a content dispute. Discussion is taking place at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism, which is where it belongs.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that this is a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. I urge all parties to strive for the least possible amount of jargon in mainspace, particularly with respect to the use of trendy neologisms. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC"

Flow of socks appears to have slowed and moved to WP:SPI. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, a bit puzzled. User:Spartay has lots of rapid contributions today which, according to the edit summary, are using AWB. The account was registered today and does not appear on the AWB/Check page - so how is it using AWB? In addition, the edits are bulk removing links to archive.is based on the RFC but as far as I can tell the latest RFC is still far from concluding. I've posted a question to the editor's talk page, but noting it here too because of the supposed AWB usage which is troubling if true. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I've blocked the account as a temporary measure until the issue of the apparent unapproved use of AWB is sorted out. Let's see what they say on their talkpage first. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC) The user is saying that they are only removing the reference to archive.is from links that are not dead, which would of course be a useful edit; I am waiting to see what they say on the issue of AWB though. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Except they're not just removing the reference to archive.is from links that are not dead. They're removing the whole citation, publisher, title, date, etc etc, leaving the original url bare. And certainly in this diff, the links are dead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) OK. In the one I looked at it was simply removing the archiveurl= section, and the link was indeed live. Regardless of the efficacy of the edits, a brand new account should still not be using AWB, and I am interested to find out why they are. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Probably a Joe Job trying to get me into trouble, or get more people to support keeping the links in the RfC, because I was removing archive.is links. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC) See also #Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others Werieth (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) Granhil has also done a huge number of similar edits, also stating they used AWB and that an RFC is the reason to remove archived URL's. Wes Mouse 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I've just blocked Granhil (talk · contribs) who has been carrying on the deletions since just a few minutes after Spartay was blocked.  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Question Unless I'm being particularly stupid, how were Spartay and Granhil using AWB when they've never been authorized? I thought it didn't work if the user name wasn't on the check page? Obviously if it's available to anyone ... well ... I'll say no more. Black Kite kite (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I don't think either user has used AWB to be honest. It is quite easy to write in the edit summary and make it appear as if they have used AWB. One only need to type AWB and nobody would be any the wiser. On another note, I have made a start on reverting all of Granhil's edits (if that's OK with everyone?) Wes Mouse 14:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I've finished reverting their edits. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC) And now Magioladitis and I have finished Spartay's. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC) It is possible to make AWB run without authorization, but I'd rather not go into details. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC) {{checkuser needed}}: I asked Werieth to stop removing links because every one of his edits had the perverse result of canvassing opponents to the RFC. To the best of my knowledge, he has complied with my request and seems to understand the reasoning behind it. It would appear that someone may be consciously attempting to use the same technique to manipulate the RFC. Comparing User:Spartay and User:Granhil to the participants in WP:Archive.is RFC 2 and WP:Archive.is RFC 3 would be in order. The use of AWB makes it pretty clear that this isn't an innocent new account.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC) @Kww: correct, see above where I stated that his may have been a joe job directed towards me, or an attempt to influence the RfC. After you heads up I have stopped because of the points your raised, and will wait for the RfC to close before continuing. Werieth (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC) And I've just blocked Jameskine (talk · contribs) who had just started doing the same. This is obvious vandalism.  —SMALLJIM  14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I find it weird that every article that is being touched is in alphabetical order. Seeing as Granhil had got as far as the J's, then could it be possible that there are multiple account that have been causing al these edits starting from the A's onwards? Wes Mouse 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC) And now Hamerzi (talk · contribs) who started doing the same without edit summaries.  —SMALLJIM  14:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC) CU can't do much here. I found a related account out of luck MyOperaCom (talk · contribs) who appears a first glance (I didn't verify this) to be using 32 individual proxies. I'll be putting the information to the other functionaries, but this one will need an edit filter. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) AWB's code may have been modified and recompiled. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)  Question: English Wikipedia policy demands that you request approval to use AWB (by submitting a successful RfA or asking to have your name added to a page). Does AWB check if you have been approved when you try to edit pages using it? The source code to AWB appears to be available. Would it be trivial to disable the functions which check if you are allowed to use AWB, or is this place in the source code difficult to discover? I have never used AWB myself, and maybe the answers are trivial to other people. I realise that it would be easy to make a script using other tools (e.g. Pywikipedia) which uses AWB-style edit summaries, and you could add "using AWB" to the edit summary manually at the edit window. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Three more: Rabinquad (talk · contribs), Deankki (talk · contribs), Szikarim (talk · contribs). Should I report them here, or at AIV, or what? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Even more: ‎Wibawal (talk · contribs) and ‎McFrancfurter (talk · contribs)‎. Probably more around. This is getting kinda out of control... 2Flows (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC) All blocked. Can someone mass rollback their edits, please? I can't on this device. Thanks. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC) And while we're at it: ‎Hablamekt (talk · contribs) joined as well. Can an admin maybe get at [19] and block all new accounts who start making such changes? They're obviously socks and should be quite easy to spot. 2Flows (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Berriozobal (talk · contribs), KanakKanak (talk · contribs), Gandyngan (talk · contribs), Prebyslaff (talk · contribs), Janewiche (talk · contribs), SashaKahn (talk · contribs)... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC) All blocked. We need an edit filter. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I put in a sockpuppet investigation case before I saw this here. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Aaaand ... Maaaring (talk · contribs). Nothing more yet. Black Kite kite (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Also * Akosanay (talk · contribs) and ‎Inilabas (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Aboliri (talk · contribs) too. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ‎ErgoPoint (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I cleaned up all the edits made by the listed above socks. But an edit filter would be a very good idea. 2Flows (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Also Nowong (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC) In the user creation log, they appear to all be 'created automatically'. How is that different than just 'created'? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Lala Wigan (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC) And they're undoing the Cluebot reverts. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 18:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC) As far as I know, an account is created automatically if a user has an account on another wiki and logs in with it here. From [20]: "The unified login system combines the user accounts for all of these projects. The greatest advantages are single sign-up (you don't have to create your account again on each new project you get involved with; your account is automatically created at each additional Wikimedia project the first time you log on to that wiki with your existing username and password, or the first time you visit it while logged on to a wiki where you already have an account)" 2Flows (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I checked ten of the blocked socks, and found that one was created on the Japanese WP, three on the Ukrainian WP, five on the Chechen WP and one on Login-wiki, a technical site within the Wikimedia foundation... Thomas.W talk 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) KumarSatia (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC) User:Qrococcor. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC) User:Saimankehru. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC) User:Urophora --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 19:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Filter 620 created. Protected from viewing for obvious reasons, but I invite other filter editors to review my work.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Looks fine to me. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Urophora and KumarSatia blocked, reverted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I'm not familiar with this situation, but Special:Contributions/Yestersafe seems to be connected: new SPA account, apparently automated removal of archive links, alphabetical list of articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC) This appears to be different as they are removing any citation linked to findarticles.com, a since-defunct service, and while the approach is the same, it's not the archive.is issue. Perhaps riding the coattails? --MASEM (t) 05:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC) @Masem:: I can't begin to imagine this isn't related. Another detail: 12 edits, then the account was discarded. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Now with more examples showing, I'd agree that this is much more likely to be related. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I'm also not really familiar with the details of this situation, but I have the impression that this new single-purpose account may also have to be looked at: Special:Contributions/Obar_Kaib. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Special:Contributions/GoFormer has, um, interesting commentary. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC) More: Online Reputation Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Baseraviq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Mrs Ghundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wilok Colo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sharly Fiol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Box Office Watch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Leew Donn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vivificant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Cwobeel (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC) These accounts are coming fast and furious. Two Three more: Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Katheleen Dee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Griffiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC) The MO is pretty consistent: Account is created, the bot makes 12 edits and then account stops. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Is this the work of a botnet trying to affect the outcome of the ongoing RfC on archive.is? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC) One the the accounts tried to remove "http://findarticles.com" which is really defunct. Should we do something about it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC) This topic is hard to wade through, but it doesn't look to me like a CU was performed. I've endorsed a CU at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Ahollypak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This one seems to not follow the pattern described above. Might be an actual person. Jeh (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Swenex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose edits have been sealed by the bots, now we have to revert them manually.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 12:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC) YouBel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removed archive.is links from a number of articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC) All archive.is links deleted by this user have been rollbacked.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Template:Distinguish

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

---

I am getting fed up of this clogging up my watchlist. There is currently a cacophony of useless accusations ("low-information voters" really is a guttersnipe remark) and the discussion, only two days old, is billowing out smoke. I fear a flame war. Will someone please close it? If sanctions need to be taken out, I really don't care, but could this be defused?--Launchballer 12:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a discussion with a bit of sniping, but also a fair amount of introspection; some contributors recognizing that there is an issue worth addressing and attempting to address it. Maybe it will deteriorate, but I see some progress being made.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This. There's a little sniping, but thus far it's been pretty mellow. Take it off your watchlist if you don't want to see it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Children's immigration crisis

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

---

A page I'm trying to create at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children%27s_immigration_crisis&action=history is being speedied and blanked by AlanS (talk · contribs). This is accompanied by notices on my user page that the new page is an "attack page." I have contested the speedy and find no reason for it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

My speedy has been denied. That's the way it is. However Fred the instructions in that template are quite clear that if you disagree with the nomination for deletion you are not to simply restore the material. AlanS (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I declined a report by AlanS at AIV for "vandalism" by Fred Bauder. AlanS, please AGF, there appear to have been a number of edit conflicts, and nobody thinks it was an attack page. Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fred, you deleted the CSD tag the first time when adding the CAT to it, which might have unintentionally set off a chain reaction, I'm guessing that was an accidental edit conflict action and not your intent. Alan, that does happen sometimes. I don't see this passing CSD#G10, but I can see Alan making that mistake in good faith. It is always better to not war over a G10 as long as the CSD tag stays. It is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's immigration crisis now, so I don't see a need for any action here, as I'm guessing it was as much misunderstanding over an edit conflict/overwrite as anything else. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the user who made this report the user in quesiton, this is not the first time this has occured. Yesterday, the user had an disagreement with D67 after D67 declined their speedy deletion tags, that also resulted in a report to AIV (diff). I feel this user needs to quickly show they understand the CSD policy (as their talk page clearly demonstrates they have a very poor knowledge of it) and what AIV is used for, and either revise their knowledge of the policy or stop tagging articles, before furthur action is proposed or taken. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, AlanS didn't file this report, Fred Bauder did. AlanS is the subject. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: Whoops... that's what you get for living on coffee... I have corrected my post. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

My, that is a problem. AlanS, you probably need to remove yourself from New Page Patrol and spend some time familiarizing yourself with policy. Looking at some of those mistakes, like calling it vandalism when ANYONE other than the article creator removes a CSD tag....that is CSD 101 stuff. It doesn't matter than he was an admin, but you should be able to determine who is and isn't an admin in cases like this. He was literally doing his job as the community requests and you called it vandalism. Hopefully you would be wise enough to just take advice so it isn't forced on you. You can't help us enforce policy if you don't understand policy yet. In time, sure, but not yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I came to this thread to say what Dennis has pretty much just said for me. Alan, you're making too many bad speedy calls. They come across as hostile and frustrating to new users who are trying to learn how this place works. Please, refrain from doing any more, and read up on the CSD criteria very carefully, particularly what CSD is not. Also have a look through the brief notes I left on your talk page earlier. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Recommend a Topic-Ban

Unfortunately, after looking over this editor's history, he doesn't seem to be willing to listen to suggestions that he stop recommending speedy deletion. I recommend a topic-ban from speedy-deletion nominations for three months. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jimmies are rustled here because someone dared to tag a bad article written by a project dinosaur; if a new user had written this blog-like article, we wouldn't be here at all. Let the AfD play out and that will be the end of the matter. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think there is enough evidence presented to support a vote either way. Really, something like this needs to be developed and presented at WP:AN, not just spur of the moment added on a report. At this time, I have lots of concern, but insufficient evidence to have an opinion one way or another. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request topic ban for Andy Dingley

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth

Problematic forum- and soapbox-like post at the reference desk attempting to rationalize pedophilia

86.6.96.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has a problem of posting and reposting forum-like posts has made a post about 97% of which (per word count, excluding signature) attempts to rationalize pedophilia with only a nominal question (half of it seeking opinions) tacked on the end.

If the subject matter was something else entirely, it'd still be a problem with WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but I'd assume that this user was a troll if there was no prior involvement (instead, I'll believe he just has no idea that his behavior is inappropriate).

I boxed the thread instead of deleting it (which was my first reaction), but he unboxed it, and then recreated it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I made it clear that I am completely reviled by all acts of pedophilia. Yet, I have been accused of being a pedophile and now am also accused of being an apologist. In response, I say take my IP, report it to the police and when they kick my door in you can personally see I have NO interest abusing kids. If you were from the U.K you'd realize there is a media circus relating to MP's child abuse, Rolf Harris etc and I asked the question in that light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.72 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP was blocked already once for 60 hours on grounds of WP:NOTHERE. Since the unblock, he's continued to post questions that are intended to stir up arguments. Maybe his upcoming block will be a lot longer than 60 hours this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)86.6.96.72, 97% of your post (360/369 words) was attempting to rationalize pedophilia, and the entire point was to argue that we should "rehabilitate" it, citing societies that incorporated pedophilia into their culture. You were not there to ask for references about pedophilia, its role in society or evolution, or how society has tried to deal with it -- you preached about it. If the subject matter were something totally harmless (like clowns), the post still would have been inappropriate for the reference desk. Regardless of what you are or are not attracted to, the behavior is absolutely inappropriate and disgusting, and your continued failure to see that only makes you look more suspicious. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why hasn't someone indeffed this troll? Were neither a forum nor platform for promoting... well, anything.- MrX 19:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:NOTFORUM, I tend to agree that there should be definite consideration of a very long block. We are not here to right the wrongs of the world, or any individual country, and any attempt to use wikipedia to do so is inappropriate. Repeated attempts to do so are strictly problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Take back your claim that I am attempting to rationalize pedophilia. As someone who utterly condemns such vile acts (and has made no effort to hide pointing that out) I am grossly offended by your accusation.

I will re-iterate for the last time : you have my I.P. I can be tracked down in a heartbeat. File a complaint with the police (Metropolitan police) and wait for them to raid my house. They can then use their forensic software to examine my hard drive in minute detail, and what will they find? Nothing. Please do it.Take back your claim that I am attempting to rationalize pedophilia. As someone who utterly condemns such vile acts (and has made no effort to hide pointing that out) I am grossly offended by your accusation.

Sigh. And someone was just telling me at WT:Child protection how that policy has so neatly closed off and put a stop to all these issues..... Let's be clear: this OP didn't phrase the question properly to get a good Refdesk answer. Even so, there is a good Refdesk question in there. We know that a few ancient societies i.e. Greece had a remarkable incidence of pedophilia, and any genuine humanitarian desiring to see the condition cured and these endless reports in the press put to an end should recognize that it would be scientifically useful to understand why some societies had so much more than others. Is there a way that trauma or some kind of virus can damage the brain and prevent a child from changing his sexual desires as he ages to match his own social cohort? I am sick and tired of year after year, politicians and athletes and popes begging for forgiveness, but so few people even willing to think about the problem let alone do real research. Please do not close the door on such discussions and thereby ensure Wikipedia cannot contribute any part of the solution. Leave the OP unblocked and encourage him to put more question in his question, then try again. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

First see if you can convince the OP to sign his posts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wnt, read his original post. It includes multiple sentences outright calling for more accepting reconsideration of pedophilia in society, with the only question at the end being a vague and tacked on "Any comments, or pointers to research in this field?" He did not ask what role pedophilia played in certain societies, what roll it might play in evolution, or what attempts have been made to try to make it more mainstream or less harmful or something. He stated that society needs to accept pedophilia, and then asked for opinionated discussion about the matter. There was no question in there. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

True, when I look at the last two paragraphs I definitely don't like where they're headed, but they don't prove to me that this poster is any particular sort of person. His thesis is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation - perhaps an excusable delusion considering how many pundits eagerly abandon all hope that those who have it could ever be cured. But that thesis is ridiculous nonetheless! Evolution has honed a target for people (mostly women) to like men, and a target for people (mostly men) to like women -- it has never hardwired a mechanism to make people love little kids, or toy rafts, or people in fur suits, or any of the other absurdities in the modern media. Whatever you would call such strange ideas people get in their heads, and however firmly they seem established, I don't think they are immutable any more than it's immutable that an obsessive-compulsive has to flip a light switch seven times. But this is the sort of thing that people ought to be free to debate about at the Humanities desk. Wnt (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I've seen quite a bit of discussion about societal impact on individual expression of sexuality, and think there is at least one article there, maybe a full wikibook. But such comments, as comments, are disruptive, and in this case I think maybe inherently disruptive in context, and in this case I think reasonably actionable. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You are misquoting me and reading into your own narrative. Conformation bias. If I didn't make the question direct enough for pond life, I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.72 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anon, your post includes: "Perhaps it is time to redefine what place child-adult relationships have in our society" and "I can't help but wonder if it is simply a part of the human condition. And, dare I say it is merely a normal behavior within the range of human behaviors." You cite societies that included degrees of pedophilia as why you believe "that somehow the conditions of pedophilia evolved with us and improved our survival." You conclude with "Perhaps we need to come to terms with pedophilia, and rehabilitate it somehow."

That is only attempting to rationalize pedophilia. No sane and reasonable person can deny that. If you are not trying to promote it or troll us, you'd back off, apologize, or otherwise admit that you totally fucked up in phrasing your question.

And again, even if the post was about whether or not clowns are acceptable to society, your behavior would still be inappropriate. With the subject matter, and your continued failure (apparently deliberate refusal) to understand (or consider) this, I can only conclude that you're either a troll or you're protesting too much as a cover. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh here we go, using false logic to back up a non argument 'if a duck is a duck...yawn'. Please, I think the tin foil hat elves want their leader back. If you truly thought I was a pedophile, I hope you have reported my I.P address to the relevant authorities. Otherwise you are simply hot air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.72 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is akin to "terrorism isn't going away, so we may as well accept it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a single useful edit. Certainly WP:NOTHERE - Blocked for 6 months. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Anon, of your original post, 249 of the 369 words (67%) spoke about accepting, redeeming, or rehabilitating pedophilia; while 103 words (27%) portrayed pedophilia negatively, and only 48 words (13%) raised doubts, concerns, or questions. That you don't seem to understand that over half of your post calls for accepting pedophilia shows that you're either a troll, promoting acceptance of pedophilia, or don't know how to ask a question. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What is it that makes otherwise reasonable editors into pitchfork wielding crazies whenever the word "paedophilia" appears? Darkness Shines deleted the thread with these words: "The only way to rehabilitate pedos is with a length of piano wire and a breeze block" Personally I find this comment far more despicable than anything the OP said. Wnt's comments about "nature" logically apply to any form of non-heterosexual desire, and his comments about Greece totally confuse paedophilia with pederasty, (a confusion which the hysterical popular press consistently encourages). The OP was incoherent, yes. But there were some genuine questions in there. Incoherent rambling posts that jumble up separate but related issues are typical of this IP. But we are surely better off allowing questions than trying to shut them down. Doing so only encourages the quasi-thuggish tendencies empitomised by the post I just quoted. Paul B (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would second Paul B's remarks - there have been some very alarming remarks made about this thread - I attempted to bring it up with Darkness Shines, only to be told in no uncertain terms where to go. I actually found Bugs' remarks about "fantasising" on Darkness's talk page the most alarming of the lot. Horatio Snickers (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with wishing evil human beings were dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be more open to considering that if the OP admitted that he could have phrased his post better, and if he didn't have a history of asking questions to stir the pot. Seeing this post leaves me convinced he was a troll (at best).

I've honestly been considering starting a thread on the relationship between pedophilia and society just to demonstrate how such a thread could be done without coming across as a troll or advocate (for pedophilia or tying millstones around pedophiles' necks and chucking them into large bodies of water), but have not done so since it feels a bit WP:POINTy to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Good luck, man, you'll need it, even though I would be interested in seeing such a discussion myself. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously guys? Whether or not pedophilia is acceptable or not, and whether our very hostile approach to pedophilia and the proponents or suspected proponents of it is appropriate or not - Wikipedia is just not the place to hold this discussion. We are an academic project and the status of anyone's sexuality as acceptable normative behavior just isn't our business. We follow the sources. Right now, the sources say it's deviant behavior - and highly illegal. We treat it as such in our articles and in the people who come here to advocate for it. If any of you would like to discuss a societal change to pedophilia, find some other soap box. If any of you have a problem with how we deal with it here, pick your battles. Our hostility toward pedophilia-advocacy oriented opinions errs on the side of caution toward protection of children over the censorship of adults. There are better more worthy fights to be had.--v/r - TP 22:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Suppose you wanted to take a quiet mostly-white American suburb and hold a rally to decry the lingering effects of racism in our society. Despite the sensibility of your cause, you would be hard pressed to get a dozen people behind you. But let one little group of a dozen Ku Klux Klan supporters declare they want to protest in front of your town hall with their little white hoods, and the only problem you'll have is finding parking for five thousand people. It does us good to allow people to talk even when we know they are wrong. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with that analogy is the Wikipedia is not a debating society, a promotional medium, the town square, or a soapbox in Hyde Park. Neither the decrying of the lingering effects of racism nor a KKK rally is appropriate here, on a private website which specifically disallows polemics. BMK (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nay, we're not a debating society or a town square - we're a library, which is the same thing, only more comprehensive. And this was the reference desk of that library. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And in the library, one can research all sorts of points of view, but one cannot advocate for one of those points of view while others are trying to do their research. If someone wants to proselytize, a book, pamphlet, flyer or op-ed is appropriate, or, on the web, a blog -- not the library, and not anywhere on Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Have there been studies on and do we have an article on the changing attitudes over time to paedophilia in society? Such attitudes have obviously changed a lot over time, even in my lifetime, to a position now which is probably (and quite possibly justifiably) more intensely against paedophilia than at any other time in history. I'm always interested in how things got to how they are today, and wondering where they will go in future. I'm sure I'm not alone. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be isolated from the overall evolution of moving away from child exploitation in other ways. Someone here and/or on the ref desk pointed out that protection of children from human predators is a relatively recent concept. And it's not just sexual predators, it's also forced child labor, and physical or mental abuse of any kind. It wasn't that long ago that corporal punishment was banned in most (not all) places in America. That's the area worth exploring, and child molestation is just a part of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD's behavior on Jasmuheen talk page

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

---

This exchange neatly summarizes the issue: Article itself naturally has a history of vandalism due to controversy surrounding its subject, but that is certainly nothing out of the ordinary. What is strange is one user policing the talk page and censoring content. That talk page had not been edited for thirteen months, yet SummerPhD responded within three hours of my edit - either the user is at one with the cosmos, or they've set the talk page to be monitored.

That monitoring in itself demonstrates a level of personal investment in the content of the talk page, and sentimentality is normally no problem at all, but the user has, for many years, carried out a bizarre censorship campaign, (censoring material like so), on the insistence that it protects Wikipedia. If this user, or any other user, had done this on any other pages on this entire site, I would be more inclined to believe that this wasn't just a case of one user going Gestapo on a pet article; that SummerPhD has a long history of association with pseudoscience-related articles, and has in fact recently edited Category:Inedia practitioners (to which Jasmuheen belongs), only reinforces this assessment... as does the fact that the user has only ever censored unsourced criticism of Jasmuheen, and not unsourced praise or agreement - the latter of which has gone unmolested for years.

The justification provided for this censorship is that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. Again disregarding that this (censorship) has never been done outside of this specific talk page, it appears that WP:BLP does not, in fact, apply to talk pages. Quoting the policy article:

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

The citation given for that bit at the end about talk pages does not actually say anything about talk pages whatsoever. How it is being used as a citation for that purpose is a complete mystery. Is there a relevant citation somewhere else?

If SummerPhD's behavior is inappropriate, the censorship should be undone, and it should be made clear that it is an unacceptable practice. Additionally, if there is no relevant citation for WP:BLP's applicability to talk pages, then the article should be amended to reflect that it does not. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP does apply to all pages on the English Wikipedia, including talk pages, user space and templates. Calling a living person a "woo peddling psychopath, or a sycophantic fan" was also not warranted, so the removal of that post was totally justified. Apart from that I don't see any "censorship" in the edit history of the talk page. Unless you can provide diffs of problematic edits by SummerPhD, this thread should be closed. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Can you provide a citation for WP:BLP applying to talk pages? Many editors below have stated, in a strong consensus, that WP:BLP applies to all pages. I acknowledge the citations given. The problem remains that, in the quotation I provided above, the citation given is not appropriate or relevant. At time of writing, this has yet to be addressed by any other editor.
2. Do you mean to insinuate that I am the person who wrote the "woo peddling psychopath" bit? I am not, and you are of course welcome to confirm that with whatever tools you have available. I have never added any content to the talk page before this edit, and I did so in response to the persistent vandalism and censorship of the talk page over the entire lifetime of the page, not to a minor dispute that occurred over two years ago and hasn't been mentioned since.
3. Did you actually read the talk page? The censorship (looks just like this), is currently all over the talk page, and SummerPhD has been the only one doing it for years. Every edit SummerPhD has ever made to the talk page has been to implement that censorship, and I'd like to reiterate that SummerPhD only censors critical opinions of the article's subject and not consenting opinions or praise. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding #1, this from WP:BLP, in the section "Where BLP does and does not apply" ought to be sufficient:

BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, persondata, article titles and drafts. (emphasis added)

BMK (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I dunno—calling someone who makes a rather lucrative living from selling breatharianism – which has killed a number of its followers – a "woo-peddling psychopath" probably isn't far from NPOV (or, for that matter, the truth). That said, the comments on the talk page could probably be phrased in a more diplomatic manner that – more importantly – is directly focused on proposing specific changes to the article, based on specific references.

As for manually hand-censoring individuals words and phrases from years-old comments (original posts were from 2005-2007: [21]), wouldn't it have been more sensible just to archive the darned talk page? I mean, instead of doing some deliberate pot-stirring by replacing the text with a bold "(censored)". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the very first comment to address the primary issue. Thank you for reading. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The comments from 2005-2007 were not "hand-censored" recently. That was done years ago. The anonymous editor who started this thread restored comments that had been removed back then. I had not labeled them with a bolded censor, that was done by another editor claiming First Amendment issues. (because I'm a member of Congress, I guess). Archiving them would move the problem from one page covered by BLP to another page covered by BLP. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have 19,569 articles (plus their associated talk pages) on my watchlist. I suppose I should do some cleaning, but I'll keep this one.

WP:BLP is a policy and directly states that it applies to talk pages. If you feel it shouldn't, you can work to change it, though I doubt you'll find much support. (I don't think you have disputed that the material I removed was unsourced and derogatory. As BLP is primarily concerned with libel (and protecting Wikipedia), I am not as concerned with unsourced positive material. If you have a favorite celebrity and want to say they are kind to puppies and kittens, BLP isn't much of an issue.)

Actually, I created Category:Inedia practitioners and added this article to the category. I noticed the deletion of Category:Pseudoscientists and the associated recommendation that former members be added to categories directly describing them, with the category added to Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, which I also did.

I'm not sure what "personal involvement" the editor believes I have with the article. I have no direct or indirect connection to anyone or anything connected to the subject that I am aware of. The closest connection I can find is that I once read a book by James Randi, who is cited in the article.

I have removed material from other talk pages based on BLP. The talk pages for Anderson Cooper, Michelle Rodriguez and Perri "Pebbles" Reid come to mind, among others. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@IP 2607: Please read the WP:BLP page. Already at the very top there is as a box that reads "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research" (emphasis as seen at WP:BLP). De728631 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The citation provided, in the quotation I provided above, does not have anything to do with talk pages. A relevant citation needs to be added, if available, but the citation provided now is inappropriate.

If you were as dispassionate and disconnected from the article as you assert, you would not have reverted the first edit made to it in 13 months within a mere three hours of the change. Your justification for allowing unsourced praise is incongruous with your actions on the talk page in question - essentially, for the better part of a decade, you have been putting a censor bar over the word "cunt," on the principle that you disagree, not that it's unsourced (I would like nothing more than to shower the article in citations from reliable sources or opinions from recognized experts in the field who have are qualified to have the opinion that she is a cunt). That you have been doing so on the talk pages of multiple specific BLPs serves to highlight the problem. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence on the BLP page says "any page", emphasis in the BLP page. Any page means exactly that, including talk pages. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SummerPhD, come to think of it, the "(censored)" approach appears to be a bit heavy-handed imo. but you are correct to remove such material from talk pages. IP, in fact the 2006 arbitration case used as a reference found that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages,..." (emphasis mine). That is where this policy was established and it has since been applied to all content about living persons. De728631 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read over this once more. Also, thank you for providing insight into the citation - this is knowledge that a casual user would not have, because those not involved in Wikipedia's internal drama (this accounts for a distinct majority of users, and of human beings) have no reason to know about it. The in-line citation in question links to a sentence fragment within an RfA decision. That sentence fragment did not demonstrate, on its own, the rationale for the policy. That is why I raised the question. Can that in-line citation please be changed to make this more accessible and clear to casual users?

On the subject of the (censoring), what is to be done? Is that practice unacceptable, and can I undo it? There must be intervention in this matter, because my undoing has already been undone by SummerPhD, who has a history of undoing these undoings by others, of which I am just the latest. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear on the subject as well. You restoring the contentious unsourced material does not exempt it. WP:BLP is one of the few exceptions to WP:3RR for that very reason. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The "(censored)" approach was not mine, I had used unbolded links to WP:BLP that an editor citing the First Amendment had changed to demonstrate their displeasure. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If we both think it's stupid, why is it still there? 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current version? Would the term "BLP redaction" be better? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No. That this issue has fallen to a matter of opinion makes obvious the need for a concrete procedure. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry for blaming it on you then. But let's sum up what we've got here. Some inappropriate phrases on that talk page are currently hidden by "censored" tags which SummerPhD did not introduce [22] and which must not be fully restored for reasons of the BLP policy. Their appearance, however, isn't very pleasing either and might lead to assumptions that Wikipedia is largely censored. So instead of fiddling back and forth with old comments I suggest we follow TenOfAllTrades' approach, archive the darned talk page, and move on. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively we could go with "courtesy blanking" or with "BLP redaction" as suggested by NeilN, both of which should link to the BLP policy. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The semantics used in all policy documents is "remove," and redaction is not removal. Neither is censorship.

I absolutely agree that it looks sloppy, and that it definitely would "lead to assumptions that Wikipedia is largely censored." This entire exchange has served to demonstrate a need for concrete guidelines on the actual execution of these policies as they stand. 2607:FCC8:B000:2100:D002:820C:E4C1:46D7 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Experienced editors (who are generally the ones modifying comments so that they conform to policy) usually use their judgment. If the comment is unsalvageable it'll probably be removed. If portions are useful, then the editor might opt to excise the other offending portions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Reporting a user

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

---

I'd like to report MarkBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this edit [[23]]:. where he abused me and called me a prick because I was trying to prevent an edit-war. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Also at WP:AN/EW for tangentially related issue, opened by a different editor (though both these reports spawned out of the same AIV report). Ansh666 05:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Notifying user...done. Ansh666 05:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. For someone calling themselves the real deal, you sure do whine a lot. Get over it. I've said in the other venue where I'm being told on at, I'm not going near that article with a ten foot barge pole - so you need no longer try so hard to prevent an edit war (Personal attack removed) All this fuss about how to stop people getting a quick but engaging opening to the Brazil 1-7 Germany article. I never knew 'Wikipedians' were so determined not to write good copy, but my eyes have been well and truly opened. MarkBM (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed personal attacks in above comment ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Billy, dear, if you want to know my response - go fish. It's been censored. Everything is censored here, including quality writing. MarkBM (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not censor anything, I removed a personal attack per Wikipedia policy. Such activity can and most likely will lead to a block. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark, would you stop calling people pricks? It's not often I get to link to this, but m:DICK pretty clearly applies. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Only the first one counts though, as obviously that's the only time I meant to call him it (and it was well deserved). That really should be obvious, to anyone reading properly. But when is the discussion going to get around to what's best for the article? Or am I correct in assuming that doesn't matter one bit. Readers can get immediate access to the date, location, name of the referee and the half-time result, and that's all that matters, as far as the first paragraph goes, right? I mean, that's what I understand by "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences", in the page helpfully shown to me by someone. Anyway, I digress. We were here to help "RealDealBillMcNeal" with some pressing issue he had, right? MarkBM (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, just ease up on making it personal with Bill. That's all that needs to happen on this board. As to the edit warring issue, the rule (WP:3RR) doesn't recognize one party as "in the right" pretty much unless it's obviously vandalism. And that's not the case here. So don't edit war. I don't care how bad you think someone's writing is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) I've got no comment on this specific issue, because both users here have not been on their best behavior (and both have gone over WP:3RR, but that's for another board), but Mark has had an abrasive and confrontational attitude and refuses to listen to consensus, indeed edit warring with 3 separate users over the lead section of Brazil vs Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup), as well as some rabble-rousing at ITN which I just glanced over. Add to that a gratuitous sprinkling of personal attacks or almost-personal attacks and condescension... Ansh666 06:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus being two people saying they prefer another version, without any other explanations, but only after I've been repeatedly ignored and edit warred with by two others who offer no explanations also? Right. Got it. MarkBM (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've counted 6 who have directly or indirectly supported the current version, maybe even more. Ansh666 06:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly note Bill's previous 3RR offence was just 4 days ago and user has a tendency not to bring any debate over to the article's talk page in order to resolve disputes. LRD NO (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Bill may have opened this report, but he is by no means the only one who has the sentiment. Let's not poison the well here. Ansh666 06:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing

blocked. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obongolover (talk · contribs) has not only been making persisent personal attacks in response to being warned about their behavior [24], [25], [26], [27]. but also creating disruptive questionable categories such as and adding this to user pages [28]. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Hmm. Category:American racists is probably not a good idea. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Nor is this edit where he drops the N-bomb referencing a living person. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I'm pretty sure this is a personal attack against me. --I dream of horses (T) @ 06:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Now indeffed, apparently for block evasion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC) This may be a sock, I think I got all of his vandalism, if I missed any please grab it for me :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandal at Colin O'Donoghue

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

---

173.73.78.137 has been vandalizing Colin O'Donoghue by changing his last name. I have already reverted the change twice. Can someone please have a look at this. Thanks. The Newspaper (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've warned the IP for now. I'm disinclined to make a block since he or she hasn't made an edit in nearly an hour. (These types of vandals usually "have their fun" and then move on to something else in life.) If it continues - and for any routine types of vandalism in the future - please make a post at the administrator intervention against vandalism board. Best, Mike V • Talk 03:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Vote-stacking and warring at deletion discussions

Gokulchandola (talk · contribs) seems to have a bit of a habit of edit warring relating to articles that are in the deletion process, eg: at Tanu Sharma (current) and at Template:Aam Aadmi Party (in relation to the now-deleted Naveen Jaihind). Worse, though, is the way that an anon has appeared in support at the discussions here, here and here. SPI will not link usernames to addresses (and I'm off out to work & so have no time to cross-check further) but this looks suspicious to me. I'm wary of labelling it as WP:DUCK, although an IP turning up at DRV seems particularly odd. What do others think? - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I also notice that Gokulchandola reverted six times at Rajat Sharma yesterday against an IP to re-insert a BLP violation about the subject, and the article was then semi-protected in that version. (OK, the version they were warring against was a copyvio, but that's not the point). I've fixed that problem now. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

60.240.185.251 / 115.64.25.61 adding unsourced content into BLPs and not communicating

Could somebody please have a word with 60.240.185.251 (talk · contribs), who according to Smuckola (talk · contribs) is also 115.64.25.61 (talk · contribs)? They have been adding content to musician biographies, all generally in good faith, but never leading edit summaries, citing anything to reliable sources, or discussing edits (which have been reverted due to violating WP:BLP) in any way. (Examples : John Robinson (drummer), James Taylor, Terry Kath by 62, James Taylor, Northern Calloway by 115). Occasionally they have blanked content in articles (Terrigal, New South Wales), which is less of an issue as it is typically unsourced, but even then a lack of an edit summary or talk page discussion is problematic. Their talk page is full of people (including myself) telling them to stop and discuss issues, but it seems to be ignored. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

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

---

Extended content

Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jennifer Rubin (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This user, who has on his User page this very revealing statement: Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors, chooses edit warring and tendentious comments in talk pages instead of participating in WP:DR (see for example Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jennifer Rubin (journalist). This is WP:BATTLE behavior and not conducive to collaboration. In this specific article, the user keeps deleting material and does not engage in useful discussions, instead he comes once every other day to delete content. He has deleted the disputed content multiple times over past weeks. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I would like to report user:daniellagreen for doing paid editing with nondisclosure to wikipedia as is the current policy.

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

---

I would like to report user:daniellagreen for doing paid editing with nondisclosure to wikipedia as is the current policy.

Extended content

Diffs of the articles which may possibly have been done while being paid or working in association with several different entities while not disclosing that she was doing paid editing, or editing for and in association with several entities that will be mentioned further down in this posting. Gallo Blue Chip Sir Taurus Dan Gernatt Farms Flavia C. Gernatt Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation Children's Depression Inventory F.C. Richardson Congressional Hearing Health Caucus United States House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families[[ Ellicott Creek Bike Path Pat McGee Trail Bill Greiner Gernatt Family of Companies Also this same user:Daniellagreen has been adding images to these articles here that are hosted at wikipediia commons that are very possibly promo or PR pictures that user:daniellagreen has submitted to wikipedia commons that she has claimed as her own work. The particular files of the pictures suspected of being possible copyright violations have been tagged as possible copyvios on the commons site. Flavia C. Gernatt After discovering this suspected paid editing at a group of interrelated article subjects, I did nominate one article to be either merged, redirected, or possibly deleted. Talk:Flavia C. Gernatt#Deletion nomination? After this nomination this user:user:Daniellagreen went to several different user/editors talk page to canvas WP:CANVAS for user/editors to come and to paraphrase look at this article or check it over. Three or more examples of canvassing are as follows: user talk:OccultZone user talk:John from Idegon user talk:Piguy101 user talk:Fram After the afd for the article Flavia_C._Gernatt user Daniellagreen started going from talk page to page of the four diffs just previously had canvassed spewing vitriole and making borderline personal attacks and baseless allegations that I had been “stalking” her and “following her around.” The user:Daniellagreen seemed to be quite upset that I had edited “her articles that she created.” WP:OWN I did try to participate at the talk pages of these aforementioned articles, and directly replied to the [user:Daniellagreen]] on the talk page for the article subject Flavia C. Gernatt As I said in my response to her there: Talk:Flavia C. Gernatt#Deletion nomination? My main purpose, and any agenda I may have are solely for creating, and or maintaining the best and most exquisite online encyclopedia in the world. If I believe that a user or editor, or in fact any contributor has been acting in any way, shape, fashion, or form that might harm the online encyclopedia'a reputation, I do look in to the matter. With that being said, "Do you have any associations of any type with Flavia C. Gernatt, Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., Dan Gernatt Farms, Gallo Blue Chip, Gernatt Family of Companies, Sir Taurus, Dan Gernatt Farms, Gernatt Family of Companies, and the Daniel and or Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation??? Please see these diffs: [[29]] --- notice notation above draft article which reads "New Task Force: White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls:, Memorandum, Buffalo Niagara Partnership" [[30]] --- again notice notation above draft article which reads "New Task Force: White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls:, Memorandum, Buffalo Niagara Partnership" [[31]] --- again notice notation above draft article which reads "New Task Force: White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls:, Memorandum, Buffalo Niagara Partnership" [[32]] --- again notice notation above draft article which reads "New Task Force: White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls:, Memorandum, Buffalo Niagara Partnership" "Do you, User:Daniellagreen have any associations with the White House Task Force, Council on Women and Girls, and or the Buffalo Niagara Partnership?" "Are you, User:Daniellagreen doing paid editing on behalf of any person, association, foundation, partnership, task force and or councils?" If you may be possibly being doing paid editing for any of these above-mentioned entities, have you disclosed this as is the policy at wikipedia?" I would ask a the very least that user:Daniellagreen be topic banned and not allowed to edit or work with any of the articles regarding the Gernatt family. be asked again if she is or is not doing paid editing without disclosure and or editing for entities with a POV that she is promoting on wikipedia by having an agenda that does not allow her to write and edit articles at wikipedia with a neutral tone. be asked to stop making personal attacks and baseless allegations that I am “stalking” her or following her around. be instructed or perhaps taken in under a mentor in order to continue editing here at the english wikipedia be instructed on how the copyright policies here ar wikipedia work. For example that you cannot take a promo or PR pic that may have been taken by a professional photographer, and claim it as “her own work.”

ciao!!! please all have a lovely evening! Carriearchdale (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Two points:

1. WP:TLDR (actually, I did read it, but you can expect few others to subject themselves to this)
2. I see no diffs here actually indicating paid editing.

I think you should probably back down from this unless you have proof (which does not involve violation of our outing policy or other policies). Moreover, with all due respect, I really don't even care what's going on here unless there's some indication that Daniellagreen is engaged in disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi user:Mendaliv, I am glad you mentioned that about never wanting to WP:OUTING user:Daniellagreen any user editor in public spaces here at a public part of wikipedia. Where is it that I can turn over the rest of this info that was given to me by another party that is the true and physical evidence of the paid editing? Is it the OTRS? I was not sure of the protocol about who to speak with regarding the other info and "evidence?"

ciao!!! 03:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Carriearchdale (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say, based on my understanding of WP:OUTING, that it's probably inappropriate for you to be engaging in "opposition research". As to where to send evidence, if you should even do so, I'm going to leave that to my more experienced colleagues here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: This report can be considered as "digging your own grave".

I would like to notify that I've reviewed at least 2 - 4 of the articles that were made by Daniellagreen, so I've watched it. Now bigger point is that Carriearchdale is clearly trying to irritate Daniellagreen for no reason. Carriearchdale unreviews the articles of Danniellagreen, sometimes more than 4 times. To Carrierchdale, it is not even a matter that the subject is notable or article has been written per wiki standards or if they have been reviewed again by multiple editors, Carriearchdale would still continue to unreview. Often leave meaningless[33] tags. Also made unfounded allegations of "removing AfD tags", but as usual you won't see any evidence.

Now you maybe thinking what actually made Carriearchdale do this all.. Well, Carrierarchdale has got problem with me and Fram. What happened was that Carrierchdale used to make horrible edits with Autowikibrowser, such as these [34], [35],[36]. There are like 100s of them that were reverted by Fram. Fram and I tried to tell that AWB is not for these purposes,[37] especially Fram was more concerned.[38] Carrierarchdale ignored his notifications, though he was only providing her useful information.[39] Fram revoked access.[40]

Since then Carrierarchdale tries to crash any new page or new Afd where Fram or I've been involved. Few pages such as 1704 in Spain, Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement-in-Opposition are notable, but Carriarchdale would 'unreview' them as part of her revenge.

Let's see, but yes there is no rationale in this malformed report whatsoever. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That was certainly my initial impression. Given there's some significant indication of hounding on Carriearchdale's part, I think we're squarely within WP:BOOMERANG territory. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If this claim is false or unprovable, I think that as a preventative measure to prevent more such, that the complainant receive a considerable block for disruption. We did not ask for this paid editing policy, it was imposed above our heads and is another's hobbyhorse. I personally, as an admin, will take no part in enforcing it. But when people use it to beat others about the head as a way of upping the ante in their petty interpersonal disputes, that can't be tolerated.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Carriearchdale's post here is little more than an attempt to trigger a witchhunt. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the multitude above me, this is clearly an attempt at WP:OUTING a user who has no history of paid editing I can see. WP:BOOMERANG clearly applies here, I don't think a block is in order (blocks are preventative not punitive) but a strongly worded warning most certainly is. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that an administrator close this discussion and advise interested parties to take this up somewhere else. Even though we have a new TOS, the community has demonstrated time and time again that they are incapable of handling COI cases without violating policy. Funny how that works, isn't it? Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I do hate coming to take a look at what is up around here and seeing my own name. Carriearchdale should be made aware that you must notify any editor you mention at ANI. Yes, Daniellagreen did canvas me. I informed her that was inappropriate, and actually !voted against her position at the aforementioned AfD. (Which BTW is an ugly bloody mess. I pity whomever has to close it.) Daniella is an excellent writer, a relative newbie, and does have a bit of trouble handling the drama around here. It appears she got singled out by someone and I do feel a short block is in order under WP:NPA, if only til the AfD closes. Better, until Carriearchdale indicates that he/she understands what it is that is wrong with this complaint. John from Idegon (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale has now filed a (malformed) sockpuppet investigation, [41] claiming that User:OccultZone is User:Daniellagreen's sock (or possibly vice versa, it is hard to tell). Given this monumental outbreak of cluelessness, I have to wonder whether an indefinite block on competence grounds might be for the best... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a copypasta from here. so,

• Support indefinite block--WP:CIR. Bad enough to find my name here, but at SPI? John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At first I was content to give this user a strong warning, but now, given the unsupported WP:OUTING at SPI, I have to concur with John from Idegon ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just like this report was most immature and unbalanced(in terms of title, summary, etc.) on ANI. I think I've seen most immature report on SPI today. No comments on SPI, or any other thing, but lets think that way, even for 5 seconds, you would ask that I've been asking myself to review my own articles,[42] I've been notifying myself that I am going to take a break.[43] Sounds unbelievable? Yes that's why it is senseless. Carriearchdale has shown no remorse for making a series of unfounded allegations about Daniellagreen, it includes COI, removing AfD templates, personal attacks, etc. Now there are more unfounded allegations. Fram had said about Carriearchdale's actions that "They are not targeted at you, but at me, probably as some kind of misguided revenge against my repeated corrections of her sometimes very problematic edits." Apparent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You will probably find novelty in the actions of Carriearchdale, but they are disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The more one investigates, the more this seems far more sinister and disturbing than a mere lack of competence on the accuser's part. Look at this edit summary and edit: [44] -- a bizarre accusation which is repeated time and again in other edits [45] and on the article's Talk page [46]. And that is apparently only the tip of the iceberg. It seems we may have a case not only of lack of competence, but also deliberate harassment and disruption/trolling/vandalism. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And what is up with the copycat animated horse under the wiki logo, which Carriearchdale copied on July 6 from Daniellagreen (who had installed it on her userpage on June 27)? Stalkerish much? I have never seen that animation on any user pages except those two. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Montanabw has long had a similar running horse on her user page. Cardamon (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As do dozens of others. 80.43.208.93 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

An extremely minuscule fraction of users, and it's obvious (to me at least) where Carriearchdale copied it from. Plus why are you posting under an IP, which has never posted before? Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As many IPs are dynamic, it's common for the same unregistered user to get different ones at different times - and you can guarantee that at least some of them have never before been used to edit Wikipedia — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've clashed with Carriearchdale a few times recently. I wanted to make sure that the problem was not on my side (or at least not solely), so I stayed out of the recent interactions she had with other editors, essentially ignoring the problems Daniellagreen had, which wasn't nice from me. But the result is that it has become obvious that while Carriearchdale is enthusiastic and wants to edit, she indeed not only lacks the required competence, but also the required interaction skills. As an example, after Occultzone made this edit (which he probably shouldn't have made as a fairly useless edit, but which is essentially harmless), Carriearchdale first made this edit which more or less ruined her own user page, and then reverted her own problematic edit and Occultzone's innocuous one in one go[47], with the edit summary "Do not edit my userpage or my talk page occultzoNe - OccultZone you are hereby banned from my talk page, and banned from my user page. thanks but no thanks... "

This is typical of her overreactions and poor communication: she usually "archives" her talk page by simply removing everything she doesn't like, routinely banning people as well. A polite question like this one gets removed from her talk page without an answer (there or elsewhere) or a correction of her previous incorrect claims. If nothing happens soon to suggest that she is going to drastically change her approach here, I have to support an indefinite block as well. Fram (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted the SPI. It was nominated as a G3 and I agree, but in any case WP:IAR. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why on earth was this editor (Carriearchdale) granted Reviewer rights in February 2014 [48] only a month after she made her first edit on Wikipedia [49], a blp violation which she edit-warred to keep and for which she was subsequently blocked [50] and without ever having created a single article? Reviewers are allowed to accept pending changes on BLPs. Surely, she did not meet the criteria. Her subsequent behaviour and lack of competence bears that out. A week after she received Reviewer rights, she was receiving BLP violation warnings re another two articles [51], and edit-warring to restore them. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles. At the very least that right should be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• One more small data point: I looked at the images uploaded by Daniellagreen on Commons that were nominated for deletion by Carriearchdale. Of the 5 images, my opinion was that 1 was clearly deletable (because scanning a drawing does not make it your "own work"), one - of a local public event - might have been previously published, but Tineye couldn't find it, so there was no evidence to support that contention, and the other three should never have been nominated in the first place. To me, the nominations appeared to be intended to harrass Daniellagreen. BMK (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also note Carriearchdale's language above concerning these photos: she writes that they "have been tagged as possible copyvios", not "I tagged them as copyvios", thus making it appear that a third party had problems with the images. BMK (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Typical behaviour: in an edit some months ago, she corrected an unclosed "ref" that caused an error, but at the same time removed the single square brackets from around a hyperlink. I readded these single square brackets today, only to get reverted by Carreiarchdale again[52]. This is not the first such occurrence, she often blindly reverts back to her version, no matter if the newer version is an improvement or not. I see no improvement in her approach whatsoever, even in the middle of a discussion like this one. Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on her talkpage to make sure that she is aware that the section she started has boomeranged and is now discussing her edits and potential indefinite block: [53]. Fram (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed Carriearchdale's reviewer and rollbacker permissions as suggested in this discussion and pending resolution of the issues raised. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with User:OccultZone that, on the surface, it appears that the user has something against him since, as soon as he began reviewing articles that I had created in the past one week (the ones related to Gernatt), both he and I, as well as other editors with whom I was communicating, began experiencing stalking and/or harassment from the user, including unfounded allegations. That is the only explanation that I can come up with, as User:OccultZone stated, the user seems to be acting out some vendetta against him, and anyone with whom he communicates. Thus, the user has now become fixated on me, even after my explanations and communications in attempts to dispel her/his beliefs. --- Additionally, I saw the animated horse at the user page of Montanabw and simply added it to mine since I do have an interest in horses - 2 articles that I created in the past week have been on horses. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite Block Proposal

I know myself and others have expressed support for a community generated indefinite block for Carriearchdale's conduct here and prior to this ANI thread, so I'll be bold and do the formal proposal:

As proposed: Carriearchdale (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia for multiple acts in bad faith in detriment to the project.
♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support indef block per the discussion (and diffs) above. Thomas.W ^talk 10:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per my above reasoning (I've unbolded my support in the above section to avoid the appearance of double-voting) Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Oddly enough, support - At first glance, I expected to try a compromise for a shorter period as an indef seems extreme looking at just this report, but the deeper I go down this rabbit hole, the more disturbing it appears. Without question, the reviewer and rollback bits need removing (and shouldn't have been granted....), but I don't think that is sufficient. There is a combativeness that goes beyond simple contrarianism, past WP:HEARing problems and borders on WP:CIR. I don't doubt the editor is intelligent and acts in a way that they think is best, but I don't think they have the ability to collaborate in a cooperative way, in the way that is required in a community project. From what I've seen, we will end up here soon enough, so best to acknowledge now and move forward. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support indefinite block per all the above - Carriearchdale clearly doesn't have the competence or willingness to contribute productively here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Why does this even need to be formally asked given the above? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   Indef blocks for patterns of behavior where each individual act doesn't warrant an indef (ie: CIR related), are best decided by the community as a whole. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   As usual, you're quite correct. Upon reflection, I may have given too much attention to some of the statements Carriearchdale made, and believed they were obviously block-worthy on their own. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

6. Support. Having looked further into Carriearchdale's behaviour, I can see no way that she is anything but a net liability to the project. Her contributions are frequently of questionable merit, and her battleground mentality is self evident. Some people simply aren't capable of productive work in a cooperative environment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support - Ran into this...colorful character, to be kind...a few months ago at Talk:Rachel Reilly, where similar text-bomb accusations were being hurled regarding conflict-of-interest editing and such. The less of this type of person running amok around the project, the better. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
8. Support Thank you to all of you who are supporting a block on User:Carriearchdale. Her/his edits have been those that have caused disruption, and which have made Wikipedia and WikiCommons a battleground for me and other editors, including User:OccultZone, User:Piguy101, and User:Pink Bull. This user's disruptive edits and inability to cooperate have caused me to become extremely discouraged. I have attempted to deal with the situation myself as best as I can because this user has been following, stalking, and harassing me on the following articles in the past week: Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Flavia C. Gernatt, Dan Gernatt Farms, Sir Taurus, and Gallo Blue Chip, including with reverting several reviews on some of these articles to being unreviewed, without providing any notification about reasons for doing so. Further, this user has followed me to WikiCommons, and has suggested unnecessary deletions of photos that I, myself, have taken, including in the following articles, Bill Greiner, St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York, Gernatt Family of Companies, Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., and Flavia C. Gernatt. User:Carriearchdale's accusations and report are unfounded and unwarranted, unnecessary and offensive to me. I edit and contribute to Wikipedia and WikiCommons as my hobby, and as my hobby and personal interest, only. I have not, nor have ever received one cent, nor have I ever sought or solicitied any type of compensation for my endeavors on Wikipedia. The misjudgments of this editor have been hurtful and harmful to me. I very clearly state on my user page - and bolded it following her/his initial accusations to me - on the Flavia C. Gernatt talk page - after she/he also put it up as an article for deletion - that I do not, nor have ever done any paid editing on Wikipedia. It is ludicrous and ridiculous. Again, I appreciate everyone's support regarding this matter as it has been difficult and upsetting to me, particularly as a Wikipedian who has no other interest than contributing to the organization. By the way, I see that the sock puppet issue has been a hoax; it is untrue and there is absolutely no basis for it. Thank you, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks to those of you for your follow-up comments, below, too. I have refrained from reporting the user because a couple of other experienced editors recommended not to, so I have been tolerating the situation as best as I can, and many other editors have been going back and trying to un-do the havoc wreaked by the user. I tried to confront the user and let her/him know my thoughts and feelings, and that her/his actions were hurtful, and tried to open up constructive communication, and the user didn't reply to my questions/comments on their talk page, but instead, made more incorrect accusations and misjudgments on the Flavia C. Gernatt talk page. I could have alot of choice words about what I've experienced from this user, though I see that I'm not the only one, and have tried to back off as best as I can so that the situation is not escalated. It appears that the user escalated the situation, themself. Thanks again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC) For the record, I just made a report at WikiCommons regarding the user's conduct toward me and my work over there, and I have notified them about it. The user sees absolutely nothing wrong with her/his behavior, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Sadly, blocking them here won't do anything about their harassment at Commons. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   • You would have to start a similar case at Commons. They don't care about Wikipedia's problems. That's why Xanderliptak was able to hang on so long at Commons after being banned here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   • I made a report about the user's behavior at WikiCommons, which can be seen here [54]. The user commented on my talk page there last night, and reflects that she/he sees no wrong in their actions. This is only continuing over there. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

9. Support Remember indef is not infinite. The WP:STANDARDOFFER is always available. Should Carriearchdale ever come to understand what it is about her behavior that is problematic return to the project is always possible. MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
10. Support The editor has abhorrent behavior, and hardly discusses disputed edits. I have seen the editor personally harasses Daniellagreen repeatedly, without reason. The editor has accused Daniellagreen of poor behavior [55] when none is apparent. The user should be blocked. Piguy101 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

    Carriearchdale has noticed this discussion and put an appeal on Jimbo's page. [56] Looking at the appeal, it appears that Carriearchdale lacks the technical competence to edit Wikipedia without a script, such as AWB. Piguy101 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

11. Support. I really didn't want to support an indef for someone who has only had one short block, but the level of vindictiveness I see here is quite appalling - I don't think I've seen anyone as apparently incapable of interacting in a civil and respectful manner as this. Having said that, I'd support leaving a door open for some kind of mentorship, if that is possible. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

    As an additional thought, should an indef block not be approved by the community, at the very least we should have some sort of serious interaction ban here - we need to prevent people being subjected to this level of harassment. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

12. Support This is the kind of behavior we don't need here. I see nothing redemptive in her behavior, and as I stated above, unless the editor in question comes here and explains herself, I do not see that we have any choice. Without some explanation of her behavior, an idef is appropriate and needed to protect the community. John from Idegon (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Note that she did come here and made no attempt whatsoever to explain her behavior, only continued unjustified and false accusations. Now I am saying unqualified support for an indef, and hopefully soon. This has wasted too much time already. John from Idegon (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
13. Support I was the nominator, but I wanted to add my views here as well. This user's conduct has been extremely disruptive, if not outright hostile. I am a firm believer in WP:AGF and giving every possible opportunity for users to learn the system, the community, and how things run here, but in this particular case, this user is clearly out to be vindictive, disruptive, and otherwise hostile to any users who disagree with her. Given the extremely long and detailed history of such behavior, that is the basis of my proposal for an indef and why I support it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 20:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
14. Support Swayed by extension of harrassing behavior to Commons. BMK (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

    Also, I'm not sure anyone's mentioned these two previous AN/I reports: "Carriearchdale and Rackel Reilly articles" and "Carriearchdale's "copyedit work". BMK (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

    More: The Carriearchdale account was created on 21 November 2007, according to the account's logs, but did not make its first edit until 2 January 2014 . That kind of gap is highly unusual, although it's frequently seen in sleeper socks. Certainly it can't have been reticence to edit on Carriearchdale's part, because since that first edit only 6 months ago, the account has made 12,431 edits. BMK (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

    Hmm. That is pretty damn weird. Seven years a sleeper? And that includes deleted edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

    In her appeal to Jimbo, she writes: "My name on wikipedia is Carriearchdale and I have been a registered member of wikipedia since 2007 contributing globally across some 35 wikipedias", but under this name she has contributed to en.wiki (the bulk), Commons, and the 406 edits to 19 other projects, with meta getting the most (305), and simplewiki (29) and ew.wiktionary (27) following. All other projects received a handful of edits. If she has contributed to "35 wikipedias" (which we'll assume means all WMF projects), there are 14 missing -- so what is the username those edits are under, and was that account active on en.wiki between November 2007 and January 2014? BMK (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

    @Beyond My Ken: Well, she posted this wall of text on her talk page, listing all the projects she has "contributed" to - note, however, that the last 17 on the list (she now claims to have contributed to 38 projects) all have a grand total of nil edits. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    Another interesting turn of events: In her appeal on Jimbo's talk page, she writes:

    Another party contacted me about what to do and how to report paid editing which apparently is one of the newer policies at wikipedia. paid editing without disclosure.

    I let the party know that they could probably report it at the ANI board or maybe dispute resolution. THE PARTY LET ME KNOW THAT THEY WERE AFRAID TO REPORT THE POSSIBILITY OF USER Daniellagreen doing paid editing with non disclosure.

    I felt bad for the party, and concerned for wikipedia, so I took a few days and looked over the info I had been given.

    As far as I can tell, the claim that she was doing this for someone else is new - a look at her original report above will show that it is written entirely in the first person. This new claim of helping out someone else looks like an attempt to distant herself from the filing. (Or course, she also proclaims herself on her talk page as a "W H I S T L E B L O W E R" concerning this report.) BMK (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    Wow, the more I look into this, the worse it get. Carriearchdale trumpets on her talk page that she's contributed to 38 projects, but it turns out on 17 on them she simply registered and has no contribs. Well, on 11 of the 21 that are left, she's done nothing but make a user page and edit it, and on four others she's done that and made a couple of edits on one or two articles. This is a user who has a rather distant relationship with the truth. By the most liberal possible definition of having "contributed", she's done so on 10 projects, not 38, as she claims. BMK (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

15. Weak support: although I think an indef block is too severe, punishment action is needed here, however, this user should be unblocked when she accepts and learns that what she did is wrong and is ready to contribute positively to Wikipedia again. I will also volunteer to mentor her if she is unblocked. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

    @Sturmgewehr88: You may want to change your wording a little bit per the block policy. "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Piguy101 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    @Piguy101: Roger that. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

16. Support. This editor has demonstrated far too much battleground behavior, with no acknowledgement of the damage done. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
17. Support. There has been an extraordinary amount of peculiar, disruptive and abusive behavior associated with the Carriearchdale account. Despite having been discussed on ANI on multiple occasions -- principally at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles, and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Disruptive editor, where Carriearchdale repeatedly made false statements and phony accusations to in a futile attempt to protect rather clear copyright violations -- the editor has been treated remarkably and inexplicably indulgently, to their detriment, to the detriment of the several editors and admins they've regularly abused, to the detriment of article subjects they've targeted for embarrassment, and to the ultimate detriment of Wikipedia itself. As BMK quite correctly points out, there are also quite a few anomalies associated with the account, beginning with the seven-year gap between registration and their first edit and the quite unusual, determined effort to bloat their edit count with extraordinary numbers of inconsequential edits. Their posting on Jimbo's talk page, in lieu of responding here, with its preposterous claims about an anonymous source and organized retaliation, is, quite bluntly, hard to see as anything but a poorly-thought-out pack of lies. And, in addition to hounding daniellagreen at commons, Carriearchdale devotes much of her userpage there to crossposts from enwiki clumsily vilifying myself and User:Fram. Preventive intervention is overdue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
18. Support per above. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
19. Support. Scary, vicious, totally insupportable and unconscionable behavior. I do not support any sort of future reprieve or repeal, even with mentorship. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I am glad that this is something that is being taken very seriously because I had already accepted that this user's behavior is something that is accepted on Wikipedia. I had not reported her/him because of several reasons, including that a prior dispute resolution request that I made on another issue was not, to my conclusion, resolved. Further, two editors suggested that I not report, and two others suggested that I do report. What I did was to back off so that the situation was not further escalated, as I could see that, already, in one week's time that no progress was being made in my communications with the user. Not only were the user's actions detrimental to me, but also to other editors, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. The user explained to me that she/he was taking their actions in order to preserve Wikipedia's reputation, however I perceived that the user was actually harming its reputation. So, really, I am relieved and happy that this is being taken seriously, and a strong message should be sent to the user. I believe that if some further investigation is done into the user, it may be seen that at least most of their recent edits have been deletions that have caused further difficulty and that have not at all been in good faith. As for accusations of paid editing, again, I have not received any kind of compensation at all from anyone for my efforts on Wikipedia. Anyone who states otherwise is making fraudulent and libelous accusations, and is a liability to this organization. The user should be stopped before more harm is done to editors and to the organization. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC) To add, I have absolutely NO intentions of taking legal action regarding my prior comment, and am only trying to look out for Wikipedia's benefit. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
20. Support per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. See my comments by my struck vote in the oppose section. Ivanvector (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    Comment I just wanted to point out, since this proposal has been opened, this users behavior has not improved whatsoever, and in my view worsened. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

21. Support. At first, I was a bit put off by how quickly this turned into a boomerang, and I thought about opposing it based on the arguments made there. I have no love for Carriearchdale (and I would have strongly opposed giving her any advanced user rights based on what I've seen of her behavior in the past six months), but the matter seemed almost settled before she even logged back in to Wikipedia. However, as others have stated, her behavior has only worsened since this discussion began, and I don't see much hope that she will ever change. She's still inventing wild stories to support her baseless claims. If she had just calmly retracted her accusations, apologized, and asked for a mentor, I'd say, "Lesson learned. No block necessary." This is like the worst possible response imaginable, except maybe threats of a lawsuit. She's too disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    Support In addition to this apparently bad-faith filing and the SPI, add forum-shopping here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Striking per this JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    @JoeSperrazza: But what is that? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    I think he meant per this. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, thank you: [57] JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

22. Support Obvious troll is obvious. She should have been indef'd as a result of the first ANI thread about her...the fact that she's made so many edits and is still here indicates either a special talent for trolling, or a serious issue with en:WP's tolerance for trolls. I'd be a little surprised if this doesn't end with a community ban. Bobby Tables (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    • I made a report about the user's behavior at WikiCommons, which can be seen here [58]. The user commented on my talk page there last night, and reflects that she/he sees no wrong in their actions. This is only continuing over there. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

23. Support This sort of stalking has a chilling effect on other editors. Support indefinite block, any reversal of this block should include very clear criteria from the user so that there is no doubt as to if the user is following the standards of the community. Chillum 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
24. Support Carriearchdale is no more a whistleblower than Chelsea Manning is. There are processes for whistleblowing. For Chelsea, it was to go to Congress. For Carriearchdale, it was to go to Arbcom. Carrie didn't follow process, they can't claim to be whistleblowing when they've not followed the process, and we can block them for inappropriate behavior. Note to actual whistleblowers: email Arbcom - it's that simple.--v/r - TP 17:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, to be different. User clearly has some troubling behaviours, but has the community genuinely tried to do anything to rehabilitate the user, other than plastering them with talk page warnings? They seem to make constructive edits interspersed with the disruption noted above, and from what I see they have only been previously blocked once, 31 hours for edit warring, and the other discussions linked above did not result in a conclusion that this user was the exclusive problem. I suggest instead revoking their reviewer and rollbacker rights that they are clearly abusing, giving them a few interaction bans, and at least making an attempt to get them up to speed before we launch our strictest sanction at them. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't therapy. Several have engaged, and from what I've seen, have been met with hostility each time. Unless a disruptive editor has admitted they see the problem and has shown a willingness to get mentoring, you are putting off the inevitable and simply pissing off good editors until that time arrives. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I get that, really, and I've supported community bans before. What I'm not seeing in this case is where we've given the user a "final warning", where they are blocked with an explanation that their behaviour is unacceptable and why, and give them a chance to demonstrate that they understand and can edit cooperatively when the block is up. It seems to me that they've only been warned by users who they are in an active dispute with, and our past action (rather our lack of action) lends credibility to the notion that Carriearchdale isn't actually doing anything very wrong. I think that jumping to the WP:STANDARDOFFER is too big of a jump in this case. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Struck. Carriearchdale is clearly aware of this discussion based on her defensive post on Jimbo's talk page. I'm satisfied that what we're saying here is sufficient warning that her behaviour is unacceptable, yet she continues to defend it. Indef with the standard offer. Ivanvector (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. This leopard has had innumerable opportunities to change its spots, and has not only not done so, but has subverted and thwarted any efforts at dialogue or rehabilitation, and seems extremely unlikely to change at any future date, however distant, IMO. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose: I understand this editor is problematic, but to date, has had one 24 hour block, and that's all. To move from that to a ban indefinite block is draconian. She hasn't been mentored, she's received precious little feedback of substance from the admin corps, who to date, have done precious little to solve the problem. In a sense, that she's continued unabated is an indictment on them. At minimum, she should be mentored as well as followed by a neutral editor, with a series of escalating blocks -- in other words the usual treatment -- before she is banned. She's not going to change if she's not taught appropriate behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Comment - It is not a ban that is being discussed here. It's an indef block. As noted, indef blocks are not infinite blocks. They can be appealed and appeals will be granted if the issues leading to the block have been addressed. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   You're right - my mistake. And I know the difference! --Drmargi (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   @Drmargi: Is there any possibility? Have you seen [59], [60]? Just say anything and you are "banned" from the talk page for being "abusive" even when you are not. Doubt what will mentor do. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Drmargi. My problem is that simply on the face of it, User:daniellagreen has started and maintained a large number of articles about the Gernatt family largely on her own, so it is not unreasonable for an editor to raise the question of whether some conflict exists. I have not attempted to evaluate User:Carriearchdale's behavior, but to move directly to a full indef block, while pointedly ignoring her offer to provide evidence in private to avoid outing this user, totally fails the sniff test. Whether or not the allegation would be sustained, an abrupt block of the "whistleblower" here would make me doubt that Wikipedia has any serious intent to look into allegations regarding the paid editing TOS. Wnt (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   @Wnt: Not only paid editing, but also unfounded allegations of personal attacks, Afd template removal, sock puppetry, stalking, etc. I don't see any regrets. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   Well, the underlying problem here is the use of an official unofficial policy "WP:BOOMERANG" that inherently legitimizes silencing whistleblowers as routine behavior. In every arena, including government and corporate settings, whistleblowers are always problematic people. Normal get-along-go-ahead don't-rock-the-boat people don't blow whistles. So if we want to learn from their experience, we should recognize that coming at the person raising the complaint fast and hard should not be accepted as a way to suppress it. So long as this abrupt jump in penalty serves two purposes I won't be confident of either. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   Wnt, take a look at the behavior. Yes, I understand that moving directly to an indef seems extreme, but you really need to look at the behavior. It's unacceptable by any standard. This isn't a situation that can be decided purely as a matter of policy interpretation as to the proposed sanction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   Comment: I created a number of articles regarding three members of the Gernatt family and two of their businesses in the belief of them being genuinely notable. I had considerable time during the July 4 holiday weekend, and I used it constructively by adding to Wikipedia. I received some kind support from some editors, and also this "editor from H..." behavior from the user. Again, I have not received any compensation in any form for my endeavors on Wikipedia. When I very clearly (and boldly, I might add) explained that and pointed it out to the user, she archived my comments and didn't respond to them, and instead, she escalated the situation by filing a report here. Keep in mind by reading my above Support comment, this is after stalking and harassing both me and my editing for the past one week on six Wikipedia articles, and now, also some photos that I've added to five Wikipedia articles. The situation was so bad that I reached out to three other editors, User:Piguy101, User:John from Idegon, and User:OccultZone just to ask for suggestions on how to proceed. I was so upset that I took two days completely away from Wikipedia, only to come back and find that she has recommended five of my photos for deletion, without merit. It also appears that the user has harassed and/or attempted to stalk and/or harass these users simply for their involvement in my communications with them and/or editing or reviewing of articles. User:Pink Bull has experienced the same thing regarding her reviews being reverted by the user. So, on the face of it, someone can think what they want, however I became disillusioned in a prior dispute resolution that I had initiated because there really was not resolution, and therefore, I did not report the user here. I was afraid that if I did, I would be further blamed with unfounded reasons. This user's actions have been harmful not only to me, but several other experienced editors who contribute to the organization in good faith. I have seen nothing in the user's actions that constitute any good faith at all, and it had caused me to become even more disillusioned, which is another reason why I didn't report. Again, I appreciate everyone's support as what I have experienced is quite unbelievable to me and is nothing like what I've ever experienced in any online organization or forum before. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   Oppose indefinite block, support long-term block: per my response in the "Neutral" section. This user should be blocked for at least three months, and upon returning should be given a mentor. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Why not just indef them but stay open to a reasonable unblock request? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   Carriearchdale has been around long enough that mentorship is silly. Mentors aren't very good if the protégé is unwilling to discuss. In addition, good luck finding someone who will provide the service. Piguy101 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   • I really don't get why 3 months instead of indef until it's clear there's an understanding of community standards. 3 months just seems punitive: I really think this could be over in a week or two if the editor makes it clear she understands that her behavior was unacceptable. And I don't think mentorship is going to happen. Unless there's someone willing to take the reins who will actually be here and still willing in 3 months, we should presume this will end with the block being lifted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   @User:Piguy101 & User:Mendaliv, if no one else is willing to take up mentorship for User:Carriearchdale, I would do it, seeing as WP:RYUKYU gives me plenty of freetime.

   @User:G S Palmer & User:Mendaliv, that makes a lot of sense, and you've convinced me. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose - With over 10,000 edits and one, count it, one 24 hour block for edit warring showing on the block log, this is not an acceptable outcome here. This site is built on the premise of warnings and escalating blocks. No opinion of the fundamental competence of the editor, but going straight to the death penalty is unjustifiable here. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   But an indef block is not the "death penalty" because it is indefinite, not infinite. It can be undone at any time that Carriearchdale shows understanding of community editing norms. I can't recall many instance of people receiving the death oenalty who were brought back to life when it was found a mistake had been made. BMK (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Normally, you and I are on the same side of the argument when it comes to these kinds of issues, Tim, but reading through the history, I find this is an extraordinarily obtuse individual and shocked I haven't heard the name before. The kind of editor that runs off other editors. It isn't infinite, but something needs to shake loose for an epiphany to happen. There is no way a fixed time is guaranteed to make that happen. I hate it, but things are what they are. I respect if you disagree, but it isn't something I do lightly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
   • I am glad that this is something that is being taken very seriously because I had already accepted that this user's behavior is something that is accepted on Wikipedia. I had not reported her/him because of several reasons, including that a prior dispute resolution request that I made on another issue was not, to my conclusion, resolved. Further, two editors suggested that I not report, and two others suggested that I do report. What I did was to back off so that the situation was not further escalated, as I could see that, already, in one week's time that no progress was being made in my communications with the user. Not only were the user's actions detrimental to me, but also to other editors, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. The user explained to me that she/he was taking their actions in order to preserve Wikipedia's reputation, however I perceived that the user was actually harming its reputation. So, really, I am relieved and happy that this is being taken seriously, and a strong message should be sent to the user. I believe that if some further investigation is done into the user, it may be seen that at least most of their recent edits have been deletions that have caused further difficulty and that have not at all been in good faith. As for accusations of paid editing, again, I have not received any kind of compensation at all from anyone for my efforts on Wikipedia. Anyone who states otherwise is making fraudulent and libelous accusations, and is a liability to this organization. The user should be stopped before more harm is done to editors and to the organization. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC) To add, I have absolutely NO intentions of taking legal action regarding my prior comment, and am only trying to look out for Wikipedia's benefit. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

     I made a report about the user's behavior at WikiCommons, which can be seen here [61]. The user commented on my talk page there last night, and reflects that she/he sees no wrong in their actions. This is only continuing over there. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Just a comment on the 10,000 edits. I've looked back at some copy editing, and I see a lot of changes done one word or punctuation change at a time. So what for most of us might be a single edit of a paragraph or page would become 5 or 10 edits - eg 10 edits for this change. I'm not knocking the work done and doing it like that is fine, I'm just saying that not all 10,000-edits are equal. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

• Question: how long has this behavior been going on? And how frequent within that time period? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand per the diffs above, it began shortly after the user first started editing Wikipedia ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles for summary of the problems from the time she started editing in January 2014 through 3 March 2014, and nothing has improved. In anything, it appears to have got worse. Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The user seems very emotional and lacking self control under criticism. Has anyone tried to mentor her? I think an indef block is too severe, although that stunt at SPI warrants at least a few months-worth of a block. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Just now you can check, Carrierchdale reverted a edit only because it was made by Fram. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I have any interest in defending Carriearchdale (I definitely don't) but that doesn't seem to be an accurate statement. CA changed a reference, stating that she had "fixed incorrect ref formatting" (which doesn't seem to be the case, CA's edit broke the external link formatting). Fram reverted that change (again, rightly so in my opinion). CA didn't revert Fram because the edit was made by Fram, CA was trying to reinsert her original change. Again, CA's actions were wrong, but I think the motivation you're suggesting here isn't correct. In this particular case, CA's intention was good (in her mind, fixing the reference) even if the action was obviously wrong. -- Atama頭 17:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That explanation would make sense, except that Carriearchdale made the "correction" well over two months ago. Yet, as soon as Fram corrected her error today, she blindly reverted, and I gather that was not an isolated case. Voceditenore (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That timing doesn't make any difference. When Fram reverts Carriearchdale, CA is going to get a notification about it (I know that if someone reverts me, I get a notification). I don't understand what you mean by "blindly reverted", CA was reverting a revert from Fram which itself didn't have an explanation. If anything you could ask why Fram reverted CA months after the fact, without explaining why. Though I still support Fram's revert because it's reasonable to look through CA's contributions to make corrections especially as CA is under this kind of scrutiny; per WP:HOUND, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." And as I said before, CA's edit broke the external link formatting, it was a bad edit to begin with and needed to be undone.

If you have other examples of Carriearchdale reverting Fram, especially as some kind of retribution, I'd be interested in seeing it. Again, I'm not interested in defending CA. The information presented in this thread makes a pretty good case against CA. I just want to make sure that the evidence presented is accurate out of a sense of fairness. -- Atama頭 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Atama, you misjudged this edit. Yes it was a bad edit and should've been undone, but Carriearchdale didn't revert Fram just because Fram did it. In fact, User:OccultZone, User:Fram, and any other editor who has an issue with User:Carriearchdale shouldn't be reverting her edits during this discussion, because instigating bad behavior on her part seems like WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to me. As I said above, her past behavior, coupled with this thread and the one at SPI, makes her deserving of a long block, but until you provide proof that she's unwilling to change I will be opposed to an indefinite block. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If she didn't undo it because I made the edit, then she undid it because she thought her version was better, which again is evidence of the WP:CIR issues. Fram (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments

I have addressed Daniellagreen about the personal attacks and baseless allegations there at the commons, as well as to her personal attacks, baseless allegations, and now more recently clear and posted by her legal threats against me by her Daniella Green. On at least two occasions other editors here at wikipedia tried to correct Daniellagreen by posting and telling her that that making legal threats using the L word, LIBEL, and variations thereof is considered a legal threat which can get you blocked.

I recount my comments to Daniellagreen that I posted at the commons as quite pertinent, and relative to the debate here about an ANI REPORT of which the subject is: " I would like to report user:daniellagreen for doing paid editing with nondisclosure to wikipedia as is the current policy."

"For the record I responded to your continued personal attacks against me here at the commons, and I also set the record straight that it is you Daniellagreen that this current debate at ANI on en wikipedia is an ANI report that you are the subject of. You are confusing the the witch hunt, and lynch mob battleground tactics which are being used to try to sway the debate, and report about you being reported and accused of possibly doing paid editing while not disclosing. I also have made notice of two instances where you have made a clear legal threat towards me at the en wikipedia by using the words LIBEL and and variations thereof in statements you made there. Several editors on the pages where you made at least two legal threats against me even agreed with my view that what you posted in your statements would be considered as legal threats. I have never wished you any ill harm or bad wishes. In fact I do think that your motives might be good, but you have been led astray by the contentiousness of others. I wish you well in all your future endeavours. I have done my due diligence here, and have turned over any and all info that was given to me by another party to one of my trusted associates to move forward. Please do govern yourself accordingly!!! and as always please do have a lovely day!!!"

I do hope everyone will continue to have a fruitful and enjoyable week!!!

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Two things, Carriearchdale: One; the ANI thread is most definetly about your conduct now, not Daniellagreen's. It's called a WP:BOOMERANG. Two; Daniellagreen has clearly indicated (in multiple places) that she is not making legal threats, so it would be best if you drop that line of argument. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Many people here, me included, have qualified their opinion awaiting Carriearchdale's response. So she has responded with an amazing lack of WP:CLUE. I am striking any qualifiers on my !vote above and ask for a close soon. It is obvious where this is going. John from Idegon (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • • Yes, she has just shown a shocking lack of understanding about the seriousness of the situation, with her wiki career hanging in the balance. If I had been on the fence, this posting would sway me toward supporting an indefinite block. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale, would you care to tell us (without outing anyone) who it was that gave you 'info', and who it is that you have passed it on to? I suspect that without such information, your claims are unlikely to be taken seriously. So far, you have asserted that evidence of paid editing exists, but provided none. You have claimed that another user was a sock of Daniellagreen, but again provided no evidence. Why should we attach any credence to further unsubstantiated claims? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have done my due diligence, and as I stated before turned over any info and evidence that was given to me by another party to my trusted advisors to move forward. Please Andythegrump do not cast aspersions on the mere messenger. And, as always, you really all should govern yourselves accordingly!!!

ciao!!! I hope you have a great rest of the day!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So who are these "trusted advisors"? If they are going to deal with it, they will have to come forward. So you telling us who they are is not going to be breaching a trust. Name names, or drop that line too. This is ludicrous. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale, asking you to provide evidence for your repeated claims is not 'casting aspersions'. You are required to provide evidence when making claims of paid editing or sockpuppetry. I suggest you do so now, or withdraw your claims.Failing that, you will have to accept the consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The editor doesn't seem to think that any rules or procedures we have, such as requiring evidence of malfeasance, apply to her. It's sufficient for her to wave her hands and cite mysterious sources and advisers, and we're supposed to kow-tow and throw Daniellagreen to the lions.

But that's not all: After six months of editing and 12,000+ edits, she still doesn't know how to properly format a talk page comment -- or, more likely, doesn't care to learn how to, such things are beneath her. She also appears to have a classic case of psychological projection, in which one's own flaws are projected on other people. For instance, she will make an inflammatory statement or act, and then blame a responding party for "battleground behavior". She appears to be incompetent to edit Wikipedia, doe not add appreciable content to the encyclopedia, and looks to be incapable of the collegiality and cooperative spirit required to be a successful editor here. This is more than a net negative, it's almost entirely a complete negative. A few corrected commas can't make up for this amount of disruption. BMK (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(comment moved from above, missed this section earlier) CommentI think it would be worth the time of others to review recent activity at User talk:Jimbo Wales. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, my comments at the bottom of [62] include six instances where Carriearchdale blindly reverted or deleted polite comments without responding, including the Jimbo-HTML-comment-hiding incident. I am linking to an old revision of her talkpage because she has since removed them. Piguy101 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How long will this take?

Jimbo's talk page is beginning to get as long as a Tolstoy novel due to Carrie. Can someone do something soon? John Carter (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: Now Jimbo has responded and is mad. [63] There is a consensus to close this and block Carriearchdale. Let us be done. Piguy101 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Blanket removal of multiple references without consensus and replacement with an alternative source

• RealDealBillMcNeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As per previous discussions in user's talk page in May and most recently in WP:RSN, user:RealDealBillMcNeal has engaged in blanket removal of multiple sources from articles, leaving them unsourced and without replacement with another source.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] (5-6 July), over 70 edits on 13 and 23 May. As explained by various editors, sources should not be removed based on his personal opinion that they are crap sources (as evidenced by weasel terms in edit summaries and replies, and this edit to an article page) nor should they be done without consensus. Despite agreement by other editors that user needs to stop with those edits, user has continued to skirt the issue and fail to engage in sensible discussion. As we could not get a resolution, the issue has been brought over to this board. Can we include any action or outcome with a commitment by user to stop with such edits in future, failing which appropriate action should be taken by administrators? Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:RealDealBillMcNeal has been blocked 12 hours by User:Callanecc for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly note this is a different incident from the 3RR incident, of which user is one of two parties involved. The first three links in the OP quite comprehensively describe the nature of this report. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request. The block is short and reasonable. The blocking admin has made a very generous offer to the editor to unblock if the user agrees to discuss first rather than keep reverting. Chillum 16:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Point as above, to clear any possible confusion. LRD NO (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that this is not resolved, as such I have removed the archive header/footer. Chillum 00:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Ravishyam Bangalore

• Ravishyam Bangalore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ravishyam Bangalore is on a POV pushing spree on articles Aadhaar, Permanent account number and Unique Identification Authority of India. He has been reverted several times, but restores the content that he feels is correct citing vandalism. On Aadhar, I had reverted the article to a version before this user edited which redirected to Unique Identification Authority of India until today.
Diffs:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7

After a month long break, he is back with this. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that Ravishyam Bangalore has been here twice before: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#Aadhar and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#User:Ravishyam Bangalore issuing legal threats and disruption. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is getting increasingly annoying, earlier it was a fight between two groups -- one supporting and another against the Aadhar card. Neither of them seems to care for encyclopaedic writing and are here to just promote an agenda. One side has now been blocked, so the problems are only related to Ravishyam Bangalore now. I've tried some clean up on the articles over the past year, so I'm involved, but this is getting to be a drain on productive editors' time. —SpacemanSpiff 05:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

emergency help against attack on wikipedia

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

---

Jet Naked Airlines keeps being deleted every two minutes. This makes it impossible to write an article on this real Canadian airline, founded by the Co-founder of Westjet. I know the naked name is silly but I did not chose that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

another false attack on me. I am not trying to advertise for them. I am not even in Canada. WP is very inhospitable but admins will never admit to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 July 2014

According to this, there us no such actual airline yet. It, and some others, are merely proposed airlines. That might be why it keeps getting deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Bugs.....wonder why wow has vandalism...cuz bad people cause trouble like these admins....all of these admins should be demoted...I know naked is silly but that is their name....trying to defend them is like defending the KKK. A good admin would add and then allow time for improvement,. Making me do it in user space is just causing more work...

Someone should have the balls to help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 July 2014

disruption? That is like the police beating up an innocent person and coming up with an excuse. But you win, you have attacked me and I give up. I know you are not going to improve th e article. A good admin would restore the article and even spend two minutes to help clean it up but once you are voted admin, many stop writing and become bullies. Sorry but true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:34, 11 July 2014

It does look like it qualifies for speedy deletion in its current state. Maybe it would be better to work on it in your userspace (see Help:Userspace draft). Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, proposed airlines have had article before they began operating.

Current state is bad cuz of vandalism, even if unintentional. I am no more energy to fix it today but would have if admins did not stupidly serial delete it. I did give references, which admins should have seen. They should not see the word naked then delete it. If they did, delete Courtney Love, a stupid name for a singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that Courtney Cox and American Airlines actually exist. You need to find the energy to copy it to your talk page (or I can do it for you, if you're that tired), and then you can develop it in an acceptable way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

They rubbed it out already. Someone here could still retrieve it and copy it to your user talk page, or to a subpage as needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but it certainly looks like it will make GNG. See [73], [74], [75]. John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are one step away from being blocked for disruption. I just deleted the article per A7 and G3 as you had added your own personal views about Wikipedia and Wikipedians to the deleted article. I also saw your attack on the administrator who had deleted the article just before me. The article has also been salted as there was yet a third administrator who deleted the article first.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP is way off base with their attacks. The name is not the issue. The issue is that it doesn't exist, and adding an article about it here smacks of trying to create artificial notability in order to help raise money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

And considering that the OP seems to lack the ability to reply directly to a given post (nor to sign them), the question arises as to whether it's extreme sleepiness, or competence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoever deleted the article needs to post its contents on the OP's user page, to give them at least a possibility of improving it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's been restored and userfied [76]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletions of Ynet poll result from over 150 Israeli articles

No admin action required, and possible WP:FORUMSHOP. If you want more eyes on it, RfC is the best process. Nothing more to see here. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A current discussion concerning deletions of Ynet poll result from over 150 Israeli articles requires the input of administrators and experienced editors. At this point, only four editors are discussing the matter -- which includes the primary editor who deleted the material yesterday, as well as a "new" editor who in tag-team fashion appears to have deleted the same text from still other articles yesterday. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC) This isn't the place to announce this. If it's that big a deal, list a RfC and put it on T:CENT. There's no admin action needed for this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Actually, "this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." This is such an instance. And the tools needed to revert mass changes of this sort are held only by admins as well. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC) If needed, rollback should suffice (if I understand you rightly), and tons of non-admins have that userright. This makes me guess that I've misunderstood you; please explain what tools you're talking about. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC) This is a commonplace content dispute that does not belong here. No special tools were used nor are required. Epeefleche is just trying to find support for his/her side of the argument. Zerotalk 08:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ram tx

User:Ram tx, an obvious sock/meat account, is disrupting afds. [77] [78] [79] [80]. Ram tx is supposedly new here but is already using page curation [81], unreviewing [82] and refering to "Wikipedia policy" [83]. Ram tx is part of a larger promotional effort involving socking/meating and advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked one week for disruptive editing, which is long enough for the AFDs to complete. Either they have been here long enough to know not to remove AFD templates, or they haven't been here long enough to know everything else. Whether it is socking, a poorly executed WP:CLEANSTART, or an IP that just signed up, I have no idea, but that should be settled at WP:SPI. I can't fathom a situation where this individual didn't know this was intentionally disruptive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Ram tx is a sock of Wordcrafters. There's no overlap in editing, however the sock account is editing the same articles as the master, therefore WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply. Unless Wordcrafters has a viable reason for editing via an undisclosed alternative account, they should both be blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone would please indef that sock. I took off to the beach for a few days with only a smartphone. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

lose the smart phone too and enjoy the beach :) this crap will still be here when you get back, just saying, --Malerooster (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User Binksternet - proposal of ban of topic

A while back, I made an edit to the Robert Palmer page and was immediately contacted by Binksternet about "perpetuating hoaxes" and "vandalism". After a few rounds with him, I was sent a message from 174.77.220.178 on my talk page. It is still there. Apparently, Binksternet believes that this person and I are one, and that "some group" in San Diego is specifically targeting him for these false statements he makes regarding Geradine Edwards. I made a comment on the TALK page of Robert Palmer quoting what 174 had sent me. I received this from Binksternet:[84] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=616487558

If you go to Mark_Arsten's (now retired) page, you will see that he apparently made a decision against Binksternet, and when I pointed it out to him, he immediately deleted it from his talk page.

Personally, I think this guy is crazier than cats in a box, and I would like to see him banned from the topic, as he is violating a whole bunch of rules, the first being "a personal interest". If you could look into it, I'd appreciate it. And I am not, nor have I ever been 174.77.220.178. Zabadu 15:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabadu (talk · contribs), 15:02, 11 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Just to correct a misapprehension, I was recently in communication with Mark Arsten. He tells me he may make a few edits from time to time and doesn't consider himself retired, Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, zero evidence has been presented to justify so much as a block, let alone a topic ban...for Binksternet. You are perpetuating a hoax and should be WP:BOOMERANGed immediately. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Ditto that sentiment. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• This is certainly a boomerang case, if ever there was one. Mark Arsten did not make "a decision against Binksternet", instead, he was intrigued with my analysis of the hoax pattern and he blocked IP 146.244.11.175 who later tried to erase my very damning analysis from Arsten's talk page archives,[85] following the same action from IP 174.77.220.178.[86] Both IPs are from San Diego, California, and both have interjected hoax material about somebody named Geraldine Edwards into articles and talk pages about Cameron Crowe, Robert Palmer, and Eric Clapton.[87][88][89][90][91][92] Another San Diego IP posted on Zabadu's talk page about Geraldine Edwards being the fiancee of Robert Palmer, being a friend of Crowe, and being a backstage groupie to Clapton. These IPs have also tried to chip away at the (well-cited) connection between Palmer and Mary Ambrose, his longtime girlfriend. The same IP said "Mary Ambrose was visiting San Francisco [and there] she met Binksternet",[93] in an attempt to portray me as involved. It's complete BS, all of it, supported by nothing that could possibly be interpreted as a reliable source. Whether or not Zabadu is the same San Diego person, I cannot stand for Zabadu continuing the hoax, let alone throwing insults at me. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I just googled [geraldine edwards and robert palmer], and there are contemporary references at the time of his death (2003) to a Geraldine Edwards as his girlfriend or fiancée. I haven't checked the other stuff, but if this is a hoax then it's not a recent one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? From a quick look, all I can find is later reader's comments about Geraldine Edwards added to articles from that date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all reader comments from obvious sockpuppet hoaxer accounts (who all claim to know Palmer personally...that must be why it's mysteriously not in any actual sources!) Someone's trying to seed the claim out there, but it's still not in any real sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. These references to a Geraldine Edwards seem to start turning up around 2010 and 2011, not 2003 that I can see. At that time there seemed to be someone else that was a girlfriend, who got left out of his estate or something. Is there an authorized biography of Palmer floating around anywhere? If so, and this name doesn't turn up, then the only sources for this Edwards would seem to be rumors or personal recollections, which are insufficient (hoax or true) for inclusion in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, without reliable sources and given the assertions made, they are BLP violations. Binksternet was quite right to remove the material posted by Zabadu on Talk:Robert Palmer (singer). Note that this which remains on User talk:Zabadu is also a BLP violation in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the user talk page entry in your link is a BLP violation and the perpetuation of a hoax. I also agree with Roscelese that somebody, probably this person from San Diego, was seeding the hoax at various online discussion fora, using throwaway names and accounts. There's one the bottom of the MTV obituary from somebody named jo stansfield, posted in 2011. There was some heated discussion about Geraldine Edwards in April 2011 on sing365.com. There was a couple of posts naming Geraldine Edwards on phillipraulsphotolog.blogspot.com, but the posting dates are difficult for me to uncover. There are a bunch of throwaway accounts talking about Geraldine Edwards on contactmusic.com from late 2010 and early 2011. All of these share the rambling writing style of the San Diego IP editor, with 'facts' pulled out of thin air. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: "I think this guy is crazier than cats in a box" should lead to an immediate block for WP:NPA. Can anyone tell what the hell "a personal interest" is when it comes to "rules" that are supposedly being broken? the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Boomerang Looking at Zabadu's recent contributions, I am not seeing someone whose primary aim is to improve the project. The last time he made a single edit to the mainspace (not accounting for deleted contributions, which I can't see), was six months ago. Instead, he spends his time being a drama-monger. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• • I blocked the OP 31 hrs mainly per User:Sven Manguard. --John (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Up with Geraldine Edwards and down with Mary Ambrose

• 209.129.16.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • San Diego IP who first posted about Geraldine Edwards in January 2011, telling the Help Desk that Geraldine Edwards was Palmer's real girlfriend, not Mary Ambrose (who was named in all the media.[94][95][96][97]) In May–June–July 2011 this IP made a series of edits to Robert Palmer and related articles. Added Geraldine Edwards to the Groupie article. Added Geraldine Edwards as a Clapton girlfriend, using a fake reference. Added Geraldine Edwards as "partner" to Palmer. Replaced Pennie Trumbull with Geraldine Edwards in the Bebe Buell bio. Added Geraldine Edwards to the Dave Hill bio. Added Geraldine Edwards as a girlfriend of Bobby Hatfield. Added Geraldine Edwards as a girlfriend of Rick Springfield. Added Geraldine Edwards to the Kate Hudson bio. Removed songwriting credit from Mary Ambrose.
• 98.173.35.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • San Diego IP, in April 2011 began a series of edits to Robert Palmer and related articles. Added Geraldine Edwards as Palmer's "partner". Tried to tarnish the name of Mary Ambrose. Added Geraldine Edwards as a girlfriend of Rick Springfield. Added Geraldine Edwards as a girlfriend of Eric Clapton. Added Geraldine Edwards to the Fast Times at Ridgemont High article, with Edwards supposedly a student at the model high school. Tried to tarnish the name of Mary Ambrose. Added Geraldine Edwards to the Geraldine disambiguation page: Edwards is a "Rock Muse". Blocked by Favonian for BLP violations.
• 130.191.108.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • San Diego IP, made three edits in August 2011 to the Palmer bio. Pushed Mary Ambrose down in importance, from girlfriend to former girlfriend.
• 130.191.108.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • San Diego IP, made four edits in August 2011. Swapped Mary Ambrose out in favor of Geraldine Edwards as Palmer's partner. And again.
• 146.244.11.175 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • San Diego IP, made a bunch of edits on 19 December 2013, and later ones to the talk pages of Pressure Drop and Mark Arsten. Removed Mary Ambrose and replaced with Geraldine Edwards. Blocked by Mark Arsten.
• 174.79.253.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • San Diego IP, made four edits on 20 December 2013. Removing Mary Ambrose.
• Zabadu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Zabadu had edited in other topics for 6.5 years when he made his first edit to the Robert Palmer talk page on 31 January 2014, saying Geraldine Edwards was Palmer's girlfriend, not Mary Ambrose. No references supplied. Zabadu then added an extensive talk page entry filled with supposed statements from people related to Mary Ambrose, no references supplied, but a web search shows this online discussion with comments from four accounts logged into Ultimate Guitar during 2010–2011, these being throwaway accounts that posted nothing else.
• 130.191.109.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • San Diego IP, made one edit to Zabadu's talk page on 19 February 2014, asserting a significant role for Geraldine Edwards, and talking smack about Mary Ambrose.
• 174.77.220.178 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • San Diego IP, in February 2014 removed from Mark Arsten's talk page the damning analysis I had posted there. Removed my talk page entry telling how the Clapton girlfriends stuff had been supported by a false reference. Posted a lengthy fabrication on the Robert Palmer talk page. Another long fabrication at the Cameron Crowe talk page. Making up a BS reason for the removal of Geraldine Edwards from the Clapton article. Complained about me to Mark Arsten, making up a bunch of stuff about Geraldine Edwards. Posted some nonsense about a bot that would supposedly strip the name of Geraldine Edwards from Wikipedia.

This collection of diffs from San Diego IPs and Zabadu makes me think that Zabadu unwittingly put his faith in some online discussions he saw, then incorrectly believed the San Diego IP posting later on his talk page. I don't think Zabadu is the same person as our San Diego friend, but he perpetuates the hoax, and makes other mistaken assumptions about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Brusselsprouts146

Could someone block Special:Contributions/Brusselsprouts146 please for their pointy and disruptive WP:NOTHERE editing and multiple 1RR violations at Operation Protective Edge, edits that mainly consist of adding Redirect|Genocide|the crime of|Genocide. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked indef before I saw this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Bgwhite

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

---

This editor, User talk:Bgwhite, brought to my attention WP:COLOR after his removal of part of the shading that I then reversed. I use in a table to show odd ownership of various Disney Channel. So, I engage in the discussion to find a solution when he just goes and starts stripping the table completely of any color (than lies that he didn't do so), so there isn't a guide for me directly in the source to use another method. Basically he continues to bash me and shows he isn't following the conversion. Basic he went all troll on me (stupid me, I assume I could get back to reality of the discussion, I end up feeding him), lied to me, and made false claims about me. It is highly frustrating when trying to work with this guy, even when (not he has bother to look) I changed it to a non-color notation. Then he starts calling me names - that are more appropriate for him -- and more lies (assumptions) on my talk page AFTER I banned him from it. Some one needs to have a serious chat with this fellow, who indicates that he could care less about people trying to cooperate with him. He has notassume good faith, acted in a rude matter towards my attempt to retain the context that the shading provided. --Spshu (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see diffs for the alleged "stripping" but not for what seem to be the crux of this complaint, ie: calling names, trolling, lying, bashing, "making false claims" etc. What I can say with certainty is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a coloring book and that accessibility is a pretty important issue. You're going to have to provide diffs that support your numerous allegations; the policy issue is not really a concern for ANI because, really, it is a content dispute. Did you try WP:DR, for example? If not, you'll have to substantiate the behavioural concerns that are relevant to this noticeboard otherwise this complaint fails on first principles. Generally, I'd say that the less we use fanciful color schemes in tables etc, the better things will be but it really is not a concern here. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)+

Did you bother to read the talk page (do you really want a diff for each of his edits their past his first edit)? If you don't intend to read the crux of the complaint (the talk page discussion) then why even respond or even read and comprehend the above statement? You are acting as rudely as he was by not following the discussion.

This isn't a content dispute. Why would I go to WP:DR when I was trying to cooperate with bgwhite once he pointed out about the accessibility issue then he edits the page making it harder to retag in some form? --Spshu (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Plus, coming here to admit to edit-warring isn't wise. You made a WP:BOLD change, it was reverted - you're never permitted to revert or re-add, whether it's a new colour or not, unless then have discussed and obtained WP:CONSENSUS on the article talkpage the panda ₯’ 23:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you bother to read any thing! Why are you assuming bad faith? I didn't admit to edit warring where in the world did you get that!?!? Where do you get that you can make false accusation against any one? Once he came and point out about the Accessibility issue, I went to the article to change it. Except he already remove the color (even on the key table), which would mean going back and forth between two screens or rolling back the edits which the Wiki software would not allow. --Spshu (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would have stripped the gray under black as well, as WP:ACCESSIBILITY pretty much says you shouldn't do that, consensus or not. You deny anyone with vision problems the ability to read it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But the remove there of made it more work to implement an alternative tagging that bgwhite then hammers me about. But what he left in its place was just as unreadable by making the information read incorrectly as under WP:ACCESSIBILITY. He mangled the table he even stripped out the color on the Key table, thus indicating that all white cells in the table are license or JV when they are not.

Right here ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disney_Channels_Worldwide&diff=616267928&oldid=616265884 diff: ), I implemented Wikipedia:COLOR#Color (post here for the second time). Spshu (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bgwhite does like to assume bad faith and ignore ongoing discussions and developing consensus. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

1. diff showing me ask a question of bgwhite of what tag would work instead of font, thus showing I am willing to work with him to implement WP:COLOR.
2. diff bgwhite edit of Disney Channels WW that strip out color and as back other incorrect edit (previous names as predecessors, etc.) that I removed
3. diff continued remove the colors even from the color key table thus marking all channels being licensed
4. diff I point out that he has infect stripped out the information with out providing an alternative
5. diff Instead of following the discussion of how to change the table. He states he doesn't care about the content of the article just Accessibility (like some one can not care about both?). He admits that he gets people upset over changing the colors, so what he decides to take an even worst move and obliterate any guide for any one to change to any other markup. In effect, this is clearest effort of the troll like behavior, since there is the direct disregard for the discussion or the article, just to use Accessibility to bash.
6. diff - I point out the error in his edits in that they didn't not even follow some of his points in the previous post. And that might lead to people yelling at him as he indicated before (using bold to emphasize and some creative censorship).
7. false claim of yelling (since I didn't use all caps) "First off, stop shouting and yelling.". False claim that I did not read WP:COLOUR: "It is also obvious you haven't read WP:COLOUR." (How can he know.) Again hammers his points which I asked for alternative for font alternative back in diff 1 in two different points. Then claims he did not remove any thing: "I'm not removing anything." when diffs 2 & 3 clearly show he removed the color. If he didn't why did I need to start reversing edits 1 to get back the color mark up (and remove other erroneous information added back) which the software eventual said I couldn't do so.
8. diff -I give the difference in netiquette between all caps is yelling and bold is for emphasis, so that it is a false claim that I yelled at him. I also point out the rest of his lies then banned him from my talk page.
9. diff in which bgwhite ignores my ban, claims that have "classic internet moronic troll syndrome" thus in effect calls me a "moronic troll". Really a troll for attempting to cooperate and espressing frustration that he doesn't follow his own advice. Again, claims that I was yelling and that I admitted it (claiming that he should be yelled at is not the same as actually yelling at him). Again not what I said. Then claims I was name calling and that I admitted such. No admission at all on my part; it is clearly censored out. Again twist any logic by stating that I read WP:COLOR but didn't read WP:COLOR!?!?! Read is read, not much variance for that. Multiple false claims that should be obvious by now of me "hurting the article as you don't want to follow accessibility guidelines and the five pillars of Wikipedia." Given Pillar 1 is WP is encyclopedia, one should give a care about the content, which is clearly not true in my case, but clear in his case he doesn't nor cares about any one else that cares. Pillar 2, the information was sourced.

• Implementation of wp:Color by my edits: restoring (temporarily the bgcolor/font color) then decoloring with recoding.Spshu (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ducka you heada ... Lola Brigata the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• He didn't call you a troll, he said your behaviour was in some way similar to some trolls. There is a difference. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Chilean vandal returns

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

---

The long-running, IP-hopping vandal from Chile has got a new IP address: Special:Contributions/190.96.33.70. Please block the millionth IP address of this vandal.

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Vandal 201.239.30.37. I think it may be time to contact the ISPs involved and investigate if it is possible to have this user's internet connection cut on the grounds of disruptive behaviour. I know spammers have been blacklisted and had their connections cut by ISPs. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion is here. Blocked for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Sock flare-up

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

---

Hi, can an admin please revdel these edits. The user, Mariootoya30 is a sock of Rodolfootoya12. They should probably have their talk page access revoked since they appear to have sprung up one year after they were blocked apparently to set up for business again. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have revoked talk page access, but I don't believe revdel is called for. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, I appreciate the help. My concern is that the user is known for submitting hoax content. If he were building this content in his sandbox, we'd typically ask for the page to be speedy deleted for being created by a blocked/banned user. My request for revdel is mean to stymie whatever progress he's made, so there's a lesser chance of Finding Stinky appearing on a Cartoon Network article. But if you don't agree, I understand. No biggie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this as well, and decided that the user likely has an offline copy of the material, so revdel would be pointless. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox OS version post-TFD merge dispute

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

---

Hi.

I believe the actions of User:Netoholic has reached a scale that merits being reported to this forum. He contends that the long overdue merger of Template:Infobox OS and Template:Infobox OS version must be carried out; so far so good. Only, in doing that, he significantly changes the contents the affected articles to extent of subverting the factual accuracy. He defies everything said in the TfD and Template Talk:Infobox OS § Completing Infobox OS version merge.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Can you provide the correct diffs because you are talking about multiple pages. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Diffs incoming:

Dispute in Template:Infobox OS: [98], [99], [100], [101]

Talk thread: Template Talk:Infobox OS § Completing Infobox OS version merge

Diffs of hurried edits in article space:

• OS_X_Mountain_Lion [102]
• Project_Xenial [103]
• System_1 [104]
• Windows_2000 [105]
• Windows_95 [106]
• Windows_Embedded_CE_6.0 [107]
• Windows_Embedded_Compact_7 [108]
• Windows_Embedded_Industry [109]
• Windows_Home_Server [110]
• Windows_Home_Server_2011 [111]
• Windows_Phone_8 [112]
• Windows_RT [113]
• Windows_Vista [114]
• Windows_XP [115]

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is fun. I was just creating a report about User:Codename Lisa at the edit warring board, but we can have the discussion here. I work often to help clear the backlog of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. In this case, I started working on the Template:Infobox OS version > Template:Infobox OS merge which was decided at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 24#Template:Infobox OS version (yes, closed by User:Plastikspork almost a full year ago). As you can see, User:Codename Lisa is the only dissenting vote in an otherwise unanimous vote to merge. Skip ahead to yesterday: I spent about half a day testing in the Infobox_OS sandbox, then implemented the change. Several hours later (after making sure nothing negative happened by checking a rather large set of the current articles), I began working on the migration, which required individual editing of each article using Infobox_OS_version. Codename_Lisa reverted every single edit. I posted on Template:Infobox OS asking what the problems were, got some feedback (including a boatload of even more work, but ok). I tested today and implemented the feedback, and began the manual conversion process again (which is much slower, but thorough). And now Codename_Lisa reverted every single edit again, and posted here.

So, TLDR; - the single dissenting vote on a TFD, after almost an entire year of letting the merge go unfinished and resisting it at every step, is now reverting every edit made to actually close the TFD merge. -- Netoholic @ 10:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC) (removed AFK notice) --Netoholic @ 20:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

And yet Jeh and Czarkoff and also disagreeing with you on Template talk:Infobox OS; and you did nearly enter an edit war with Czarkoff on Template:Infobox OS. ([116], [117], [118], [119])

The problem with you is that you are in a big hurry, one that has the potential to hurt many articles. The wisest course of action at this time is a 30-days edit protection on Template:Infobox OS and Template:Infobox OS version, so that you can calm down and talk to us, no just threaten us and ignore us.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; I have placed this paragraph where it would have gone had the conflict not occurred, as I had not seen Netoholic's paragraph below (of 10:29) when I composed this; similarly, Netoholic had not seen this comment when he wrote his of 10:29. This was a follow-on to Codename Lisa's comment of 10:22, so here is where it belongs.)

(Threaten, ignore, AND issue ultimatums to us.) Netoholic: I'd have reverted your extremely WP:POINTy edits to several OS pages this evening if Codename Lisa hadn't. There is clearly no longer consensus for this "merge", not with the template in its present form, perhaps not ever. In insisting on your changes to article pages after you've been reverted once, you are violating WP:BRD. Consensus achieved over a year ago at TfD is ancient history now. Jeh (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Its laughable to say I am in a big hurry when this merge has been pending for about a year. I am just a worker bee, and the feedback (that I've been able to understand from you guys) has been incorporated. I've never encountered this kind of uncooperative attitude while addressing TFD closes before. This feels like just a tactic to stop the consensus merge. I am not involved with the vote, I don't really care, I just implement the decision. --Netoholic @ 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me show you something, "worker bee". Look at this diff in the holding cell: I cleared out Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction after 2.5 years which spun 7000 article but I didn't use swear words, didn't hurry and didn't do a sloppy job as to raise contention.

This template wasn't there for a year; it was there for ten years. Spending a couple more days discussing and planning is in everyone's best interest. Ruining articles just to enforce what you think is correct, without having the input of field editors, is not.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in a big hurry? Just a worker bee? Don't really care? Diff: [120]

Here's the text (emphasis added):

I will give editors a day to implement a version which both implements the Infobox_OS_version parameters and addresses any specific concerns raised above (re: layout, etc.). If no version is live, I will re-implement mine and continue the article work. If editors here continue to act in violation of the consensus decision after that time, I will escalate. There is simply no option to continue to pushback efforts to implement a near-unanimous decision on TFD. -- Netoholic @ 4:53 pm, 9 July 2014, last Wednesday (1 day ago) (UTC−7)

Does this read as if it came from someone who doesn't really care? The bolded phrases show ultimatum and threat, respectively. "Simply no option" to change consensus? Are you really that unaware that consensus can change? ...A point which I raised TWICE on the template talk page. After the second time you simply went ahead with your second batch of WP:POINTy, edits. And there's one count—no, two—on the "ignore" charge. Jeh (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot:

This feels like just a tactic to stop the consensus merge. --Netoholic @ 3:29 am, Today (UTC−7)

And here we have a gross failure to WP:AGF. Honestly, Netoholic, I suggest you apply the first rule of holes. Jeh (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I second Codename Lisa's assessment here. Netoholic is pushing his view of how this merge should be performed, disgusing it under an urgent necessity to complete the merge, which apparently didn't exist 24 hours ago. The particular problems are:

1. from conduct standpoint: rush towards implementation of Netoholic's changes, no respect to consensus about the way merge should be implemented;
2. from content standpoint: his changes to the template that are not connected to the merge, as well as some problematic merge decisions.

I suggest warning Netoholic about consequences of disruptive editing and applying full protection for template:infobox OS until talk page of this templates demonstrates rough consensus in favor of particular implementation (RPP request). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I just want to not waste any more personal time on this particular merge. I'll go back to merging things like nebulae templates - much less vitriol. I think that we editors who volunteer technical effort to help close items at WP:TFD/HC should be given a little latitude in how its accomplished. The goal is to orphan Template:Infobox OS version, that's all. None of my efforts damaged the data integrity of any articles--I would never be satisfied if that had happened. The complaints are more about visual problems, which can be solved post-merge and are decisions I care nothing about. I incorporated as much feedback as was given and related to the merge, the rest is left to these OS template "owners" to decide upon later. --Netoholic @ 20:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I propose that no action is taken. While I could see a suggestion that Netoholic made an error in his communication, It seems that would apply to everyone in the conversation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Rex kool - stupid welcome messages

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

---

Could someone have a look at User:Rex kool please? He has "welcomed" loads of new users with a stupid childish version of the welcome template. Please check the links he has substituted. Contribs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rex_kool but they pretty much all seem to be the same thing. Thanks 77.96.249.228 (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to leave a bit of a milder warning on his page, but it looks like someone decided to cut the crap and bring him here. Hope he cuts it out soon. Baconfry (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks FRF for blocking this user. Is there any way of mass-undoing his vandalism and giving his victims a real welcome? I would start doing it by hand but it's a bit daunting. Thanks 77.96.249.228 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked them temporarily to prevent them from doing it again (so far I count about a hundred). In the "welcome" they are using there's a link that's supposed to go to the signature guidelines but it's been replaced with a link to this userpage. I might be wrong, but maybe they are they subst'ing something that was vandalized. Going back to July 9, this seems OK (ignoring the badly worded "welcome to the Wikipedia" part), yet the next one has the link to the blocked user. There's still quite a bit that will have to be reversed. I'm not sure yet they're doing this on purpose. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but with the greatest respect you are not right about the ones that "seem OK" - check all the links - it's not just whatsit's fanny, it's most of the links. It would be great if they'd somehow innocently used a vandalized template but I do not think that is what happened. Again, seriously, please check all the links. I see Floquenbeam has started reverting - thanks -[ not sure if it is manual or some process. Cheers 77.96.249.228 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Didn't see the other ones. We'll have to revert them all, and they're getting a proper block. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ta! Much appreciated. 77.96.249.228 (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I tagged this userpage the template being used points to for CSD G3. The linked user is a blocked vandal-only account with a BLP violation username. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 20:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. When tagging something by an obvious vandal, you can dispense with the notifications :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that takes care of all of the users he vandalized, went and re-welcomed proper all the users that hadn't already been done. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks very much for all the work. 77.96.249.228 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Block requested for Bwmoll3

(copied here from WT:CP) I've just listed Desperate Journey as a copyvio [at WP:CP]. The infringing content was added by Bwmoll3, a user who has a huge open CCI, and has another (sandbox) copyvio still listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 19. With regret, I request a block until we can determine with absolute certainty whether the behaviour that led to the CCI is continuing or not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please close and delete all my accounts. This source of relaxation has now become more trouble than pleasurable Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• What other accounts do you have? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers is absolutely correct to question the contribution of Bwmmoll3 at Desperate Journey, as the contributed text was taken from Turner Classic Movies, without even a cite. Despite being considered a form of relaxation by Bwmoll3, it shows a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's copyright obligations. Nothing about this kind of editing behavior can be relaxing for the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have confirmed copying that postdates the CCI from a copyrighted source and indefinitely blocked. I'll update the CCI. This one is likely to be tricky as the contributor has a habit of copying from print sources that are not always accessible, although he copies from web sources as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalised user page | Request for a temporary block

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

---

Morayman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalised the user page of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com with this edit. Unacceptable. Looking on Moraymans talk page the user has done a bit of edits but obviously has not spent time to read WP links and rules for edits, contributions etc. or has not the intention to follow these but the links are to be found on his talk page. A temporary block would give the user the time to read these links and/or learn how to edit wikipedia, especially that there are nearly no reasons to edit another user's page. VINCENZO1492 08:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A single inappropriate edit that just blanked a bit of a message on a user page and you want the user blocked?! Nobody is going to block for that, unless it's part of a history of inappropriate edits. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you did not notify Morayman on their user page as you are required to - perhaps *you* should be blocked until you read and understand the rules? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And you've reported to AIV as well, FFS?! — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(1) Oh really? It wasn't a user's talk page. And I thought a user page is a user's page and not for other users. Yes I would expect a block. Its a basic to have hands off that, or?

(2) Your wrong, I did. Not on the user page but on the talk page.

(3) What is FFS? VINCENZO1492 09:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Item (3) would be "For Freak's Sake" or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. Errm, thus I can count that as a WP:PA by Alan / Boing! said Zebedee, who wants me to be blocked as I report vandalism and asking for a reaction? VINCENZO1492 10:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's an interjection, not a personal attack. And I think you're overreacting to an edit that wasn't even on your own user page. Do you find any other apparent vandalisms from that user, or is this an isolated incident? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - got it. Interesting that you think I am overreacting. First of all: I am acting - not reacting. And I am acting because regular interacting in WP with users that are using inappropriate ways of behaviour like in this case Boing! said Zebedee (who's a former admin that is overreacting IMO) makes it more than important that user have their own user's page respected as their digital castle in WP (from my home is my castle, y'all know). And I think every user in WP can expect this (User:Boing! would have added a FFS in this sentence to emphasise what he wants to express). And I think that every user is committed (particularly in his own personal interest) to react immediately when it comes to its attention that another user's page is not respected (i.e. vandalised). VINCENZO1492 10:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vincenzo1492: I suggest that you stop digging. If you continue to lash out at users, someone is eventually going to say that you're being disruptive. From what I can see, User:Morayman is not a serial vandal, and his edit may have been an accident. It's way too premature to seek sanctions against him. However, I have left Morayman a message on his talk page which asks him to stop massively bloating cast lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Vincenzo, when WP:CONSENSUS says you're over-reacting, you likely are :-) . When you forced someone to say "FFS" in exasperation, you're likely over-reacting :-) . A single, lone incident of possible vandalism does NOT require either a) a post to WP:AIV, or b) a post to WP:ANI (or both). Indeed, AIV won't touch it unless it's either extremely severe, OR if it has happened multiple times in succession. Although we appreciate you paying close attention, until the matter becomes significant, your best bet is just that: pay close attention. When it then reaches the common sense threshold for reporting, then we'll appreciate it when you report it to the right place. Again, thanks for keeping an eye on things, and let me know if you have questions on how to proceed in the future the panda ₯’ 11:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing this right now!

• A user made a mistake that looked like vandalism.
• Another user did the right thing, and reported it.
• A tiny wee thing escalated into some minor WP:DONOTREDUCEDRAMAGOD. In Australia this kind of thing is called "playing for sheep stations instead of dilligaf."
• "FFS" means "for fuck's sake". Please proceed in an orderly fashion to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language if you wish to discuss the nuances of cuss words in English and other languages.
• We now return to your regularly scheduled programming. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Ryulong is at it again

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

---

It looks like this editor is up to his old tricks -- getting people banned, accusing other editors of "sockpuppetry" and driving new editors off the site. A quick look at his contribution log will show edit warring with IPs and the like. Pican33 (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pican33: Have you notified Ryulong on his user talk page about this discussion? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, and it's not the first time someone had to deal with this. Look at his editing over the past few hours. Pican33 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious about the motivations of the reporter, Ryulong is a damn fine contributor and helps clean up the mess that is left at anime and related articles occasionally this ruffles a few feathers but I'm ok with ruffled feathers if the articles aren't shit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

His reverts have been over posting information on Power_Rangers:_Dino_Charge, a show that will air in 2015. It is confirmed by sources outside of Wikipedia but he continues to revert any mention of "Dino Charge" from article when he see them posted. Yes, Hell in a bucket, he might be a good contributer but he has trouble getting along with other editors. Pican33 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is edit warring, as I mentioned on the ANV page yesterday regarding the same user, does it not belong at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Dustin (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

He was reported, but he kept kept removing it. Anyone who reports him becomes a "sockpuppet" and the reporter got blocked. Pican33 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 6) The reporter was found to be a sock puppet evading the block imposed on its master from what I can tell. Dustin (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Pican33 is another sockpuppet of the banned user with whom I was edit warring with. Not to mention there is no need to have an article on the next season of Power Rangers when it is more than 6 months away from airing and there is only one reference to support its notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

By the looks of things this was already addressed at ANEW and no action was taken i think we have forum shopping and am inclined to believe ryulongs instincts. . Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Pican33 saw fit to remove himself and another suspected sockpuppet from an SPI I opened. This just really shows that he is indeed the user in question and should be blocked as soon as possible. Not to mention that this thread should be closed because it was opened by a banned user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Enough of this noise. Both Pican33 (talk · contribs) and GSS-5377 (talk · contribs) are socks and have been blocked as such. Tiptoety ^talk 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I do think it is strange that the Pican33 account would have been created so long beforehand, though. If that is all, then no more discussion is necessary? Dustin (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's called a sleeper account. CheckUser has  Confirmed both accounts. There is nothing left to discuss. Tiptoety ^talk 16:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at this investigation? [[121]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Braveheart5050

Hi

Reporting this editor as they are editing against consensus.

There is consensus at WP:EE that non-important family members are not mentioned in the infobox. The concensus is that they have to have shared a scene. This is to save the infobox becoming cluttered.

On Mo Harris the editor keeps adding the name Joanne to the infobox. Despite this being against consensus. There is a discussion at user talk: AnemoneProjectors where both AP and myself have tried to explain the consensus. However I've been met with nothing other than attacks and threats of vandalism to my talk page unless I let the editor edit against consensus.

I'm looking for some third party intervention please 5 albert square (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He seems to have already been blocked for NPA the panda ₯’ 23:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Only for 48 hours. After that they will be back editing as before 5 albert square (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So we're supposed to punitively block for further time? WP:DR lays out the processes for situations like this - we're nowhere near ANI territory yet. RFPP, AIV (if the vandalism actually occurs)...all options. If it escalates, we'll be here the panda ₯’ 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

AIV referred me here. No problem I'll lock the page myself if it carries on 5 albert square (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian IP hopping vandal

• 49.193.109.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.193.99.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.193.111.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.193.104.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.39.246.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.39.227.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.39.251.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.39.249.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.161.68.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.161.234.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.175.30.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.187.169.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.218.249.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.214.104.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Prosecreator listed these in March:

• 110.147.202.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 58.168.15.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 58.167.94.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.190.178.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 58.165.217.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 110.146.154.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.218.162.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The changes are often superficially plausible; human and bot patrollers are prone to miss them. In addition, the target articles are often unsourced, requiring a google search to identify vandalism. Trivial and seemingly constructive edits are mixed in. The IP hopping often has the effect of burying old vandalism.

There are so many of these IPs -- the above is just a sample -- and so many music-related pages have been affected. Looking at the history of any affected article will usually reveal more of them. It's not clear whether range-blocking or massive page protections (or both) is in order. vzaak 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Do be careful with allegations of deliberate IP hopping. Unfortunately, Telstra, Australia's biggest ISP, and the ISP which seems to be mostly involved here, gives its customers new IP addresses every time they reconnect. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it is deliberate or not. This is behavior-based, with IPs editing the same music-related articles and making the same kinds vandalism edits. See here for precedent. vzaak 01:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the behaviour is what needs to be discussed. I'm just pointing out that the "IP hopping", two of the four words in the heading, is probably not part of the user's behaviour. Maybe the heading should change to reflect just the problem with the edits. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many IPs, otherwise I would post to AIV and be done with it. The behavior is IP hopping, whether purposefully done or not. I don't care about hurting the vandal's feelings with the possible insinuation that the hopping may be deliberate. vzaak 01:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point. The problem created by the user is the vandalism. That we don't have an easy solution because the editor's ISP changes his IP address frequently is OUR problem. They are two entirely separate issues, only one of which is part of the (alleged) unacceptable behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would they be reconnecting multiple times a day? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't make the assumption that dial-up services have disappeared. I'm willing to bet that once you get 100 kilometers from the coast, that and satellite service will be all you find in Australia. Both services would tend to reconnect far more often than the DSL and cable services that dominate in the US and Europe.—Kww(talk) 03:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have a static IP, but my router goes down on the average of every couple of days (gotta get a new one). If my IP was not static, I assume that every time it reconnected it would be a new number. BMK (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many DHCP servers will not return an IP address to the pool of assignables for some period of time after a disconnection. This can be hours or even days during which a reconnect from the same MAC will result in assignment of the same address. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Although having a lengthy lease time makes sense in an intranet, unused IPs are wasted money for ISPs. It's in the ISP's financial interests to recycle IPs as quickly as they can in order to maximise their (customers):(size of IP pool) ratio. There's no advantage to an ISP in having long leases. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this issue was discussed on Discospinster's page a few weeks ago: [122].

Examples of pages affected:

• List of songs about Toronto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Play School (Australian TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Now: The Hits of Spring 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sydney New Year's Eve 2004–05 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The last article is an example of how the IP hops have likely caused older vandalism to be missed. Should I list more articles for an admin to protect, or list more IPs for a better understanding of what range blocks might be appropriate, or should I ignore the matter altogether? vzaak 12:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Vzaak I am happy to semiprotect or PC popular ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

IP hopping editor evades blocks, disrupts multiple articles, etc.

There's a disruptive IP editor, currently editing as 90.196.3.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who targets martial arts films, and his edits are becoming increasingly frustrating. He generally engages in edit wars over genre, but he also changes sourced text to incorrect values, removes valid cleanup templates, removes requests to use national variations of English, does whatever the hell he's doing in this edit, and never uses edit summaries. His edits are highly disruptive, and he constantly evades blocks. I'm not quite sure how to demonstrate that last one with a diff, but it's fairly obvious from Puncture Wounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and I Come in Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where I have labeled such edits. Short of having every Dolph Lundgren, Sammo Hung, and Jackie Chan article semi-protected, I'd like to investigate the possibility of a range block. Given the wide variety of IP addresses, I guess there probably isn't much chance, but his known IP addresses include:

• 2.124.213.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.127.228.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.127.230.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.216.204.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.223.225.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.195.176.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.197.98.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.200.85.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.200.85.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.205.208.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.205.210.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.211.105.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.218.116.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.0.242.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.2.192.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.7.102.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 176.251.46.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some of his edits are vandalism, some of them are constructive, but the vast majority are edit warring over film genre. See also this sock puppet investigation, which documents disruptive editing since 2011. If a range block is out of the question, should I re-open the SPI? I'm not sure what else to do except file a new report at WP:ANEW or WP:AIV every 72 hours when he changes IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I went through this IP's contributions, only correcting what was blatant vandalism, and the IP reverted me every time. In one of my edit summaries I sad "if you disagree take it to the talk page" and have left two notices on their talk page, yet no communication on their side has been attempted. At least block this IP for a lengthy amount of time, as they are WP:NOTHERE. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 90.196.3.222 for one week, but I don't see how that will stop the hopping tendencies. I think range blocks won't work here because of the broad range of IPs, so does anyone have an idea how to stop this? If there was a specific pattern being applied by this user we might write an edit filter. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is to either monitor all of their known IPs and block them the instant they vandalize, or semi-protect all of the articles within the IPs interest. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

However, after going through all of the talk pages of these IPs, all of them have multiple warnings about vandalism/disruptive editing and many have been blocked in the past and even recently, although the longest block was only two weeks. I'm in favor of preemptively blocking all of them for at least three months. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would accomplish anything. They're throwaway IP addresses that he doesn't reuse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying better safe than sorry. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll even cite WP:GAV. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, GAV suggests something that I've considered off-and-on for about a month: reporting the user to his/her ISP as a persistent, block-evading vandal. I'm not sure they'd really care, but it's an option. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this guy is so persistent means that something needs to be done. The best I can do is immediately report any IP that edits in his style. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a highly dynamic IP. He is constantly being assigned a new IP, sometimes as many as three times a week. Here's the deal on the IPs in the above list:

IPs used on which dates

90.200.85.80 - October 17, 2013 90.200.85.196 - October 28, 2013 90.195.176.24 - December 17-20, 2013 2.127.228.78 - January 1-2, 2014 2.216.204.97 - January 23-28, 2014 176.251.46.19 - April 9-14, 2014 2.127.230.64 - April 17-21, 2014 2.124.213.167 - May 3-4, 2014 90.218.116.10 - May 19-21, 2014 94.0.242.227 - May 28-29, 2014 90.211.105.144 - June 4, 2014 2.223.225.29 - June 7-8, 2014 90.197.98.22 - June 8, 2014 90.205.208.98 - June 11-13, 2014 94.2.192.7 - June 14-20, 2014 90.205.210.134 - June 27-28, 2014

Once an IP has been assigned, the user never seems to get that IP again. Thus blocking the above IPs will not stop the problem or even slow it down. The use will never even notice that the IPs have been blocked, because the next time they fire up their computer, they're assigned a new IP. The service provider seems to have access to several unrelated ranges, which means there's no possibility for any range blocks either. My suggestion is to promptly report vandalistic edits to AIV as soon as they occur, and request page protection on five or ten of his favourite target articles. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How do they change IPs so frequently? And yes, the best thing to do is to protect articles that he usually vandalizes. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The user is not changing the IP; his internet service provider is assigning him a different IP each time he accesses the internet. This is called a dynamic IP. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Roger that, thanks. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish more of his edits were obvious vandalism. It would make reporting him a lot easier. Many of his edits are disruptive in ways that don't individually break policy. It's tough to convince an admin to block his new IP addresses for longer than 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In the past, I've been able to dissuade such behaviour by getting the main articles semi-protected. Good luck. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Evading block

LouisAragon (talk · contribs) was blocked for abusing multiple accounts [123] but he has continued (with IP) vandalizing, edit-warring and POV pushing [124] [125] [126] on the same pages.

The IP is in fact LouisAragon, you can easily notice this by comparing edit summaries and the specific pages being edited:

• IP: "Very South Asian wishful type of PoV written..."
• IP: "Rv; edit based on personal opinion"
• LouisAragon: "WP:UNDO; unsourced PoV edits based on personal opinion"
• LouisAragon: "Rv; do you even look at what you're reverting"

He stated to admin on his talk page "I was on holiday. Sorry for that" [127] but evidence suggests that he has been evading a block and still editing.--39.47.212.219 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin to close a discussion please?

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

---

A discussion has been on going now since MARCH on a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BBC_One#Splitting and I have sent messages to other people to try and get them to respond etc, but after four months only seven people have past comment, with 80% opposing the idea. Can an admin please close the discussion, so we can move on for this? The Idea was first suggested by a user who is now banned for socks. Thanks --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Problem IP editor on BLP - NAGF, BATTLEGROUND, possible LIBEL

Very aggressive IP editor (98.100.23.77) on Talk:Jenny_McCarthy#RFC not assuming good faith, attacking every single comment on the RfC they started, and making borderline libelous claims about a BLP (frankly that "body count" website is libelous imho). Same IP editor was edit warring before the page was protected and the RfC initiated. Requesting an admin look over the situation. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

>I never deleted anyone's article or sources or talk page content, but EvergreenFir can't state the same honestly. The problem editor from the beginning has been EvergreenFir, who deleted talk page content and then repeatedly deleted article content that meets wiki standards. I did not start the rfc and merely followed the advice of a wiki editor - EvergreenFir's distortion on this is an easily discoverable fact and is typical of his/her approach on this matter, but I gladly embrace it since EvergreenFir deleted all previous attempts to discuss a key issue. My tenacity in applying and defending wiki standards should not be perceived negatively. The accusation of libel is extreme and unsupported but typical of EvergreeFir's tactics. I also call for a higher authority to defend wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? Not sure what my typical tactics are... and I never said you deleted anything. You did start the RfC (see this edit). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington Post article restates Jenny McCarthy's wrongheaded idea that vaccinations cause autism. Then it goes on to report some stats about kids who weren't vaccinated. The BLP violation is the attempt to essentially blame Jenny McCarthy for it. That's called "connecting the dots" or "original synthesis". Huff Post might be able to get away with it. Wikipedia cannot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting this ANI for the editor's behavior, not the validity of the RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring to re-insert original synthesis qualifies as bad behavior. The IP is on a crusade of some kind, trying to blame Jenny McCarthy for 1,000 kids dying. That kind of charge could definitely subject Wikipedia to serious legal trouble, if her attorneys cared to do so. Better safe than sorry. Put the IP crusader on ice for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And then bludgeoning the process in the RFC. I think this dude needs to take a vacation from the article, and if he won't do so voluntarily, then he should be assisted by a friendly admin. You know who this IP editor reminds me of? User:MilesMoney. I hated contributing to talk pages (and especially RFCs) when he was involved, because you knew that you were going to get a tl;dr, POV rant affixed to every comment that he disagreed with. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP became rather more active on January 29, the same day MilesMoney made has last edit. I haven't yet looked to see if they have common interests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. Miles was more of a political POV warrior than anything else. It's possibly him, but there isn't really enough political POV warring to make a formal accusation. The IP editor has defended the Huffington Post as a reliable source and accused other editors of political censorship, which set off warning bells, but I'd probably want to see some edit warring on Ayn Rand, Austrian School, or Far right politics before I said it was anything close to a duck. This guy skirts the edges of Miles' behavior without ever actually reaching the dizzying levels of disruption that Miles did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I see they've got the page fully protected, which is OK, but it's not necessary, as it's only the IP that's pushing for this BLP violation. Semi-protection would be enough. I just wonder why the IP isn't blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to agree with Bugs, but the IP needs to be blocked already. --Malerooster (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Trolling, CIR or warrior? It's hard to tell, but it hardly matters. A block followed by a leash just long enough to hang themselves. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, the admins will take immediate appropriate action. Other times, they like to sit back and watch the troll trying to hang himself. This appears to be one of the latter situations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP's actions on the talk page indicates all of the aforementioned three. I have repeatedly told the IP that it was nothing but fancruft and undue, but he/she took it as otherwise. I have identified the IP of having a conflict of interest against McCarthy and her anti-vaccination protest against vaccines causing autism. So absolutely, they may want to reconsider their actions or face a block for edit warring. IPadPerson (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I take issue on a technicality: Posting material that implies the subject is responsible for 1,000 deaths doesn't seem like something a fan of the subject would do, so Wikipedia:Fancruft isn't really the right term. But there's no question it's a BLP violation and can't be allowed. The IP has been silent today, so maybe this will go away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Metamodernism edit conflict is getting out of hand... again

This time over at the SPI on User:Festal82. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festal82. I'd appreciate it if someone would just put their foot down already. This nonsense was out of hand almost a week ago and it needs to end here. Inanygivenhole (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by user Festal82

Festal82 is in clear contravention of WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING and WP:PERSONAL here [128], making blatant, baseless accusations and personal attacks against myself and others, accusing me of either being someone I am not, or speculating about my location (bafflingly, simply because I'm familiar with a subject he claims almost nobody in the US has heard of--despite the fact that it had an exhibition at a major New York museum devoted to it in 2011, etc.). He has also taken this WP:OUTING to another user's talk page here [129], as well as repeated WP:GAMING behavior on Talk:Metamodernism, attacking other users by repeatedly misrepresenting their edits, and even admitting to playing games such as "reverse psychology" (his words) to get his own way here [130]. Despite the measured responses and numerous warnings from myself and other editors going back weeks, Festal82 has persisted in these attacks, which according to the guidelines at WP:OUTING is "grounds for an immediate block". I agree with Inanygivenhole that this absolutely needs to end here, not least because this personal harassment is extremely unpleasant to have to continually deal with, and is stifling any discussion of the actual content of the Wiki article. Esmeme (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As per some comments he's directed at me on Talk:Metamodernism and my own talk page, he seems to think there is some kind of conspiracy working against him (though quite a few of his posts are too long and vague to decipher any kind of clear point out of them). I would also like to point out that, because Festal82 is a single-purpose account dedicated to POV pushing on Metamodernism, he gives off a general vibe of WP:NOTHERE. felt_friend 14:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm at my wit's end. Any review of the "Talk" page at metamodernism will reveal that the above two users, Inanygivenhole in particular, have been harassing me for weeks as I've tried to make substantive edits to an article they feel passionately about. Esmeme has accused me, in violation of WP:OUTING, of being Seth Abramson; Inanygivenhole has accused me, in violation of WP:OUTING, of being Timotheus Vermeulen. Inanygivenhole has violated WP:HARASS by appending warning tags to all my comments, starting investigations about me on multiple pages that have consistently been shot down by WP administrators, and trying to foment anger against me by other users. Esmeme has maded editing of the metamodernism article a pure misery by insisting that the only usage of a philosophical concept that can be mentioned on Wikipedia is one tied to a single non-WP:N blog run out of England; I have indeed suggested that Esmeme might have special affinity for that blog, as I can't for the life of me figure out any other reason someone who wanted to edit a WP article on metamodernism would delete, en masse, perfectly good and incredibly substantive articles about the topic on WP:N media like Indiewire, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, the Journal of American Studies, The International Journal of African Historical Studies, PMLA, Contemporary Literature, and elsewhere. This is a clear instance of WP:GAMING--these two editors are trying to eliminate the account of an editor with whom they have substantive disagreements, even though those disagreements are based on careless citations of important WP principles like WP:SYNTH (a WP policy these two editors have used to insist that any article on a philosophical concept be about only one reading of or usage of that concept, otherwise the entirety of an article on it violates WP:SYNTH). When I've tried to reason with these editors, for instance by begging them to consider how analagous articles like modernism and postmodernism are handled, Inanygivenhole told me to "stop running my mouth" and repeated more than 10 times (across multiple comments) demands that I stop "straw manning him"--a usage of that idiom that in this context makes no sense to me. The one editor who has no involvement in any of this but has looked into it extensively, Rhododendrites, has concluded that the above two editors are deliberately harassing me, and has told them so, and has asked them to stop. Instead, they've come here to see if they can strike up more mischief. This is exhausting, humiliating, and undeserved--and I'm begging for the assistance of a WP administrator at this point. I thought I could weather this, but as any review of the "Talk" page on metamodernism will reveal, I may at times be long-winded and over-thorough, but I've done nothing to deserve this sort of treatment. My edits to metamodernism have not only been in good faith but neutral, fully sourced, and as much as possible efforts to reflect consensus from the "Talk" page. I beg WP not to let substantive editing disputes become grounds for editors on one side of a debate to terrorize the others. Especially when it devolves, as it has in this instance, to Inanygivenhole alleging that I am fourteen different sock puppet accounts with absolutely no evidence or basis whatsoever. Investigating someone to death over nothing is the worst form of bullying--I know that now. Festal82 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You cannot hide behind personal attacks, incoherent rambling, and vague accusations of "bullying" forever. We're tired of you Festal. We're tired of being met with a wall of text every time we disagree with you in the slightest. We're tired of your page-long, incoherent screeds. We're tired of you thinking you WP:OWN the page. We're tired of you acting like the opinions of other editors don't matter, which you show every time you straw man them. We're tired of your personal attacks. We're tired of your hipocrisy. We're tired of your drama. Most of all, we're tired of YOU Festal. (NB: uninvolved editors, all of Festals attacks and other inappropriate editing patterns take place almost excusively at Talk:Metamodernism.) This ends right here, right now. Put up or shut up Festal. If you're going to publicly accuse me of something, at least have the decency to provide diffs for your baseless accusations. Inanygivenhole (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

On edit to address Felt friend, the third person who was warned by Rhododendrites to stop harassing me: Proof that these are simply editors on one side of a dispute trying to vanguish disagreement is that Esmeme, a user Felt friend writes here in support of, is also an SPA working only on metamodernism, a fact Felt friend somehow left out in accusing me, but not Esmeme--whose edits Felt friend prefers to mine--of WP:NOTHERE. Felt friend, like the other two editors above, has been shot down everywhere s/he has attempted to take this unusual form of harassment, and so now s/he is here to cast additional aspersions that don't touch the central fact that all of my edits have been neutral and fully sourced and simply don't meet the approval of these three accounts. Festal82 (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been editing that page frequently lately, but I don't understand how I could be considered an SPA seeing as I have an edit history that predates that page. Also, I don't recall bringing the issue to anywhere else other than this thread on RSN, and that had nothing to do with you on a personal level. I'm sorry that you feel as though you are being attacked, but I will just speak for myself here and make it clear that I have no malicious intentions. felt_friend 14:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again: I very clearly referred (above) to Esmeme as an SPA, not you. In any case, if you're not looking to participate in this any further, beyond the accusation you made...just yesterday...that I'm the account "Metamodernwoman," which I am of course not--just as I wasn't the last 14 accounts I was accused of being--I'm satisfied. Festal82 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Again Festal is trying to drag me into some kind of conspiracy here, fabricating stories of me unilaterally deleting things that I have not, but my own edit history, and the blatant WP:HARASS and WP:OUTING found here [131] speaks for itself. To save being dragged into yet another never ending spiral of retaliatory abuse from Festal, I am going to simply leave those links above and rest my case. Esmeme (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Esmeme at least as to this much, with one exception: I'm not going to provide a hand-picked link to try to mischaracterize by omission a dispute that's been going on for many weeks now. I urge anyone looking at this to look at the entire "Talk" page on metamodernism, the edit histories of the parties, the appeals made by other parties to various administrators, and so on. Most of all, I hope any WP administrators who do take the time out to do all this will look at the most important thing, the thing all of the above editors tellingly elide from their complaints: the present state of the metamodernism article. An article that between April and May and June received a total of 12 warning tags from the WikiProject:Philosophy Group for the sorts of WP violations the editors above approved (single-sourced article, exclusive use of primary sources, opposition to divergent viewpoints, et cetera) is now in the best shape it has ever been in. Which is what I thought we were all here to do anyway--build an encyclopedia. And if the editors above would put aside these bullying tactics and this persistent harassment, we could get back to it. Festal82 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Could we get an admin to take a look at this? This is devolving into Festal arguing with everyone again, and we've all seen that plenty of times now. Inanygivenhole (talk)

My two cents

As another editor to this article, not in my admin capacity or anything but all sides need to stop with the WP:OUTING and SPA accusations. I'd ask an independent admin to consider reviewing those all and likely closing them all. I'm puzzled that more has been said here than at the talk page (let alone actual revisions to the article). I have no idea how people can write pages about what people intend to do with the article after adding or changing maybe a sentence. It may require more collapsing of off-topic commentary on others than anything. Editing-wise there's not an lot of reversions or edit-warring just contention on the talk page that's entirely unnecessary to me. I think all parties agree that the article is better so I think if people stopped trying to figure out big picture rewriting of the subject and just work sentence by sentence, I think we'll all be better off. I ask everyone to drop all accusations and WP:AGF going forward. Comment on content, not contributors and I'll ask the same I ask of everyone: rather than describing what you think should be done, be bold, try it out and if it's revised/disputed in full, then elaborate on your reasoning. The naval gazing pre-editing discussing is where things tend to devolve, particular given how much is purely an argument about metamodernism itself rather than the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I agree and that sounds good to me. Festal82 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see someone understands (roughly) what is going on and is making an effort to tidy up the article. Would page protection be any help? Deb (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree Ricky81682, and it's great to get a independent set of eyes on this Deb, thanks! There has recently been page protection, but it didn't stop the disruptive behavior of Festal on the talk page. I think it's fair to say that progress on the page is being made despite Festal, not because of him, as all other editors (with varying views) seem capable of communicating their improvements sensibly and finding consensus. I hope that an independent admin can take a look at the repeated WP:HARASS abuses I described above and appropriate action can be taken so we can all move on, since the repeated nature of these abuses--despite warnings going back weeks--prevents WP:AGF with this particular user, and the harassment and bizarre mudslinging is personally extremely unpleasant to deal with, and feels like it is designed to somehow intimidate me and others out of having any disagreements with the POV he is pushing. Esmeme (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"I have no idea how people can write pages about what people intend to do with the article after adding or changing maybe a sentence." Very keen assessment, Ricky. We've spoken about what to do with the comments a little on my talk and I think it would be good to repeat it here, for I think it suffices as a statement:

"Those discussions were not done at the time, Festal merely refused to comment on them, explicitly saying that he was ignoring several of us. They still aren't done really (though the new page makes many of them moot points), but I've given up hope of Festal ever responding to them. Several of those comments, however, are still quite relevant to the state of the article.

I agree, the length is imposing and uneccessary, but since Festal wasn't responding to the issues at hand (and since, when he did respond at all, it was usually a page-long, single-paragraph, semicoherent screed, and it sometimes wasn't even very related to what was being discussed), the conversation went every which way and people restated them elsewhere and in different ways. I'm not sure that there is really any way to determine which parts are still relevant and which aren't." Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

David Horvitz

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

---

A few years ago, I had been part of a group who uncovered a campaign by David Horvitz to have photographs of himself looking at various beaches along the California coast posted on Wikipedia. This culminated in this deletion discussion at the Commons (there may have been a discussion regarding the photos locally but I cannot seem to find it). Horvitz then turned this into an art project when every single photo he had uploaded got deleted, but it turns out that he fully intended to reupload everything.

Binksternet recently uncovered the disruption had happened once more locally and on the Commons with a slew of sockpuppets that he has been documenting at his talk page. I also uncovered other photographs he had posted across the project and other language projects, as he did in his previous disruption in 2011. This has disruption occuring from the past 2 years, including photographs of similar quality taken of his international journeys including one of a beach in Hong Kong. I also discovered that Horvitz had been contributing to Wikipedia as early as 2006 under the account Rasputinfa, which he had explicitly linked to his own name. There was also some minor disruption late last year when he used an intern to get his article deleted.

I am proposing that we officially ban David Horvitz from the English Wikipedia. We should also attempt to coordinate bans on other projects, as he has uploaded his photographs for a beach in Hong Kong for which there is only an article on the Chinese Wikipedia as well as constant disruption to the Commons, but I am not as well versed in the means to get that sort of ball rolling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Something fishy on Pelican State beach and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Attention Wikipedia - you have been conquered,,,.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Whale Beach (Nevada) has a photo of a naked guy facing, thankfully, away from the viewer, looking out to the water. The camera is not the same model as the ones Horvitz has used (usually a Canon EOS 40D professional or Canon PowerShot consumer model), but the layout of the photos and the physicality of the person is the same. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So he actually created a whole new article just to host a selfie.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And it's a crap selfie at that. Between the dust circles, sharpness, exposure settings, lens choice... while I agree with some of this guy's compositional and subject choices in some of the images displayed at that "art project" page, this is just dreck being passed off as fine photography. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question I understand people are miffed, but I'm not sure I see the disruption. (I read the discussion at the time, but it's a distant memory.) If he is replacing pictures with worse ones just to have his picture included, then it's disruption, regardless of whether it's art, self promotion, or exhibitionism. If on the other hand the pictures are improving the articles, then we should offer a lukewarm welcome... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

He's using Wikipedia to promote himself and his work by only uploading photographs of himself at these various locations with his back turned to the camera, forcing editors who want to use the photos to crop them to where the subject is himself absent from the photos. Or his odd artistic photos like the one he had at melancholic depression for 2 years of him fake sobbing into his hands, the photo he posted at solitude of just himself standing on a beach with no one else, or this photo of himself looking at a sculpture. There is no point to any of the photos he has uploaded here or at the commons other than making sure that he is included in them.

He was not welcome 3 years ago when he was indefinitely blocked. He is not welcome now that he's spent the past 3 years using sockpuppets to discreetly reupload everything that had been deleted and then go out to more locations to take more photos of himself in the same manner and then post them to Wikipedia, making screencaps of them prominent in his artwork and his fame. If he wanted to be welcomed by the community his homepage would not have a screenshot of our article on the Irish coastal town of Howth with a photo of him looking out at Dublin Bay with his back facing the camera to gloat about how he's fooled Wikipedia again. He made it his full intention to disrupt Wikipedia after we gave him the boot, and immortalized our words in his gallery when we realized we had been had.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's still not clear how we are "fooled", or how anyone is "forced" to crop his images (though go ahead if the results are better, it is a moments work after all). It's rather like saying one has "hacked" Wikipedia when one edits an article to improve it. And maybe someone should tell him about the "preview" feature if he just wants screencaps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

He had his photos on the project for the past 2 years after we found out about his "Public Access" installation that he was using Wikipedia for and had them all deleted the first time around. Then his first act after whatever automatic block expired was to add back the photo that led to the discovery of his stupid art project in the first place. And no, screencaps aren't what he wants. He wants to have photos of himself on the various Wikipedia articles live by being in the photographs. That's why he added the photo to Howth. That's why when he went to Hong Kong, he took a photo on a beach there and then added it to the Chinese Wikipedia page as the top image on the article. He's not here to contribute. He's here to disrupt and have his backside across Wikimedia projects. The fact that we could not catch this two years ago means that there are an untold number of lovely photographs of beaches across Wikipedia and its sister projects that have the same man looking at the horizon away from the camera just because he wants to make a statement about web 2.0.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question - Is there a policy reason why he was not notified of this discussion, or was that just an oversight? He should have been notified, and has been. It is important for anyone reporting a disruptive editor to be sure that they follow both the spirit and the letter of our policies and guidelines. Was he not notified for a reason, or by oversight? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Robert; as you saw, I directed his talk page to the conversation, but with the "gaggle of sockpuppets" Modus operandi he uses, creating a whole slew of accounts, often only using the account to upload 3 photos then its never used again, how do you really notify "him", he is Wikipedia:Gaming the system, an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards. talk→ WPPilot  03:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question(s). Ryulong mentioned above that this person has been indefinitely banned. Was that ban lifted at some point? If not, then this discussion really is pointless: using socks to avoid a ban is not permitted (to put it mildly) & they should be blocked on sight & his edits reverted. If his ban was lifted, then what was the rationale? (I'll confess -- my opinion on this issue echoes Rich Farmborough's if he's not banned. However, if he's evading an indefinite ban then all efforts to block him are justified.) Lastly, if he was banned here on en.wikipedia, but not at Commons, wouldn't a more accurate response to be banning any reuse of his images from there without some kind of community approval? -- llywrch (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  I did not say that he has been banned. He was never formally banned. There were simply several sockpuppets that were discovered 3 years ago that were blocked. This discussion exists to formally ban him and coordinate bans on the other projects to ensure that his low quality but artistic photos not end up on every single article on a California beach or some other random articles regarding types of clinical depression or abstract concepts like loneliness.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Ban?

• Support ban. This guy is an outstanding example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He has been socking for years now, with no indication of quitting. Let's get the proper leverage to rush his stuff out the door immediately in the future. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban per Binksternet talk→ WPPilot  20:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban. I agree with the two prior users on this question. Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Using Wikipedia for pranks or promotion is unhelpful, and it is obvious the user will never voluntarily stop—if they got one selfie on every article, they would then want two. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban as per proposer. Disruptive and narcissistic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Has anyone ever been banned from Commons? It's a real question, even although I think I know the answer. I think that Commons is a cesspool, but that is my opinion, and the WMF's problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes. BMK (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, definitely. A user named Xanderliptak comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  That was the name I couldn't come up with!! But I've heard of others as well. One was mentioned recently on AN or AN/I, where it was commented that they were banned for X behavior on Commons and now the editor was doing the same thing here. Can;t remember that name either. BMK (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Has he not figured out Flickr yet ... or even The Yellow Pages ? ... Anyway there's only so much rope one can offer till it runs out!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Ryūlóng and Binksternet. Long term misuse of the project for self promotion and some sort of personal project using Wikipedia as performance art through years of socking.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban Horvitz is not here to improve this encyclopedia, but rather to promote his self-absorbed absurdist art project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I thought this was already done with, long ago. Close the book on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The pictures should be the stars alone on Wikipedia, not be some artist's bizarre opportunity to insert themselves to make unneeded social commentary. Nate • (chatter) 07:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though only because of the crap images and promotional intent. There were a number of decent images that just happened to have the same person in there. Such an insertion could absolutely be useful to give a sense of scale in landscape photos (and these seem to be the photos that were the focus of the "art project" linked above). In other words, I do not consider landscape images featuring a person standing in them to be disruptive per se, and I would oppose the adoption of a rule of that character. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose reluctant to disagree with esteemed worthies above, but until there is demonstrable (or should I say demonstrated) disruption, I see no reason to ban. The guy is interested in California beaches, we need articles on them which he is prepared to start. Win-win. If we don't like his photo's we can crop or replace. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
  

  He's not interested in California beaches. He's interested in Web 2.0 and disrupting Wikipedia by having his posterior side on as many pages as possible, or his face in his hands on several articles on depression.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, agressive promoting of own pictures is a big problem on Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban - He's obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and we can do without the disruption.- MrX 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban - I found a couple more of his photos just now and started DNs. This user (group of socks on hand of one user) is not here to contribute, but to disrupt and use for self-promotional purposes. I will look at every beach photo from now on for his bum. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support though it will probably have the same effect as banning Putin from your restaurant - in other words, none. Someone who is socking like he is seems unlikely to stop when we throw a ban at them. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, but there's a greater chance of Mr. Horvitz uploading his photos for use on Wikipedia, again, than Putin going to Buffalo and buying a taco.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Wry amusement. Great discussion. You made me smile.--Nowa (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Okay, this user is claiming to be Mr. Horvitz in his recent edits. It is clear that he's just here to gloat and he has more accounts than previously accounted for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  The User:Nowa account has been in use for a while now.[132] User_talk:Nowa#Personal_information.3F: in that conversation the user claims that his true ID had already been made public. talk→ WPPilot  08:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Then what's with this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  I agree, in that is a admission of his/that users ID. talk→ WPPilot  18:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't get it. Is Nowa or is Nowa not another account operated by the photographer David Horvitz?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  This is just another component of his manipulation of Wikipedia. It is safe to accept the admission of Nowa=David Horvitz taking into consideration now the number of admissions, as well as the users history editing the David Horvitz page. talk→ WPPilot  21:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Nowa is a longstanding Wikipedia contributor, a patent holder and patent attorney who happens to hold the same name as the bothersome photographer. Don't ban Nowa! We don't need collateral damage against good editors. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  If he was a good editor he wouldn't be trolling this thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  Does it occur to you that what you call "trolling this thread" might be a form of commentary, and maybe the only form of commentary appropriate to the tenor of this thread?--Theredproject (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  If he has nothing other than amusement to be had at the discussion at hand then it's not really appropriate behavior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rich Farmbrough and per some of the photographs which are absolutely stunning. Caden ^cool 18:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  They really weren't. Really. None of them were candidates for featured, or even quality pictures. At 100% they all had awful quality problems (typically bad exposure, terrible edge sharpness and chromatic aberrations, indicative of using a kit lens to shoot landscapes, which should be sharp from end-to-end). While I thought some might be retainable, they were almost all duplicative of higher quality work we had elsewhere on Commons. It's essentially the same rationale as COM:PENIS: unless there's some overriding reason, we don't need yet another picture of some random guy's genitals, or some random guy's vacation picture of something we already have plenty of. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  And nearly all of the photos are unusable if they are cropped because he places himself in the middle of all of the landscapes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if “stunning” is the right word but some images are museum quality. See Mood Disorder which is currently under consideration for undeletion so it can be included in his bio.--Nowa (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  It's only under undeletion because you requested it and it's only in a museum because of the disruption of Wikipedia. So are you or are you not Mr. Horvitz who is going to be subject to this ban?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  This is fascinating. If I say nothing, would you ban me?--Nowa (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  That's up to the community. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  OK, then I think I'll just wait and see what the community decides.--Nowa (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Bans are applied to people behind accounts, not individual accounts, so whether or not you are the photographer named David Horvitz will have no impact on the result of this discussion to ban him from Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  I agree with User:Ryulong, User:Nowa is just trolling this thread. If he's just going to continue to make unhelpful comments, that makes him WP:NOTHERE in my book. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support for ban - I was on the fence about this, the "disruption" seemed minimal to me, but based on his behavior in this thread (there's little doubt that Nowa is Horvitz), it's clear that this person's entire purpose is to troll and disrupt Wikipedia for the fun of it - so let's please ban him so getting rid of his "contributions" will be that much easier. BMK (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear BMK, Nowa is not Horvitz. Nowa is an editor who has taken an interest in protecting the David Horvitz page, and thus has made constructive edits to that page. The vast majority of Nowa's edits are to other pages, far afield from this topic. So your vote is made on false pretenses.--Theredproject (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I got suspicious too and looked into Nowa's past. But Nowa is a long time editor (over 9 years) with a variety of contributions to Wikipedia, both in article and non-article space, and even earned a few barnstars in appreciation for work done. You can disagree with Nowa's opinions here but don't mistake who they are, this is an editor in good standing. (A couple of copyright concerns years ago and a recent warning about COI but no formal warnings or blocks, which is remarkable to me.) -- Atama頭 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• All that being said, it was still dumb to come here and start making comments which might lead others to think that they were the subject of the ban debate. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite Ban This user has repeatedly violated WP:SOCK to push an agenda, evade blocks, and otherwise act in bad faith. Not even counting the commons mischief, that is more than enough for a ban. Put this user in the same category as other notorious socks and close the book as others have said above. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Ban – I actually admire his ability to turn Wikipedia into an art form. I wish he could do the same thing for patents.--Nowa (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean he's allowed to disrupt the website, and others, for the sake of art.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Ban: Horvitz is an esteemed and, in my opinion, wonderfully inventive artist who is enriching the Commons by using Wikipedia as a medium for his work, which in turn provokes discussions within and beyond the community of users about the regulation of expression and the circulation of information. Horvitz's work provides great pleasure and gratification to numerous people. The artist also focuses attention on the procedures that govern Wikipedia, on the social mechanisms that enable this site to function (however imperfect); his method of doing so may seem flippant at first glance, but there is more to his photographs than what is actually pictured, i.e. the photographs are a means to an end, a reflection of the Commons. --User:aprovan (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  So basically WP:ILIKEIT? Come on. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  Aprovan has not edited since April 2007. Perhaps an actual sleeper account. Also, his nature as an artist has no bearing on whether or not we at the English Wikipedia want to keep him around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  Aprovan outed himself in his very first edit, announcing he was Anthony Provan, the author of a blog. Aprovan is not David Horvitz. Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia is not the place for narcissistic self-promotion. Or disruptive sockpuppetry for that matter. Resolute 13:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - his disruptive sock puppetry and self-promotion demonstrates that the community cannot waste anymore time on this individual. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite Ban: David Horvitz is only here to self-promote and advertise, violates WP:SOCK and WP:POINT, and most of the images are no better than what we already have, per COM:PENIS. Indef ban him, indef block his socks, and delete any pictures that can be replaced. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Using sockpuppetry to disrupt the project is unacceptable. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Questions about David Horvitz

Were his images hoaxes, or did they actually depict the locations they claimed to? Did he remove better photos to make room for his? Did he edit war or insult people? Just trying to get my mind around the nature of the "disruption" here. Cheers! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

He was violating WP:POINT by abusing Wikipedia's freeness to have his artistic works disseminated whenever someone wanted a photo of Pelican State Beach or something resembling "melancholic depression" by having himself included in every single photo he uploaded, usually center of frame looking out towards the horizon. In one case, he made an article just to host his photo which happened to be of a nude beach. In all cases, he made his photo the top one on the articles, sometimes replacing photos in inoboxes, sometimes adding the sole photo of the location to the project, and then he used the nature of the dissemination of the photos because they were free in his art exhibitions, as well as our reactions to the initial discovery of his disruption in 2011. My screenname is in some PDF relating to the event. Shortly after this (in 2011), he posted on his blog that he would upload everything again, which we have just found out was the case. That's the disruption. The intent to use Wikipedia and abuse Web 2.0 to his own personal gain.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You can also read more a about the original issues with the Pelican Beach photos in this article : [133] You can see the original deletion discussion here.--Nowa (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Friedrich is my favourite romantic. I once travelled to London just to see an exhibition of his work. I appreciate the homage, David, and the effort all you Wikipedians have put in (and are putting in) to make David's piece the success it is. Well done all concerned. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, while most of the images did indeed depict the claimed locations, they were all of extremely low technical quality, and many didn't really even depict anything useful. Some were little more than pictures of a man's clothed backside, buttocks clenched in an almost constipated posture. While I thought some of the images were salvageable, the folks over at Commons disagreed, and I respect the consensus that formed over there. All that's happening here is Horvitz abusing multiple accounts to promote himself, not even his works, and the community is reacting to that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, there's the fact that he is actively socking and adding his shit art to Wikipedia as we speak.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it's David H?--Nowa (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a fairly safe thing to assume. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. Be specific.--Nowa (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Total rando comes out of the woodwork to upload this dude's hackish art? If it's not a sock, it's a meatpuppet. In light of that it's probably a good idea to do a sleeper check of Horvitz's accounts in case there are others lurking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you agreeing that it's probably not a David H. sockpuppet?--Nowa (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, the edit wasn’t an upload. Get your facts straight.--Nowa (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the accounts that performed the edits I linked to uploaded the file to the commons with the exact same file name and composition. A sock puppet check was also performed and connected these two new accounts locally to accounts that were involved in the spate of edits prior. Now, Nowa, please kindly stop disrupting this discussion. We know you are not the photographer with whom you share a name so your further disruption of this thread will be seen as a separate act of violating WP:POINT.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I checked and you are right. One of those new users did upload another copy of Mooddisorder to Commons.--Nowa (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not this shit again. Is there a formal ban discussion over at Commons? If not, why not? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a formal discussion over at commons. They seem equally skilled at spotting ducks (It's come up that Nowa is another individual named "David Horvitz") What a bunch of idiots.--Nowa (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Retract this personal attack.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Personal attacks don’t belong here. I apologize.--Nowa (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I see Horvitz has "published" a PDF book detailing his adventures, which includes copies of the text of several Wikipedia articles. The only indication I see of compliance with the licensing terms is the vague symbols towards the end, indicating an intent to make it available as CC-BY-SA-NC, with no link to the licensing terms (even presuming that counts as a good enough license to satisfy the share-alike requirement). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And Nowa, please do not refactor my comments again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And don’t post inflammatory and irrelevant material to the discussion.--Nowa (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This item,[134] with Nowa answering as if he were the infamous Horvitz, is sufficiently convincing. As regards these various pictures in which Horvitz has imposed his ugly self, I'm curious whether any of the pictures would be of use if Horvitz wasn't in them. If so, maybe they could be photoshopped to get rid of Horvitz and make it look like a smooth landscape. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking they could be photoshopped to turn Horvitz into a nonentity, but that would be redundant. EEng (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, Bugs. Maybe it's time this went to SPI. Given Nowa's sudden preoccupation with censoring the fact that I noticed Horvitz may have failed to follow the terms of use in reusing Wikipedia material, even to the point of labeling that "irrelevant and inflammatory" (how it is, I have no idea), I think there's good enough behavioral evidence to ask for a CU. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, having taken a quick peek at his edits, I feel pretty convinced that Nowa is not Horvitz (and I don't say that lightly; Nowa's been practically doing everything possible to convince us he's Horvitz). I still think a CU on Horvitz's socks would be appropriate to turn any sleepers, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Are any of Horvitz's photos still known to be on Wikipedia and/or Commons? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

it is believed that there might be but as of now they all seem to be taken care of unless he posts the photo of himself looking depressed again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one (at DR). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions about banning

I was reviewing Wikipedia:Banning policy and I noticed that we appear to talking about a Wikipedia:Ban#Site_ban. To the best of my knowledge, D. Horovitz has only uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons. How will a site ban here affect his activities on Commons? --Nowa (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He also edits this website to add his photographs to articles. Obviously a similar discussion will have to take place at the Commons before he continues to make a mockery of people here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

When you say “adds his photographs to articles”, you technically mean “add links to his photographs Commons” correct? Is adding links to photographs on Commons a bannable offense, even if they are yours? Isn’t it common for a person to take one or more photographs, upload them to Commons and then add links to said photograph to an appropriate Wikipedia articles? --Nowa (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, I am a supporter of David's work. From the comments/discussion I can conclude that the worry is that Mr. Horvitz is destablizing the integrity of Wikipedia's purpose/goal of being a reliable source of information. Is there anyway to avoid a ban, but simply restrict his page to being a experimenting ground for his work? Besides Horvitz, are there any other similar violators? If not, why ban him and feed into his already growing reputation on these discussion boards? In this one instance/situation CONCEDE and possibly see something great for contemporary digital art and also for the freedom of information. That is my thought. I'm no Wikipedia expert, but I apologize if this comment doesn't meet all the formatting requirements. Wikipedia is so confusing with it's formatting and coding. --Internjbk (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's see, there's discussion above about Horvitz using an intern (named "Joebunkeo") to disrupt discussions before, your name is "Internjbk." I couldn't care less what happens here, but it's pretty hard to not think you're just a sockpuppet or a very meta troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether you yourself are this Horwitz guy, or not, your argument amounts to an abuse of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not originate information, and is most definitely NOT the place to promote "something great for contemporary digital art." If you want to promote your own work, there are many venues where you can do that. Wikipedia is not on that list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please let the ban begin, this has now become ridicules, include the intern's in the ban, or the game will just continue. No point in any further discussion IMHO, IANAL but the standard required has been more then established here. talk→ WPPilot  22:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

At the very least enough time has passed to consider formal closure (presuming one's even necessary). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Internbjk, allow me to be the first person to respectfully address your questions:

• Is there any way to avoid a ban, but simply restrict his page to being a experimenting ground for his work? If by “his page” you mean his user page then yes, you can post whatever you want there. Users can also set up a wp:sandbox page for experimenting.
• Besides Horvitz, are there any other similar violators? I imagine that other users have been banned for similar behavior, but I don’t know who they are or why they’ve been banned.
• If not, why ban him and feed into his already growing reputation on these discussion boards? A user’s reputation outside of Wikipedia isn’t an issue on a ban. It’s said user’s behavior editing Wikipedia that results in a ban.
• possibly see something great for contemporary digital art and also for the freedom of information. You know, I think you are right, something great is happening here related to contemporary digital art and the freedom of information.

--Nowa (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons are not places for Horvitz to be doing anything, anymore. The ban is being made because we have grown tired of his disruption. And whatever he may bring to the world of contemporary digital art has no place on Wikimedia services.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"digital art has no place on Wikimedia" I concur.--Nowa (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't fucking twist my words around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Notable digital art might. That nobody putting his ugly mug (and other parts) into every shot he uploads does not qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet, David Horvitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists, and also its wholesale deletion was allegedly another art project of his.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

His alleged "notability" there consists primarily of how he has spammed Wikipedia. Talk about "navel gazing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Naturally...

This incident is worth mentioning at David Horvitz. EEng (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't navel gaze.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? EEng (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The article space is not for reporting on internal events just because we happen to be discussing the actions of an article subject within the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. We'll wait until secondary sources comment on what a dick he is. EEng (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That probably won't be the case in the world of modern art.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL. You're right -- dickish selfpromoting artists are WP:DOGBITESMAN EEng (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Must you gloat while others mourn?--Nowa (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't confuse gloating with ridicule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is ridicule. EEng (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Samsamcat

The user is adding non-free content to his user page, despite previously being instructed not to do this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive842#User:Samsamcat. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Stop vandalizing my page. This is why I respond this way to you people. Ie. Weirth (Betacommander).... If you just stay on your side of the fence I wouldn't have to come over.... I only respond when you guys delete perfectly legal photos that I have rights to. I have provided communication between the Sheldon Chumir foundation affirming premission to use the files. And in my user page I use it for personal archives so I can remember what I worked on so I don't have to duplicate the information by inavertably cloning it. See there are thousands of infibytes of infromation on here how in the hell am I supposed to remember what I wrote years or months ago?

• Update: this problem has been resolved. I just posted a "non image" as Resolute (likely a sockpuppet alias of Werith, Stefan2,Black Kite) instructed me to. Now watch as further harassment ensues! Oh guess what you sock puppet..... It's all logged now, all the LEGAL and bonified wikirules have been followed. Should you continue to harass me over trivial things... I will start a formal complaint here. This Wikiotter has rabies now.... Thanks to you... You bite. I bite back! Now we can do this the civilized way or we can do this the hard way. You continue to enforce your wikipolicing rules on wiki-law abiding civilians like me, and lose yet ANOTHER year of being banned on wikipedia Weirth-Stefan2-REsolute-Betacommander-Blackkite... It's your choice. You break wikilaws you get banned. It's as simple as that. Since I broken no laws, as I had proper authority (it's documented with an email correspondence, attached to the orginal Sheldon Chumir). I can only assume that you're just trolling and the weakened adminstration of Wikipedia (honest editors, are being beleaguered by trying to track your many Alias down Weirth. That they are ineffective similar to a the government of a 3rd world country. It's fools like you that are causing honest hard working Wikipedia journalists to flee. You and others like you WSBR (Werith-Stephan2 Blackkite, all multiple personalities) willfully break rules, enforcing other rules that the Wikipedia code of ethics speicificaly tell you not to do. Such as biting new comers, but ever worse you arbitraily create new rules that no one here consents to. Now that I have done as you said, can you please just go away? I'm saying this in a non swearing civilized manner.As well you really should seek help for your multiple personalities Werith.

Please note that I have warned Samsamcat for continued personal attacks and false accusations of sockpuppetry. Tiptoety ^talk 21:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have also removed a personal attack involving the c-word from their userpage. Samsamcat, please be civil. Also, please sign your posts. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tiptoety: Amusingly, it looks like Samsamcat has named you as the latest sock puppet of Werieth. Apparently, there's an entire Betacommand Cabal that has infiltrated and taken over the normal cabal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly, the user thinks that User:Betacommand, User:Black Kite, User:Tiptoety, User:Werieth and I all are sockpuppets of User:Resolute? Hm... ☺ --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Group of 88" problems

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

---

I nominated the category Group of 88 for deletion because being a member of that group is not a defining property (WP:CATEGORY talks about "essential —defining— characteristics"). I removed the category from four biographies, which were the only members of that category. The category now has 23 members, all added by Johnpacklambert. At the deletion discussion he says "These enemies of due process need continued exposure for their racism" and "They should not get to remove their badge of infamy" and "Their most public act was a willingness to condemn students before a fair hearing had been reached, to denounce students on the grounds that they were white, 'privileged' and so forth, and to spew hatred at these students". It is clear that Johnpacklambert feels strongly about this issue and is pursuing an agenda which is not neutral.

Johnpacklambert has also added the following non-neutral statements to biographies:

While at Duke he joined with the Group of 88 which presumed accused people's guilt on the basis of race, and never apologized for their calls to violate defandants civil rights.

While at Duke she joined in the guilt presuming letter of the Group of 88 which also encouraged vigilante activities.

While there he joined with others in the racist statements of the Group of 88 which assumed guilt of accused criminals based on their race.

I also tried to remove a passage about the Duke lacrosse case from the biography of a Duke professor who was part of the Group of 88 but does not appear to have done anything more than sign a public letter. This seems like a very clear case of undue weight but my removal was immediately reverted. I have started a discussion on the talk page, but the reverter seems to be ignoring it.

Meanwhile, another editor (User:Shakehandsman) has just accused me of having a conflict of interest simply because I registered my account shortly after he used weak evidence to accuse IP editors of being one of the members of the "Group of 88". I don't mean to suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy at work here, but the situation is troubling. Nigel Pap (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm mentioned in that last paragraph I might as well debunk all the nonsense contained within it. At no point have I made COI accusations concerning the above editor, I merely pointed out the extremely suspicious time of his account being registered, not to mention his similar interests/editing pattern and level of experience to the IPs, and use of exactly the same arguments. Secondly. it's also false to say I accused the IP editors of being one of the members of the Group of 88. I simply did a WHOIS check of the IPs and pointed out that one was an institution that had started employing Cathy Davidson that very day, and that the second was Duke University itself. So the "weak evidence" is in fact absolutely 100% proof of people affiliated with Duke repeatedly removing Group of 88 material and doing so from Duke University itself.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think people will see your thinly veiled accusation against me for what it is. If they don't, then perhaps your latest statement that "I should also note that none of those IP editors have reappearance since Nigel joined us here, and while that proves nothing in itself, is it a little strange on top of everything else" will convince them. You have made a clear accusation that the IP editors have a conflict of interest and strongly implied that they are both Cathy Davidson. And you have just implied that I am somehow associated with these IPs despite my statement that I have no association with any aspect of the Duke lacrosse case. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"You have made a clear accusation that the IP editors have a conflict of interest", yes and I've proved that to be a fact beyond almost any doubt! The fact that you refuse to see this obvious COI editing when its staring everyone in the face is in itself very puzzling, why can't you just accept what's been going on?.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no inherent conflict of interest in editing Cathy Davidson from Duke University. If you think that there is, you are mistaken. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that people initially assumed the prosecutor was doing his job properly. Once the state attorney general declared them innocent of the charge, anyone in the "group of 88" who continues to insist on guilt, even now, would be fair game for such a tag, especially considering the history of the accuser before and after. Labeling it "racism" is silly. It's blindness to facts. And it's also important to keep in mind that the lacross players were involved in bad behavior that night (drinking and hiring strippers), and there is an element of "good ol' boy" tolerance of that behavior, so the underlying anger of the "group of 88" has some justifiable basis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who (a) thinks racism and sexism are real social problems; but (b) thinks this "Group of 88" letter was a knee-jerk rush to judgment reminiscent of my days growing up in Berkeley, California in the 60s; BUT (c) thinks the idea that Group of 88 might be a sensible WP category has little or no basis -- in other words, I come down squarely on both sides of the issue -- this is a content dispute with everyday garden-variety not-ANI-worthy sniping. EEng (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. What troubles me about this is mostly a "guilt by association", McCarthyism. If any of the "group of 88" continues to support their original view (which helped get the lacrosse coach fired, by the way), then there's a good chance this isn't their only controversial position, and that could be covered in a better way than just sticking them in a category. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Using a category for this is a probably a bad content decision. Unless people are really going to populate the category, it is near useless, and even if it were populated, the same content can be presented more usefully as a comprehensive list at Group of 88 itself. There's no need to do the same thing two redundant ways, so that will do. That said, this decision shouldn't be up to admins; hopefully the editors involved can see clear to it. Meanwhile...... this is going to sound stupid (and pretty much is), but I'm wondering if you're getting some mystery hostility into the works somewhere because of some arcane American prison slang. You see, especially when matters of racism are discussed, "88" has been used by racist gangs as a code for "Heil Hitler". But of course, in this case it has absolutely nothing to do with it, reflecting only how many people signed a widely circulated petition to faculty. I assume the main participants are well aware of this but I wonder if somehow such a misperception is bleeding through from outsiders. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The only people coming close to McCarthyism were the group of 88 itself. They presumed guilt on the basis of being white, and Houston Baker managed to use "white" as an insult 10 times in an article. They encouraged people to continue threatening the players, and they presumed guilt. Let me repeat that again, they presumed guilt. Such things should never have happened. The whole case was emblematic of a general false assumption about crime and race, a false assumption that makes fixing real social problems and getting to the heart of them much harder. The Group of 88 is emblematic of the pathological approach to race relations that gave us the Murder of Laura Dickinson and the cover up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The article obscures an issue at the center of the Dickinson case. Dickinson was a white woman from a small, rural community in Western Michigan. Her rapist and killer was an African-American. Whether this has much relation to the crime is hard to say. That it caused an unwillingness to speak openly and honestly about the crime seems likely, considering how many other similar crimes were also documented by the authors of Until Proven Innocent that were the seeming racial reverse of the Duke case, and never got any headway at all. Even though those cases were not as open and shut as the Duke case, because they involved not claims of no contact, but only questions of whether the sex was consensual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am all too aware of "88" being a poorly-kept "secret" code for "Adolf Hitler". How many of the "group of 88" still cling to notion that the "group of 3" were guilty of rape? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert, I believe you have proven my point about your lack of neutrality. Baseball Bugs, perhaps you can discuss the political issues on your talk pages. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm providing background for some who may be unaware of the case, and raising questions that should be raised. You should continue or move this entire discussion to the talk page of the topic in question. Thanks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have restored Nigel Pap's version of Lee D. Baker. There is no way this is important enough to warrant a category. Unless someone is individually and reliably marked as special and their membership of this ad-hoc group deemed important, no way. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I question the category. I do find it puzzling. Is this group even active anymore. I wonder if perhaps this category could introduce bias to an article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

But then you aren't here for that. You are here because of the COI claims. While editing Cathy Davidson probably wouldn't be a COI from Duke (unless of course it's her). To me though this seems to be a fair comment under the circumstances.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho -- I understand you're a psycho, but why are you responding to your own comment? EEng (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the group was ad hoc and ceased to exist after an open letter was published. While there are some Duke faculty who had an expanded role in the larger case, most of the "Group of 88" did nothing other than sign the letter. Including anything about the Duke lacrosse case in the vast majority of those biographies would be an instance of undue weight. There appears to be a small group of editors (User:Johnpacklambert, [[User:Hammersbach], and User:Shakehandsman) who are quietly using this issue for their own purposes. I am sure there is much room for discussion of content issues but it would be nice if those discussions were aimed at neutrality instead of pushing some political agenda. Nigel Pap (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The category is up for deletion. While yes this could provide undue weight, at same time it could not. It's really going to come down case by case. I personally don't see any bad faith on their part. I just wonder how much of this can be handle on the talk pages of the articles in question and thru some form of dispute resolution if needed?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to endorse any claims in particular but I share some of Nigel Pap's concerns about what is going on here with this issue and its presentation in Wikipedia. Tonight I had a look at Group of 88 and KC Johnson (author of a book critical of the 88) and found the articles terribly slanted and full of NPOV and RS issues. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close this please? This isn't ANI material. EEng (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Problematic IP

68.100.172.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been spamming Template talk:Islam. About 70% of the current page is him posting the same complaint over and over and over...

I asked him to quit posting so much in caps and bold ("shouting"), to which he gave the excuse that someone asked him the same question 22 times (as of this post, there have not yet been 22 posts to his talk page), and that he answered my 22 questions. Nevermind that I have yet to ask him a question.

He's also spamming Atethnekos's talk page, and generally been rude to him and @Dougweller:, saying they're incompetent for not having already done things they way they're done on the French Wikipedia (like we give a damn what they do), and insulting the intelligence of anyone who doesn't do things the way the French Wikipedia does. When I asked him to stop spamming, he again claimed that he was repeatedly asked questions by other users, though a cursory glance of Dougweller's and @Atethnekos:'s contributions reveals that they were merely responding to the IP's spamming.

I cannot assume both good faith or competence here. We've either got a troll, or someone who cannot count nor tell the difference between "Atethnekos," "Dougweller," and "Ian.thomson." Yes, either way, his English isn't so good, but I remember just enough French from high school and know enough about Google translate that I cannot see his behavior just being a poor grasp of English (I can't imagine that the French Wikipedia would tolerate someone starting 14 threads to raise the same complaint either). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

they are asking sama questions again and again but they dont want to accept their mistakes, I said "Why are you protecting this template" alot of mistakes in it. They asked sama questions again and again, when i answer, they rebuff insead of admitting their errors an finally I said go an compare with the French equivalent template, is this a template on islam or what?? ahmadiyya not only me but all world complaining about it, please block me because of this I m really sick of your supervisor attitude please do that!! 68.100.172.139 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC) This ip should be blocked...68.100.172.139 (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC) because it does not want to persue discussion with you anymaore not only me bu to all world you are insulting and dont ask the same things again and again68.100.172.139 (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Where have they asked the same questions over and over? I've only seen you spam all over the place, two users respond to a few of your questions, and no one asking you questions until just now.

If you do not want to continue discussion, then quit posting and leave the site. Demonstrate that you're not a trolling child and just leave instead of asking to be blocked. I'm sorry if you think you've been insulted, but it's only hypocritical to say that when you've been insulting everyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would like more opinions, but this looks like textbook WP:DE and a slight lack of clue, to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• • I agree. If I weren't directly involved I would have blocked the IP. And probably reverted most of their posts to Template talk: Islam which have made a mess of the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed that he reverted your notice about ANI, Ian, but there was a lot of text above it and I wonder if he didn't read that far (no fault of your own). In the interest of good faith, I've placed another notice and invited him to join the discussion. I'm not sure of the utility of participation, but willing to keep an open mind. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He did try to respond earlier (outright asking to be blocked, and saying he should be blocked), but didn't indent (heck, I had to put in a couple of page breaks to make it not look like an addition to my post). this edit, (not the removal, DGAF about that, but the new message) leaves me convinced he's not here to build an encyclopedia. It's in Turkish, but it's disparate and unrelated sentence fragments:

"Is the power of the people" (miscopied bit) "my brother will be dealing with you" (miscopied bit) "got the news from our nation's" (miscopied bit) "It appears from the followers of the" (miscopied bit).

His "bad English" is also inconsistently bad. He occasionally makes posts without any spelling errors. He misspells unscientific as "unscitiphic" and then as "unscientifuic" in the same post. There's going to be some variation in trying to learn a language, but to that degree looks more like someone who knows what they're doing trying to make their English look worse than it is. The ph in "unscitiphic" is a bit telling, being something that many foreign speakers (except certain South east Asian persons) do not easily pick up. I can't find any evidence that PH is used as F in Turkish, and have seen anecdotal evidence suggesting the contrary.

The hodge-podge Turkish, the inconsistently poor English (which gets worse after I brought up that English doesn't appear to be his first language, perhaps as a cover), and that he's in Virginia makes it harder for me not to believe he's a kid who is trying to troll us. It's possible he's a mentally unstable immigrant he is only quasi-literate in both English and Turkish, but his behavior still outweighs any help he might be. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP continues to spam Template Talk:Islam, and has accused me of insulting him by calling one of his statements bollocks despite [apparently knowing how to use the term himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be some very serious issues regarding whether this individual is competent to edit in English, or apparently to understand our principle of NPOV. And unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much to lead me to think any amount of tutoring or other help is likely to improve things. Maybe we just wish him luck before sending him off? John Carter (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that even if he was fluent in English, the only difference would be that he couldn't use that as an excuse for the rest of his behavior. If you mean a good bye block, I'm for it. That'd make five calls for a block (including the IP himself), none opposed, two calls completely uninvolved. Seems like consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Latests post by the IP are in fluent English, indicating that the prior bad English was just an act. He is also accusing me of addressing him with particular racial Turkish racial slurs I wasn't even aware of until he used them. He is a troll, plain and simple, will someone please block him? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support block, which seems to be unopposed, even by the troll himself. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

IP anon block evasion

174.76.220.107 (talk · contribs) is currently blocked, for edit warring, on Will County, Illinois and Frankfort, Illinois. 38.111.104.199 (talk · contribs) is now adding the same material to that article. It's a bunch of axe grinding and name calling regarding law enforcement officers and judges in that area that were accused or convicted of crimes. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Disregard, Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) already took care of it. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There's IP hopping. I've blocked the newest IP and semi-protected Frankfort, Illinois, since it's been targeted. If this starts again after the 72 hours of protection expires, WP:RFPP is probably the best place to handle it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation on IPT

See the following diffs [136] [137]. User:Serialjoepsycho was advised to not restore the offending comment until consensus had been achieved at the BLP noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism, but he skirted the issue by modifying the statement only to make it worse, and added it anyway. He also included the defamatory statement at the BLP noticeboard. The statement included in the IPT article was never made by Steven Emerson, rather it is an inaccurate "interpretation". See the following article in the American Journalism Review regarding what Emerson actually said: [138]. Atsme☯^Consult 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Not really. What's This? Does it tie to this? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How ever it happened, My post here was reverted and removed on this diff.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Such accidental removals happen from time to time. Don't think too much of it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really expect that it was more than an accident. I posted this while restoring it. It was an accident though.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the editor who removed the contested content after seeing the thread at WP:BLPN. (I'm not a regular editor of this article. It only came to my attention patrolling BLPN.) I removed it because a) it was citing an unreliable source and b) one of the sources (a CBS news article) didn't support the content. It turns out that I was wrong on b). The CBS News report did support part of the content. Serialjoepsycho then rewrote the content removing the unreliable source and rewording the content to fit what the CBS News article said. I do not see a problem with Serialjoepsycho's partial revert since they addressed my remaining concern (citing an unreliable source). Since I don't really know much about this topic, I'm not sure what more I can say about this dispute. Unfortunately, I was the only (previously) uninvolved editor to respond to the BLPN thread. HTH. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pending of course further response by Atsme, I ask this be closed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite this instead of the press release: Barringer, Felicity (24 September 2001). "A Nation Challenged: The Journalists; Terror Experts Use Lenses of Their Specialties". New York Times. p. C1. That fury escalated when, immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, [Emerson] told CBS News, "This was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait, and something that has been generally not carried out on this soil until we were rudely awakened to it in 1993" — the year of the first World Trade Center attack. On Saturday, Mr. Emerson said that he was reflecting investigators' first take on that attack. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually here's a better one: Mintz, John (14 November 2001). "The Man Who Gives Terrorism A Name; Expert's Finger-Pointing Troubles Muslim Groups". Washington Post. p. C01. But Emerson has made missteps. A day after the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed in 1995, he went on television theorizing -- wrongly -- that the culprits were Arab. Attempting "to inflict as many casualties as possible -- that is a Middle Eastern trait," he said in one interview, one of many statements his enemies call reckless and biased. No opinion on whether the statement belongs in per WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The press release was actually already taken out. The particular source of issue is 48 hrs. Atsme has an issue with the the source saying that he pointed the finger at Muslim terrorists. My posting of a direct quote from that source is the supposed defamatory statement on BLPN. Under the Same logic your comments Mendaliv are a BLP violation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This diff where I quote the source represents his claim of defamation on BLPN. And it's not in the lead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any actual quotes by Emerson that specifically mention "Muslim", or "Arab", and any inclusion of such claims are a violation of WP:BLP. Reporters often take statements out of context and inject their own bias which appears to be what happened in the Emerson interview, especially considering the rebuttals and what Emerson actually said. It is our responsibility as editors to make sure we are not violating WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiable, and/or WP:NOR requirements. If any of the interpretations of Emerson's statements are considered acceptable after a fair determination in this ANI, then any inclusion must respect all requirements, including: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.. Also keep in mind, IPT did not even exist until 2006 which was 11 years after Emerson's 1995 CBS interview, therefore if the statement in question is determined to be acceptable, it does not belong in the IPT article, it belongs in the Steven Emerson article which includes his work as an independent reporter and terrorism expert. It also includes a section about his work as leader of The Investigative Project, a think tank which is separate from The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation organized in 2006 as a Section 501(c)3 non-profit foundation. Any attempt to combine Emerson's work as a CNN reporter/independent reporter/terrorism expert, plus the work he did for his think-tank, The Investigative Project, and lump sum it together with the work he and others have performed as representatives of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation (nonprofit Sect 501c-3 organized in 2006) is not only inaccurate, it is a violation of WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 05:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

IPT was founded in 1995. They personally claim as much [on their website]. This has also been reported by numerous sources. They did not organize in 2006. They incorporated as a non-profit then. I'll let ANI cover everything else you have said. On an interesting note this has went from conduct to content.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh and see Mendaliv using Atsme's logic you have violated the BLP.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It happened in 1995. This group in the article was founded by him in 1995. A counterterrorism expert, his counterterror think tank, and an incident that happened in 1995. A notable incident. An incident that has not only only followed him til now but also this group. The IP that originally put it in found relevant. I and another editor found it relevant. The only editor to respond on the BLP noticeboard did not see a BLP issue. The entry on the BLP noticeboard is still active awaiting further comment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

There are clear violations of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH in the IPT article which User:Serialjoepsycho refuses to acknowledge. He continues to revert my attempts to correct them. I made good faith edits, and tried to work things out in a collaborative effort, but he refuses to acknowledge the issues, pushes his POV, and continues to taunt, and be disruptive. See diffs:[139] [140]. He has not made any substantial contributions to the IPT stub, or made any attempts to help make it a good article. His only purpose appears to be in keeping IPT a stub to push his POV, WP:BLP#Attack, against Emerson. Any information about Emerson, including valid criticisms (if the latter can be considered NPOV) belongs in Steven Emerson, especially information relating to something he said or did 20 years earlier, and at least 11 years before the formation of the non-profit foundation. The Talk page and edit history will show my good faith attempts to take the IPT article from a poorly written stub to something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but it has been very difficult to accomplish with Serialjoepsycho's repeated disruptions. The stub itself includes a banner stating This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.

I recently proposed a merge and delete, but Serialjoepsycho has disrupted that as well. He called for an RFC before the merge discussion was finalized, and while the BLP noticeboard discussion was still taking place. The following links validate my concerns over the WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH issues with the IPT stub, and recently added infobox as it currently exists: [141] under the heading "Unusual arrangement". The following links also validate IPT's non-existence in 1995: [142] [143], and also in the closing credits/disclaimer in the article at the self-published IPT.org website [144]. It is with great disappointment that I must conclude the edits and actions of Serialjoepsycho have not been performed in good faith, rather it appears he has made a game out being a "talk-page expert" according to his user contributions. It is very difficult for me to get any meaningful editing done in light of his repeated reverts and other disruptions over my good faith attempts to correct problems. He has actually shown up in my discussions with other editors where he had absolutely no involvement, which leads me to believe he is also violating WP:Hounding. His comments on my Talk page are second only to his own Talk page. Also see the following example: [145] I do hope the problems can be resolved here. Atsme☯^Consult 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Atsme is a POVPusher with an unquestionable bias towards the topic of Islamophobia. [146] [147] The conversation is old and the diffs are buried. It's easier to just direct you to the conversations. Atsme's language makes clear a motive to whitewash wikipedia of claims of Islamophobia. There's other conversations if you need them as well. Atsme's current attempt at the IPT article is to Merge it with Steven Emerson, delete it, and create a new article titled the Investigative project on terrorism foundation. Creating that new page is exceptionally puzzling. The current article Investigative Project on Terrorism suggests that it is one in the same as the 2006 foundation that Atsme wishes to create a new page for. His merge rational is original research. He offers one source that suggests IPT was not founded in 1995. It does not mention the 1995 counterterrorism think-tank "The investigative project" that atsme is trying to differentiate from The Investigative project on Terrorism Foundation. The rest of his sources tacked together with that simply amount to original research. Unless exceptional claims no longer require exceptional sources that Tennessean article doesn't cut it. It does not discount IPT's own claim of 1995 founding or that of the other sources. Atsme's claims are subordinate to his/her commentary. All of this with Atsme's unquestionable and purposeful bias really begs the question of what their motives are. I did open a RFC while the BLP was open. To ask the neutrally worded question,"Do you support or oppose the above proposed merger of Investigative Project on Terrorism with Steven Emerson and Why?" I'd rather just speed up Atsme's tiresome effort. As Atmse's claim is groundless it's unlikely that BLPN will respond to it. Further opening this RFC balances out Atsme's previous canvassing effort: here, here, here, and here. But then I also missed the policy that forbids opening an RFC for a merge. Could someone point that one out real quick? Did I mention Atme's Tendentious editing? Removing this template after there was a consensus to keep it and that it was not an NPOV violation. They did nothing that changed the consensus. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't be sure what she/he is getting at by the "talkpage expert" bit. Seems like an accusation of Metapedianism. I'm not sure. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The only POV I've been pushing is WP:BLP policy. Following is another link that supports my position regarding a distinct separation of entities between Steven Emerson, The Investigative Project, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation which Serialjoespycho wants to lump sum under the IPT article as being one in the same with the common denominator being Steven Emerson, a BLP issue, and why he refuses to respect WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. [148] Last sentence in the 5th para states: He subsequently set up the Investigative Project, an earlier, for-profit predecessor of the IPTF that evolved into a robust operation devoted to tracking and documenting alleged connections of American Muslims to international terror groups. He is also a frequent commentator on Fox News. If other sources understand that The Investigative Project was Emerson's "for-profit" think tank, shouldn't Wikipedia at least try to get it right without violating WP:SYNTH in the existing IPT stub? Will an administrator please stop Serialjoepsycho's disruptive behavior so I can get back to working collaboratively with good faith editors? Something needs to be done about his policy violations, his relentless false allegations against me, his WP:hounding, and recent threats about what he plans to do if I create a new, correct article for IPTF under the proper name, making it worthy of inclusion via accuracy without all the WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. I have already started the article, and would like some assurance that I will not have to keep dealing with this disruptive behavior. Atsme☯^Consult 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The only POV? Lol I linked two of your conversations above. Let's see what you have to say about Islamophobia, "The word can best be summed up rather succinctly by the following quote: "A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons." - Christopher Hitchens" There are many gems in those conversations. Hell there are even some questionable comments that seem rather racist. No I have absolute respect for policy. I just have no respect for you. You've already made your soapbox clear. This has been on BLPN since the first and no editor as of yet has endorsed your position. Oh you found another source. I'm sure that you could cherry pick more given time. I'm surprised that you haven't yet. Again I don't see that you have offered a compelling reason to ignore IPT's own claim and the claim of many other sources that IPT was founded in 1995. With your previous history there's no good common sense reason to assume even the remotest glimmer of good faith on your part. Commenting that I would put the islamophobia template up before nominating it for deletion was smarmy comment. I wouldn't waste the time. I would simply nominate it for deletion. This conversation between me and you is over... And that's not because I don't have anything to say but that you have consistently proven you do not have anything to say. This seems curiously similar to forum shopping. You imply that opening an RFC before a Merger discussion has taken place for 30 days is forum shopping. I disagree but that is your position. While that Merger discussion is going you take it to BLPN. Then you take it to ANI. It's almost as if you are hedging your bet. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The above comments really show Serialjoepsycho's true colors, and why I had to bring this incident to ANI. While he is busy WP:Hounding me, and no telling how many other editors he has been harassing on various other Talk pages and noticeboards, I've been working on correcting the inaccuracies, and blatant WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:SYNCH violations that he refuses to acknowledge in the pathetic stub, Investigative Project on Terrorism. The article I'm working on now is nowhere near being complete, so please don't review it judgmentally. There is quite a bit more verifiability that needs to be done, and more information that needs to be added. [149] If nothing else, my work should speak to Serialjoepsycho's ridiculous allegations which are nothing more than a smoke screen to turn the focus away from his own behavior, and repeated policy violations. Atsme☯^Consult 02:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your work speaks for itself. The writing is on wall clearly in black and white. You are a POVpusher. You already announced your soapbox. It doesn't get more simple than that. You're unquestionably bias. I notice in your new article has alot of the material comes from the current article. I notice the Islamophobia template is missing. The people that developed some of that article don't get the history attribution and you may be able to remove the template without bothering to get a consensus on it, even though one already exists. This seems similar to wp:game Gaming the system. The article is bad. Alot of which I would attribute to you personally, but the article will get better eventually. If I recall that's the deadline on the articles completion. There's nothing blatant. Except for you, a bad faith editor, everyone's concerns have been met so far. There's no smoke screen. If I have done something wrong I do hope that it's addressed so I can adjust accordingly. I'm not really going to pay much mind to your position. No reasonable person in my position would. Hell they can go to the IPT talk page Second topic. They will see you arguing from authority based off your strange assumption that I was an admin. They will see you misrepresenting a policy argument of mine to another editor. They will see you break your back to paint that editor in a bad light. The same editor that you canvassed here. It's interesting that at your last time here at ANI that same editor was listed as your mentor. But then in that same ANI You're kissing my butt at the beginning and then switching to accusations half way thru. Should I even mention where in the current BLP where you break your back to discredit Sepsis II because they got a temporary block in an unrelated article due to discretionary sanctions in an active arbitration case? I wonder if they dug thru your interactions how many times they would find you accusing someone of something because you're trying to win an argument? I can find quite a few that don't involve me rather easily. I actually have evidence. Smoke Screen? Let's quit bickering back and forth here as well so don't waste everyones time. Just comment enough to keep this active. That's once every 36 hours. There's really no point in me and you saying anything else.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever paused long enough to read your incoherent slop before you hit the send key? You really need to stop launching personal attacks against me, and focus on your own policy violations. You have added nothing to enhance either the IPT article or Emerson article. All you're doing is pushing your own POV which is nothing more than consistent criticism, and attempts to discredit others, whether it's in an article, on a Talk page, or about another editor. Your behavior is worse than disruptive. There is no need for you to make further comments to me/about me at the ANI. I have articles that need editing, and will leave this debate in the hands of the appropriate editors/admins. Atsme☯^Consult 20:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose a Topic Ban on Atsme

Unfortunately it seems issue has to be pressed. I'm not sure what wrong you'll find that I've done. I'm not going to say I've done no wrong. It's certainly possible that I have. If y'all don't tell me I certainly can't do anything to change it. With regards to me y'all do what y'all think is appropriate.

With that said there's plenty of evidence to show bad faith on Atsme's part. I have to propose a topic ban for any articles related to Islamophobia, even in the remotest way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

All any admin has to do is use the analysis tool on the IPT article to see who needs to be topic banned for disruptive editing and POV pushing, and it certainly isn't me. You are the one with the WP:BLP violation currently being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. I've been working diligently to improve the IPT article, and take it from a stub to something worthy of Wikipedia, just as I've been doing with several other articles in recent months - one of which I just edited to GA status, and nominated for DYK. Regarding the analysis on the IPT article, I am 1st in "Top Editors by added text" with 58.8%, and you are 7th with only 0.1%. Those numbers speak volumes with regards to who is being disruptive.

I have been very patient throughout this ordeal, but I have articles to edit, and cannot do my job as an editor while you are hawking my every move, reverting my edits, calling me names, and violating WP Policy at every turn. Most of your time on Wikipedia is spent cruising Talk pages and noticeboards, not editing. A quick analysis of your user contributions is a good example of how you've been hounding me. Your edits under User Talk shows your own page 1st with 41; and Atsme 2nd with 26. More than half of your edits were on my talk page. It has to stop.

• Analysis on the IPT article shows: Max. text added: Mar 22, 2014, 8:32 PM • Atsme • +11,940
• Top 10 by added text: Atsme 58.8% (Serialjoepsycho 7th with 0.1%)

It's real easy for you to point a finger at another editor to divert attention away from yourself, but the stats don't lie. You are disruptive, and have repeatedly violated policy, and something needs to be done. In the interim, I've got five articles waiting for my attention. Atsme☯^Consult 08:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Any problem with blocking this proxy?

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

---

No sooner was an IP blocked for edit warring at Atlantis then another IP showed up, 93.115.95.6 (talk · contribs) which is a proxy.[150] Any objection to blocking this for a year? Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is unquestionably a proxy, but I can't confirm it is an open proxy. Looks setup for multiple ports for proxy and seems suspicious as hell, however, I wasn't able to route through them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown - it's obviously the blocked IP, so how do we stop him from editing? Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Whois identifies this IP with www.voxility.net, which is a web hosting company. I would suggest a one-year block with the tag {{webhostblock}}. Any person who edits Wikipedia through a web host is by definition concealing their true IP. In any case Atlantis looks like a candidate for semiprotection due to all the enthusiasm from IP-hoppers and brand new accounts over the past two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Proxies Should really be indeffed. Also, an open proxy from Cyberghost VPN is going to run out in about a month or two. TitusFox^'Tribs 15:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see much chance of collateral damage, so I'm not opposing the block. I was simply stating what we were dealing with, a closed proxy not an open one. Had it been an open proxy, I would have just blocked for being open. And Titus, we don't normally block closed proxies unless there is abuse, as there are plenty of legitimate uses for them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Dennis, Block Away! TitusFox^'Tribs 15:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's Doug's case, not mine, I leave it in his capable hands. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Block it. I reported it to OP earlier today.- MrX 19:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the only thing on my plate today, folks ;) I did the background, closed the OP case as it wasn't an open proxy, protected and blocked for being a web host used for abuse. Done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

IP 94.193.131.253

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

---

I apologize for bringing a sock puppet issue to this forum but the situation requires a somewhat more rapid intervention. IP editor 94.193.131.253 is almost certainly a sock of IP 94.193.131.142 which has been blocked for serial and long standing disruptive editing of articles on the Ships Project. See this discussion from the project's talk page for background. I and other project editors have been busy reverting hundreds or more dubious edits by this subtle vandal going back to early June. S/He is now using the new IP to continue this campaign and is attempting to undue many of the reversions we spent the last couple of days working on. This editor's aggressive disruptive editing is too much for us to keep up with. I opened an SPI investigation yesterday, unfortunately that process moves rather slowly due to a backlog. Please note the contrib logs for both IP's

• contrib log for blocked IP 94.193.131.142
• contrib log for 94.193.131.253

I respectfully request an immediate block. A lot of work has already been expended fixing this mess and it looks like a lot more is going to be required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Did a range block that should stop them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. Hopefully we can go back and fix everything over the next few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Johnpacklambert continuing the Group of 88 thing

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

---

Despite warnings here and elsewhere (see their own talk page, and mine), Johnpacklambert continues to edit-war in articles related to the so-called Group of 88, with this revert by Malik Shabazz the most recent of many. Viriditas commented on my talk page that there is or was discussion about a topic ban for BLPs; perhaps such a discussion should be revisited or started. (Other editors have expressed strong opinions about their editing on my talk page as well.) In the meantime I warned them for edit warring, since they are clearly guilty of that. Personally I want them to stop screwing around with what I think are clear BLP violations, though I won't push the button since I've reverted them in a couple of articles; I don't want to place an even slightly controversial block. So I'm suggesting that, pace Dennis Brown's closure of the discussion above, we mull this over again. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the last discussion we had several months ago about topic banning Johnpacklambert from articles related to Amanda Filipacci.[151] However, the problem with Johnpacklambert has been onging for years, with the community consistently ignoring his problematic editing with BLPs and categories and giving him a free pass to continue his disruption. A quick glance at the ANI archives show the following:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive410#User adding thousands of many improper possibly incorrect year of birth cats (2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Johnpacklambert (2011)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Administrative eyes on Priscilla K. Coleman and its active editors (2011)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive795#User:Johnpacklambert (2013)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Johnpacklambert (2013)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Ban requested for User:Johnpacklambert (2013)

There was also an RFC in 2013:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert (2013)

I don't know why the community refuses to topic ban him from all BLP and category work, but it's time. After this one would have thought it impossible for him to escape a ban, but apparently you can get away with anything on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Way out of bounds. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

The editor being a Mormon may figure into this situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I don't see why. The Mormon the merrier. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Cute. However, you may find Black people and Mormonism interesting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC) You know, that's really distracting from this topic. Please strike it. Viriditas (talk) No, it speaks to the topic. The possibility of an ulterior motive must be considered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC) It's completely off-topic. It doesn't matter if he's a Mormon or not, or if he is editing from a religious POV. What matters, and what is under discussion here, is that there is a pattern of problematic editing in the BLP and category area. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Mormons had a long history of official racism. The fact that the church is now officially desegrated and officially not racist doesn't mean that individual attitudes don't die hard. I'm not saying the problem is religion. I'm saying you must consider the possibility that the user is one of those folks who looks for any chance to say, "See, blacks are racists too." The irony is that as a Mormon, who have often faced prejudice themselves, you would think the user in question would be more understanding of the lifelong prejudices potentially suffered by the "group of 88", whose frustration found a voice due to that lacrosse case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The above attacks on my religion I find to be severe violations of all Wikipedia rules. The attempts to claim that a unilateral ban on all editing can be brought about because I have insisted on stating accurate and correct things about the Group of 88 is outrageous. The continued hounding of me on any and all grounds people can come up with is most objectionable. I feel very strongly about the actions of the Group of 88. The above attempts to brand me a racist based on my religion are part and parcel of the attempts to presume guilt that are at the core of how the Group of 88 view the world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You should not be editing topics you feel strongly about. I don't care about your religion and I agree that Bugs shouldn't have brought it up. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Drmies has used inflammatory and unjustified attacks on me. The attempts to reduce all my participation in Wikipedia to a few issues where I been attacked is extremely unfair. This is especially true of the whole Filipacci incident, because so many of the things said in relation to that have been demonstrably false, starting with the claim that I created Category:American women novelists. That category was not only not created by me, I have never edited it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Drmies did not post that list, I did. And, I'm the one arguing you should be banned from all BLP and category work, not Drmies. Go find something else to do with your time. You've certainly wasted a great deal of our time. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no such organization as the "Group of 88". Yes, 88 faculty members signed a newspaper ad, and in retrospect, that ad may well have been ill-advised, but jointly signing an ad does not consitute joining a "group" and does not link those 88 people together for life as notorious reverse racists. The wording of that ad made no conclusive statements about legal guilt. Johnpacklambert's recent comments about the matter are so egregious that it ought to be clear to all that he is aggressively pushing a denunciation POV against BLP policy. This must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not going to stop and the community has allowed him to continue like this for years. The question is, why? How does Wikipedia benefit from Johnpacklambert continuing to edit? Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • (ec)It's about an attempt to broad-brush 88 faculty members with a "reverse racism" tag, in apparent ignorance of the climate of the time, which was before it became known that the accusations were the product of a lying claimant and an unethical prosecutor. To continue to paint the entire 88 for something they signed eight years ago is undue weight and a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It certainly would be undue in the cases of all those who've apologised to the victims or who distanced themselves from the Group of 88, but that isn't the case in a single group of 88 article John has edited. And as for race, that's significant but one only of many aspects.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I propose a counter, unilateral ban of Baseball Bugs from all editing for bigoted attacks on editors, and trying to discredited them with bigoted attacks on their religion. Such bigotry should not ever be tolerated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• How does Wikipedia benefit from my edits? There are hundreds of ways. Who else was going to significantly expand the article on May Green Hinckley. I could go on and on and on. The hateful invective spewed by some of the above is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The claim "it's not going to stop" is a show of failure to recognize the ability of others to change. It is a show of failure to recognize that my recent additions to Category:Women historians were 100% within guidelines. It is a failure to recognize that people can and do change when they are corrected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that it's being discussed for deletion. Is there a similar category for men? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I will admit that some of my edits and comments have been intemperate and unwise. I will admit that some of my edits were done without fully citing my sources. I am willing to avoid making similar edits. Those are all the things you can reasonably demand that I admit and state my willingness to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on JPL for BLP issues per Viriditas. Support topic ban on Baseball Bugs from mentioning any person's personal characteristics - or at least a topic ban from the rest of this thread. After the Manning naming dispute, you'd think Bugs would curb his language.--v/r - TP 05:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Does JPL have a history of BLP issues, or is it just this one? If it's just the one, there's no real need for a topic ban. If there are many, then a topic ban should be considered. As regards editor characteristics, if anyone wears proudly the badge of any organization with a history of racism, and then makes controversial edits on the subject of racial matters, the personal motivation of the editor needs to at least be taken into consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • As regards the other thing, I was banned from a topic on false premises, on a topic that I don't really care about, so everybody's happy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• the BLP topic ban is both unreasonable, overbroad, and ignores any mitigating issues. The fact that no one has object at all to my most recent edit to the article on Mike Nifong shows that people do not object to my contributions to such topics in even most cases. BLPs is such a large part of Wikipedia, that a topic ban on any contribution to BLP articles would severely limit an editors ability to do anything. The unwillingness to even give an editor a change to admit that he has seen the error of his ways, and will try to do better is even more disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I did not create Category:Women historians, and I have not yet decided whether I think its continuance is worth while. I do have to admit it is a bit frustrating to have put as much time as I did into it over the last week, and only now have it brought up for deletion, but such is the fate of those who categorize. What is clear is that the way I populated it is exactly as the current guidelines suggest I should have. Whether those are the best guidelines seems to be a matter for another debate, but they were upheld in the recent discussions on such categories as Male United States senators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is why I generally avoid category work, as a plethora of editors are constantly messing around with them. As regards Nifong, your edit adds the fact that some of his other cases may be looked out to see if he fudged other cases in addition to this one. Meanwhile, someone thinks the Nifong article is biased or some such. That bears looking into. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• There seems to be a rush to punish, without giving the offender even a chance to reform. This is a very frustrating and sad situation. The attempts to discern some sort of deep seated race prejudice on my part are very disturbing. Of course, as I have said before they amount to asking "when did you stop beating your wife." I literally cannot defend myself from the accusations. The fact that no one has reasons to suppose they actually do know my race to begin with is the first problem. The fact that I may well have some African ancestry and almost certainly have some Native American ancestry would not dissuade the attackers. The fact that my girlfriend is without question an African-American Mormon, that I work at a low paying job as a teacher's assistant in Detroit Public Schools, doing my best to correct the societal problems that lead to so many of the city's problems at the closest place to their origin as I can, or the fact that my first vote in a presidential primary was for an African-American, are never going to convince those who have already branded me a racist that I am anything but that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What's your reasoning for insisting on this "group of 88" category? If it's not about reverse racism, then what is it about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from categorization and BLPs. This highly experienced editor who has been in many disputes over the years has just admitted above that his recent edits have been "intemperate and unwise". Accordingly, I conclude that this editor should take a long break from these areas of editing. We need temperate and wise editing instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I could support a limited duration topic ban, like maybe a few months. He deserves a chance to improve his behavior, after a break, without having to go begging to the arbcoms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• All of this is totally unfair. I have struck my original comments from the category discussion. Beyond this, the addition of the category to people who were clearly identified as part of the group in the article Group of 88 was totally within policy. Expanding an under discussion category is always allowed. The reactions to this, such as claiming I was engaging in "placing a scarlet letter" can not be said to have given a fair or balanced summary of what was going on, or being the reasoned or non-accusatory appeals people should be allowed before they are placed under such hugely broad bans, that essentially prevent virtually all contributions to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Since I was asked why I support the Group of 88 category, I will explain. I believe in due process. That means innocent until proven guilty. That is the antithesis of what was seen at Duke. Beyond that, African-Americans are far more hurt by a failure to presume innocence than any other group. That said, we do not ban people from participation in Wikipedia because they supported categories that were found to not align with policies. We have deleted so many categories that it would be just plain ludicrous if we did so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To paint all 88 as being in some non-existent organization, with the inherent implication that they all stand behind their own rush to judgment even to this day, is similar to the HUAC's branding everyone who ever went to a Communist meeting as if they were still "card-carrying" Communists. It's unfair, undue weight, BLP violation, smacks of a political agenda, and any other number of issues. Your continued defense of it is most unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Since the Gang of 88 continue to advance in their academic careers, any comparison to HUAC makes no sense. If there were similarities to HUAC it was in how those who dared to stand against the guilt-presumptions of the Group of 88 were so viciously attacked. Until Proven Innocent directly attacks this ludicrous attempt to paint as McCarthyite those who did not join in the witch-hunt to convinct someone for what proved to be a totally fabricated crime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Would both of your mind slowing down the number of replies to this thread? It's getting ridiculous.--v/r - TP 06:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Those Mormon comments are out of line and absolutely uncalled for. If we searched for ulterior motives and used religion as the basis we would have no credibility.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is at least the 3rd time, maybe more, a sustained attack has been made on my Wikipedia behavior in a way that tries to use my religion against me. It is a most disturbing reflection of an intolerance towards certain religions by many Wikipedia editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• It probably was inappropriate but was it "sustained" and who are the "many"? I see one person making the point. I also see a most peculiar peppering of responses from both yourself and Bugs - as someone else has said, could you both slow down a bit and give others a chance? - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Why people will not let someone admit their mistake and seek forgiveness is beyond me. I am sorry, and will admit I was wrong in my intemperate edits. I let emotions undermine good judgement. I let my frustration at violations of due process cloud me against balanced and fair articles. I am sorry for these things. Will being sorry and having a sincere desire to change do any good? I don't know. I wish it would. I wish Wikipedia editors would consider the sum total of ones contributions, and not try to zero in or attack just a small part of ones contributions. I wish people would consider peaceful methods. I wish one was not attacked now for things that happened 6 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Two reasons I can see. #1) You are Bludgeoning the process and 2) You have had ample opportunities in the past to curb your behavior and have failed to do so.--v/r - TP 06:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Why people will not let someone admit their mistake and seek forgiveness is beyond me. I am sorry, and will admit I was wrong in my intemperate edits. I let emotions undermine good judgement. I let my frustration at violations of due process cloud me against balanced and fair articles. I am sorry for these things. Will being sorry and having a sincere desire to change do any good? I don't know. I wish it would. I wish Wikipedia editors would consider the sum total of ones contributions, and not try to zero in or attack just a small part of ones contributions. I wish people would consider peaceful methods. I wish one was not attacked now for things that happened 6 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

− *The total rudeness in the following is another example of how this was totally pre-mature, and built around comments that cannot at all be sad to have given me a fair chance to consider the issue "Your edit to Lee D. Baker has been undone by Johnpacklambert without any discussion on the talk page (but an IP has appeared to muddy the waters). Nigel Pap (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC) − I reverted. Can't see what else happened--stupid iPad. Johnpacklambert needs to find a more suitable hobby than fucking around with real people's biographies. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

− It seems to me that John is on a POV pushing rampage and really needs to calm down. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

− When is he not POV pushing? Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

− A propos teenagers and fibbing, when he's sleeping. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

− The totally out of line language and attacks on another individual are not at all justified. Such language and unfounded attacks are not at all appropriate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

− − Johnpacklambert is still at it. I think my request for help at the administrator's noticeboard was closed prematurely. Nigel Pap (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

− why do we have to keep discussing this? Please, let's reopen the BLP topic ban discussion. He really shouldn't be editing in this area as he can't be trusted. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) As you wish, Viriditas: now at ANI. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

− Please review the links I posted. He seems to be protected from any type of ban. I have no idea why this is but I find it strange considering the massive disruption he's responsible for on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)" These are comments that are rude, attackative, and probably by their very nature violate many Wikipedia rules on the way we speak to and about other editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have not had ample opportunities in the past. I have only had attacks like I posted above. There are multiple others times in other discussions when I was attacked for my religion. I am not allowed to defend myself at all, and people are selectively attacking my broad record of contributions to the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• the fact that the person who brought this discussion in the first place was the one who used the f word against my actions should seriously mitigate against it being given much consideration. Such attack phrasing should not be tolerated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban John stikes me as a well-informed and valuable contributor here. I only read a couple of the link above and one cited as the strongest was a very obvious witch-hunt. I'm more familiar with his work on the 88 and there's nothing there close to worth banning anyone for. The sources John used for the 88 aren't perhaps quite perfect for a BLP (though would be sufficient elsewhere) and in some cases John should be strengthening them when restoring the material (though it might be nice if others cooperated and helped with this and at least suggested it rather than just deleting the material). Anyway, assuming good faith then all I really see there is a bit of laziness on John's part when faced with a complex and time-consuming task - he just needs to knuckle down and do some reading. It's understandable that people should get angry about COI editing on such a sensitive topic as the Duke Lacrosse case and I've already offered some guidance to John on how to improve his editing and he has responded very well indeed. If John is also promising to improve his sourcing slightly and is willing to start listening to advice then there really aren't any issues left here other than to ask all editors to be a little more mindful of their tone and of how they come across on sensitive issues such as this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for JPL per TParis and Cullen. Also, someone should do JPL a favour and give him a 24 hour block so he doesn't continue what he's doing in this thread.. DeCausa (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• John, Could you provide a Diff? And dude go Diva. I've only see Bugs attack your religion but that is separate from what you just posted.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The fact that I can not even speak in my own defense in a thread, where I am attacked for my religion and called a racist because of it, is a bit disturbing. The fact that my admission that I was wrong, and my striking of my most out -of-line comments is totally ignored is also disturbing. The fact that people want to topic ban from over half of all biographical articles on what was clearly behavior related to only a very select group of articles also shows a willingness to over-reach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• One of the people who says they want to topic ban me also asked me a question about proving a specific point about the Group of 88 State. Here is a link to their statement. http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2862/372/1600/110273/listening_statement_p.jpg I will leave it to those willing to read Until Proven Innocent to learn why some of the things said are true, but not in the way intended by the Duke faculty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You can absolutely speak in your own defnse. That attack on your religion was absolutely reprehensible. Can you provide a diff for the comments you mention above? While the attack on your religion is uncalled for, mixing that with other comments unrelated to your religion by people who have not spoken about you religion is laying it on abit thick in my opinion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I forgot how to do diffs, but I think [152] might provide what you are looking for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Since people have asked me to explain my views on The Group of 88, I will provide quotes from Until Proven Innocent, published by Thomas Dunne Books. P. 145 "The Group of 88 also committed themselves to "turning up the volume." As if the potbangers needed a faculty endorsement, the statement concluded, "To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard." By this point, of course, the protesters had plastered the campus with wanted posters showing the lacrosse players' photos; chanted outside 610 North Buchanan, "Time to confess"; and waved a banner proclaiming, CASTRATE. Neither in the statement nor subsequently did the signatories say why it was so important that the protestors not wait." The edit that evidently was the turning point leading to this whole ANI was sparked by this paragraph from p. 106 of the same book, at least this is the main source of the ideas behind it "Leading the rush-to-judgement crowd at Duke was Houston A. Baker Jr., a professor of English and of African and African-American Studies. He showed his mettle in a March 29 public letter to Duke administrators that boiled with malice against "this white athletic team" - a team whose whiteness Baker's fifteen-paragraph letter stressed no fewer than ten times. He demanded the "immediate dismissals" of all lacrosse players and coaches, without acknowledging their protestations of innocence or the evidence. He assailed "a 'culture of silence' that seeks to protect white, male athletic violence." He denounced the lacrosse players as "white, violent, drunken men ... veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech." He bemoaned their alleged feeling that "they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under cover of silent whiteness." Treating as gospel Kim Robert's transparently bogus 911 report of being pelted with multiple racial epithets as she drove (or walked) past the lacrosse house, he asserted that the lacrosse players' "violence and raucous witness injured [a black woman] for life." He stereotyped them as embodiments of "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white, male privilege loosed amongst us."" So those seem to be my main reliable-source starting points in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The link to the text of the advertisement provided by Johnpacklambert utterly fails to provide a quote that prejudges the accused lacrosse players as guilty, a false charge that the editor has made stridently and repeatedly. In the section above, he is engaging in classic "guilt by association" tactics, implying that 87 people should be held accountable for the rhetorical excesses of one of their colleagues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• support topic ban for no more than 2 months. I think that JPL just needs time to cool down, and I feel a TB is a good way to do this, and also reducing their chances of greater sanctions. Overall, they seem to be a good editor, so I can not support any blocks as of now, but if this continues, my view may change. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note: I have topic-banned Johnpacklambert under the BLP discretionary sanctions rule from all edits regarding the Duke lacrosse case/"Group of 88" topic area. No prejudice to any wider sanctions regarding all BLPs or all BLP categorizations, if there's consensus here that those are needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• oppose BLP or categorization topic ban. People once tried to topic ban JPL for diffusing a single biography into a subcategory. The filipacchi thing is done with, JPL already apologized for that, and I can point to dozens of other good faith editors who have made exactly the same mistake JPL did - even quite recently- but they aren't considered category-boogieman because they weren't scape-goated by the media. I do support a topic ban of at least 2 months on the group of 88 thing - through his comments JPL feels strongly that these professors must be shamed or tagged for their participation, I think that's not acceptable to push a POV in such a strong fashion. The reason to add group of 88 content should be a neutral assessment that this is due, but I don't get the feeling jPL is behaving neutrally in this regard. But a topic ban in categorization? Seriously? Do any of you know why most articles are in correct categories here? The name is JohnPacklambert. He has deghettoiZed probably thousands of biographies and he was one of those after category gate who actually populated American women novelists bringing it from 500 to 2000 biographies - and he did so without ghettoizing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - As I closed the last discussion, good judgement prevents me from doing the same here. If I were to, it would likely say "As Fut. Perf. has already exercised good judgement and topic banned JPL under our discretionary sanctions rule for BLPs, the immediate problem is dealt with. I would say again the rest is more heat than light, with a good dose of religion bashing thrown in. JPL can seek lifting of the sanctions after 6 months at WP:AN and is hereby admonished as to his actions and warned that if his emotions get the better of him again on BLP articles, he may be looking at a full topic ban on all BLP material in the future." Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't much like grouping people into some category because of their religion either. But I can see no benefit to Wikipedia allowing JohnPacklambert to roam articles(especially BLPs) to insert his rather extreme POV. I have no real knowledge of this editor, save noticing his comments, threads and such on ANI and other venues. But one could just look at his obvious battleground behavior and refusal to accept it is him that needs to change. This post is an example of his ongoing battle to 'right great wrongs', while he canvasses editors he believes will support his battle. The topic ban is just delaying the inevitable. Dave Dial (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He also popped into my page, and I support the actions of Fut. Perf., dealing with the singular issue with a singular bullet. Anything else should be taken to WP:RFC/U to be honest. Then if a discussion at WP:AN over a general topic is needed, it can be done, but we have a bad habit of doing knee jerk topic bans around here, and honestly, it speaks poorly of us as a community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Air Serbia (again)

95.180.123.154 (talk · contribs) had been blocked for one week by Bishonen. Once the block expired, s(he)'s again making the disruptive edits they had been blocked for. Not even a word at the article's talk page. Diffs can be found here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, still never an edit summary, never any response on talk (their own or other). Sorry I dropped the ball on my page, Jetstreamer, but it's a little hard for me to judge editing on among other things sports articles and various kinds of tables. This doesn't look like vandalism, though it clearly is intransigence, unresponsiveness, and edit warring. I think there may be a WP:CIR problem, perhaps also a language problem. I was going to ask another admin to make the call — one who understands the subjects better than I do — but checking out the history at Serbia, it really is too bad. I'm blocking for a month to give the people reverting some relief from this stubbornness. However, if an experienced editor who can communicate in Serbian sees this, could you perhaps try to talk to the IP on their page? User:Klačko, how about you? Bishonen | talk 08:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

In that case we are having a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I know at least a user who has been indefinitely blocked for that. I've surveyed all the IP contributions and none of them has an edit summary.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23

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

---

Why is Bbb23 still an admin on here? I posted a completely legit band article and it was deleted, I read Bbb23's talk page and it is full of complaints, someone do something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.63.229 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any edits or deleted edits by you outside of this post. Which account were you using? I can't really comment on the deletion unless I can see the article. We have standards for band articles and those that don't meet the minimum standards are deleted on site. See here. Chillum 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 is one of the most capable admins we have! Take a look at all the deletions performed every day. The deletion of your band was very likely for good reason. What's the name of the band? I would like to see for myself whether the deletion was a good one. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I have notified Bbb23 of this discussion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Vietnam IPs

Good day, fine admins. IP 117.3.101.66 has been rather disruptive to articles related to Disney and Beauty and the Beast lately. I believe the user hops IPs, so this is just a symptom. Typically, the user introduces a mix of subtle vandalism (Changing Mrs. Potts name to Mrs. Potts Tea, for example) but their hallmark appears to be the introduction of absolute gibberish.

Beauty and the Beast is an American animated sequel spin off television series second It features Belle and the Beast is a characters latest to the originally movies. This movies is the first Walt Disney Animation Studios classic series...Beauty and the Beast TV series premiered coming in reruns on December 10, 2015 on Disney Junior, Beauty and the Beast to launch coming the Beauty and the Beast Instead TV series on Disney Channel.

So there you go. Now why I'm reporting this here instead of AIV, is that I've seen a number of Vietnam-based IPs hitting articles related to Disney, for example Disney Channel (Asia) was getting walloped with regular disruptive edits from Vietnam, particularly in the early half of 2014 and the style is identical--they introduce a lot of word salad.

Disney Channel Asia aired 1½ hours and 2 2/7 hours of Phineas and Ferb celebrate highlights Disney Channel for Smartphone Applications at in December 2012, 2013 and 2014 of I ♥ Phineas and Ferb February, Platypus Day, Crazy 4 You, Phineas and Ferb 100th Backyard Adventures, Phineas and Ferb Monstober and Phineas and Ferb Fa-la-la-lidays by Smartphone Applications Disney Channel at American every day with a new episode on Sundays. Under the contest by celebrate Phineas and Ferb Monstober and Phineas and Ferb Fa-la-la-lidays at American launched on Smartphone Applications Disney Channel by under the broadcasting coordination at American, the deep suicide 6 highlights with Phineas and Ferb of Disney Channel.

Did you notice the phrase "deep suicide"? Spooky. Anyhow, the IP referenced above could probably stand to be blocked, but if there's a way to do a range block or something, that might be something to consider. And if we could get some extra eyes at these affected articles to demonstrate a swift reversions and swift blocking that'd be appreciated too.

Here are some other Vietnam IPs that were generating disruptions at the Disney Channel Asia article. I'm only presenting these for background info--they haven't edited in months: 14.162.184.248, 123.16.121.131, 14.162.179.31, 113.178.44.8, 113.190.163.151. This one is fun to read. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The gibberish is most probably the result of the text being machine translated from Vietnamese. I encountered a Vietnamese IP on another article the other day, repeatedly making very strange edits, not responding to messages and not stopping until I machine translated a message to them into Vietnamese and posted it on their talk page. Try it, it might work. Thomas.W ^talk 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ansel Elgort

There has been a flurry of fan-based activity at Ansel Elgort and Talk:Ansel Elgort. It appears that:-

"Elgort stated that on, July 11 2014, he would be forever grateful if Wikipedia did not state he is a model just because he has done photo shoots promoting movies."

The deletions to the article include removing an apparently well referenced section on his modeling career, and inclusion of the quotation above There are also a string of 8 Semi-protected edit requests (all between 17.33 and 17.49) asking for the references to modeling to be removed. These ESPs are still being added, even though the article has been changed.

I have no idea who Ansel Elgort is, but it seems clear his fans are re-writing this article, to say what he wants it to say. Could I suggest that someone more familiar with the subject looks at this - I suspect it may be a question of reverting and fully protecting the article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "twitter material" since it isn't covered by non primary sources. --Malerooster (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is now ... [153] Andreas JN466 01:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Although Arjayay states above that the section claiming he has a modeling career is "apparently well referenced", I took time to actually read the references. None describe him as a professional model, he is consistently described as an actor promoting a major upcoming film role, and in one case, a young woman appearing with him is described as a model while he is not. I see no reliable source calling him a professional model and many that call him an actor. The fact that photos of a handsome young actor appear in fashion magazines is not proof of a modeling career. Far from it. The article is now fully protected in a state unjustified by reliable sources. Why? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Because sometimes the "wrong" version gets protected by those dam admins j/k? I would agree that the modeling material and label be removed from the article but I am tired of this. Good luck, --Malerooster (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, we don't fully protect BLP's in the version that contains contentious poorly-sourced claims. Per WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Bolding in original.) No credible source describes him as a model.

• Would an admin please remove the contentious, poorly-sourced claims that the subject is a model or has a modelling career?
• User:Amortias has been edit-warring to retain contentious, poorly-sourced claims about the subject of a BLP. Amortias, would you please read WP:BLP, and then say here whether you think your edit-warring was a breach of that policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• On reflection I think I may have gone about this the wrong way and agree that my actions were quite likely (and reasonably) considered to be edit warring and in conflict of the policies on BLP. Looking at the talk page and the number of requests to remove the statement(s) in question I drew this as a consensus to keep. better research on my part would most likely have drawn me to a different conclusion. My aim was to keep the page in the state it was when a request for page protection was put in place to allow this to be put in place at the point of request. Although my intent was in good faith I concur that my methods were not constructive and have taken note of the issues caused and this will be a one off error on my part. Amortias (T)(C) 17:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bigoted attacks on an editors religion

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

---

I find the attacks on me for being a Mormon and implications that this shows I must be a racist by User:Baseball Bugs to violate all the rules of assuming good faith and basic decency in Wikipedia. This user needs to be summarily banned from bringing up personal information about any user in any discussion, and maybe other sanctions should be enacted as well. I am sick and tired of people attacking me for my religion, once I was accused of being motivated to edit Jewish articles in the way I was because of some antagonism to Jews I must have as a Mormon, and during the slew of people ganging up on me in the wake of the Filipacci scandal, people also made attacks on me based on my religion. This short of behavior should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. In light of the gratuitous attack on me as "sexist" in the deletion discussion for the article on Ari Teman, I have decided I have been long suffering enough, and I want something more done about these unfounded attempts to implicate me as a racist, especially when they come from people who A-ignore the fact I was born in 1980, which means I was raised in an environment very much from what their false attacks claim, B-clearly show they have never read the most informative work on the issues at hand, J. B. Haws Oxford University Press published ground-breaking work The Mormon Image in the American Mind. I am not going to sit back an let Baseball Bugs continue his bigoted attacks. I may be able to live with them, but I want to create an environment that is not selectively hostile to some views, and that means that we need to proactively work to end such poisonous rhetoric.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't follow very closely the discussion on topic-banning John, but I thought BB's comments were way out of line. Many editors here acknowledge things about their politics, religion, etc. Those labels, whatever they may be, are presumptively irrelevant to their editing here. If there's independent evidence of non-neutral editing, fine, but even then, the labels don't have to be brought into the picture. At best, BB's comments constitute personal attacks and should not be tolerated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns about your editing, but I was surprised that Baseball Bugs was not sanctioned for his comments. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• As much as I want this issue to go away (and anyone following along knows that is the case), I do think that Baseball Bugs owes a sincere apology here, and if he disagrees, needs to take a day off and contemplate the section I had to hat above. It shocked me, enough to collapse it as being a distraction and just patently offensive. It really did cross the line on civility in a big and obvious way. I don't want to see yet another public hanging or mob over the issue, and just hope Bugs will step back far enough to see it was wrong and simply do the right thing. Things are already inflamed enough, and I can't really fault JPL for wanting an answer here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Has he apologized for his efforts to McCarthyize the so-called group of 88? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, and he has a topic ban from anything related to it as a consequence. Are you suggesting we sanction you for refusal to fix your own mistakes? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • How hard is it to say "I'm sorry for implying that your privately held religious beliefs predispose you toward racism and should invite skepticism of your actions"? Protonk (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I am not yet convinced that I've got it wrong. I am also puzzled by his complaints alleging religious bigotry, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the inherent bigotry in McCarthyizing the "group of 88". But if he is now banned from doing that kind of thing, then 's all right; close the box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • P.S. When did I ever get involved in an article called Ari Teman? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Why stop there? Jews shouldn't be able to edit articles on economics because of their history of financial malfeasance. Catholics need to stay away from articles about children, because they're child abusers. Muslims should probably be topic-banned from nitrogen chemistry-related articles for obvious reasons. Something for everyone! 199.47.72.58 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The persistent belief that using inflammatory language like accusing someone of "McCarthyism" is acceptable discourse, shows that Baseball Bugs is not at all close to understanding the basic principal of civil discourse. He has consistently shown any ability to be civil, or any recognition that accusing someone of being racist based on their religion is 100% wrong. Especially when it is demonstrably false, at least as much as anyone can demonstrate they are not racist. The fact that I created the articles on Mia Love, Alex Boye and Marcus Martins would probably not alter the view of Baseball Buggs that I must be a racist, but especially the last one is hard to see why anyone who was in anyway racist would want to create an article on him. I also have long contemplated creating an article on Ahmad Corbett, but although personally I think his contributions are of note, I have not yet been convinced he would quite cross the notability threshold. I was hoping J. B. Haws would cover the work Corbett did as director of the LDS Church Office of Public and International Affairs in New York, but I am thinking we will have to wait until Haws or someone else writes the more broad ranging The Mormon in World Opinion, to see enough coverage of Corbett to have an article. My other alternative is I am hoping Corbett gets called as a member of the 1st Quorum of the 70 in 3 years when he comes back from being mission president in the Dominican Republic. I'm not sure that admitting to want to create another article on a black Mormon man with a white wife would endear myself to all people, but it clearly does not fit with the image of a racist. I have also created the Wikipedia articles on such Mormon leaders as Edward Dube, Joseph W. Sitati and Emmanuel Abu Kissi, who respectively Zimbabwean, Kenyan and Ghanaian, all with wives of their same nationality. I have also created articles on a few black protestant figures, possilby even Keith Butler, although someone else may have beat me to that one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm still waiting for you to tell me, when did I ever get involved in an article called Ari Teman? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No one said you did. Anyway it was not the article but the deletion discussion. That was referenced as an example of the casual, gratuitous insults some people think they can hurl at other editors. I am tired of it, and after not bringing up an ANI on that one, feel I need to bring up an ANI here. On other questions, I guess I have never edited the article on Keith Butler (Michigan), I just voted for him in the Republican primary. I did expanded and enhance the article on Vernon Johns. Many of my edits were recently reverted to a version that still included some of my contributions (such as him being one of the leading African-American orators in the early 20th-century), but with a removal of all in-line citations, with a removal of the section headings, and such. I think that article could use some good editing, but I am not sure how best to go about it. I would say my additions in general rely too much on the writing of Taylor Branch, there are probably other equally valid views of Johns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, so it appears you've had multiple editors raising the possibility of various "isms" about yourself. Alrighty then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The last statement shows a continued failure to accept on the part of Baseball Bugs that his actions were out of line, wrong, uncalled for and unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

JPL, my experience with BB is that he's a good editor with strongly held opinions who sometimes gets himself in hot water in how he says things. This is one of those times. His comments regarding LDS and you were wrong. He should express remorse and not do it again. You should forgive him [154]. If you are unsatisfied, consider filing an RFC/U, but I recommend forgiving and moving on.

Regarding your complaint here, it is well founded and in the right place. I do recommend that you keep it simple and not address multiple issues at once, as you seem to be doing here. Your other concerns about Ari Teman and Vernon Johns, for example, are confusing and dilute your point. Address those issues seperately, in their appropriate venues. ANI is for incidents. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The issue before us is your behavior, Bugs, not his. His has already been reviewed twice this week. And he has a legitimate claim, one that is larger than this one incident, and instead has to do with how we deal with these kinds of comments when directed toward any editor. I'm doing what I can to fix the (real) problem and move on, using the least amount of tools, but you aren't making it easy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Since people want more evidence on the Ari Teman issue, here is a link to that issue [155] as best as I can find showing the edit there. It was clearly an out-of-line attack, calling an editor "sexist". A-Because the actual experience is that both advocating for and advocating against categories like Category:Women writers, will get someone dubbed sexist. There are two thoughts about the ideal on such matters, which also come out in racial issues, and boil down to a separation between integration and ethnic identity preservation. The issues are made all the more complex with ethnicity is portrayed in racial terms, and the poisonous and not fully discredited idea that race has a biological component enters into the discussion. 2- How the whole Ari Teman issue had any relevance to the way Wikipedia categorizes women is still beyond me. It is the same type of bringing up of totally irrelevant details to denigrate an editor we saw here. Although this is a worse case, because it was built on the false assumption that Mormons are by definition racist. As J. B. Haws points out in his Oxford University Press published work, The Mormon Image in the American Mind, studies that have actually confronted Mormon attitudes towards race have found that Mormons are as a group, on the whole, less racist by most measures than the population as a whole. The one caveat is whether or not it is racist to hold "people should in general go to church with those of their own race", is racists, but Mormons have consistently been less likely to hold that view than the American population as a whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, this is detracting from the main issue. Being defensive isn't solving the problem du jour. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  • No one has asked for evidence of problems you've run into on Ari_Teman. We've suggested that you set that aside for your complaint here which is by your own admission exclusively with BB over comments they've made at AN/I. Spilling pixels on a totally independent issue (as BB is not related to that article, AFAIK) just inks the waters and makes it more difficult for your fellow editors to judge the matter at hand. We're all (hopefully) familiar with the natures and problems of essentialism. We don't need to introduce an unrelated issue in order to understand the impact of talking about contributors, not content. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• What is the point of this discussion? What is the desired outcome and how will that benefit the encyclopedia? Considering that many in the community have concerns about your editing going back years and you have emerged from this latest matter, one of a long string of issues involving you at ANI, with an incredibly mild sanction, you should quit while you are ahead. There is no question that Baseball_Bugs' comments were inappropriate. Everyone seems to accept that except Baseball_Bugs. So what do you want us to do? Block him? It would be perverse to sanction BB in this manner for his comments regarding the alleged motives for your editing while your problematic editing goes largely unaddressed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate JoeSperrazza' words of support. Meanwhile, speaking of being out of line, wrong, uncalled for and unacceptable... I'm still waiting for the editor's apology for McCarthyizing the "group of 88"? Or did I overlook it somehow? See, here's the thing... Yes, I do have a strong opinions about this particular topic, because I fully understand the reaction of those 88, which was a hot story at the time that I paid a lot of attention to. The editor says he's had enough. Well, the 88 and the others who "rushed to judgment", going with the facts as they knew them, had likewise had enough of the double-standard in their community, and this incident became a focal point. It's pretty clear to me that if the editor is not playing the reverse-racism card, then he must be ignorant of what the climate in Durham was at the time, and hence should not be editing on the subject. The 88 were fully justified in feeling the way they did. Unfortunately, they had the wrong information, due to a lying claimant and Nifong's malfeasance. But no one knew that at the time. Instead, it looked the "same old thing". The ones who need to be apologized to are the "group of 88" whom the editor tried to malign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• The main issue is that Baseball Bugs feels it is OK to attack people with bigoted attacks on their religion. I feel a need to make as clear as possible that this is wrong. If I let this slide now, he and others are more likely to do so in other cases, and more likely to drive editors away from contributing to the project because their religion is currently out-of-favor with politically correct crowds. Such behavior must stop, and a strong stand needs to be taken against it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the main issue is that you see nothing wrong with maligning 88 people whose feelings at the time were fully justifiable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Blocking Baseball Bugs would only be "perverse" if we think it is OK for editors to make bigoted attacks on other editors. I have not made bigoted attacks on any editors, and so attempting to compare my actions to his is totally and completely unfair. His actions were 100% out-of-line and need to result in a clear sanction if we want to preserve Wikipedia as a place where editors can participate without fear of personal attacks. The fact that he continues to insist there is nothing wrong with the bigoted attacks he engaged in shows that we need to take action.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• So what should that "clear sanction" be? Propose something specific or I move that we hat this discussion as a unproductive forum for complaining. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Bugs, regarding "<JPL's> apology for McCarthyizing the "group of 88"?"":

• You may be right that, in a perfect world, he'd provide such, but that's really between him and those 88 people,
• He's already been sanctioned for his actions and apparent bias in this regard, with an indefinite topic ban regarding the topic of the 88 and those individuals

So, continuing to discuss that point is moot. While one could debate whether or not JPL "gets it" regarding his actions regarding the 88 were wrong could be debated, the wrong venue is here at AN/I. File an RFC/U, if need be, but drop the stick here.

Moreover, two wrongs don't make a right. Your umbrage about the incident were well placed, but your commentary went too far. As much as you may find it galling, apologize for your part and move on. Regards to all, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I did redact some of my comments on the Group of 88, and I did apologize for making edits without finding the proper sources. On the other hand, I also provided the quote that demonstates that one of the members of the Group of 88 very clearly attacked the Lacrosse Players on racial grounds. That is as much as can be reasonably expected from me at this time. My edits to articles that bear directly on the subject all have either been reverted, or in the case of the Mike Nifong article, my one edit is clearly based on reliable sources and not at all controversial. The fact that Baseball Bugs thinks that any of this gives him the right to make bigoted attacks against another user based on their religion should be of grave concern to all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

People: JPL has already been topic-banned from the "Group of 88" thing, so he is no longer supposed to be discussing that topic – including here. So, JPL: please don't continue talking about the Group of 88; everybody else: please stop challenging JPL over that topic; he's not supposed to respond. That chapter is closed. Bugs: you need to accept your share of the responsibility here. Your comments in the other thread were way over the line; just accept that, shut up and move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'm out for a while and hopeful that while I'm gone, Bugs has come to his senses rather than gotten blocked, although both options do seem to be on the table at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• The attempt to ban an editor from discussing a subject anywhere seems far too overbroad and unfair. This is especially so when such inflammatory language is used to attack them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it's called a topic ban, and you just got one imposed on you. You are free to discuss anything that is necessary in the context of raising a legitimate complaint about another user in a forum like here, or in the context of defending yourself against such complaints, but repeating your views on those professors is entirely immaterial for our understanding of your complaint about Bugs, so there is no place for it here (and, as I just said, other users should in turn stop challenging you and complaining about your previous actions regarding that topic, because the matter is settled.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Baseball Bugs statements have little to do with that issue, and amount to character assassination and accusations that should not be allowed to stand. The fact that he thinks it is ever acceptable to accuse a user of engaging in "McCarthyism" should be almost as much of a concern as the fact that he thinks it is acceptable to attack a user on religious grounds. If the general community consensus is that attacks on users with such inflammatory language should be allowed, we have to ask why such inflammatory attacks on other users are permitted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

JPL, everyone here is in agreement that BB's statements to you in the prior thread were wrong and not allowed. What to do about is is to be determined. Nothing you say here will change that decision to make the decision stronger, and your continued commentary may in fact result in a weaker decision. You've made your point. I strongly suggest you quit pushing on this issue - you're more likely to get yourself in hot water (worst case) and are just diminishing your case (best case). Just and reasonable contributors (some of whom are admins) agree with you on this issue. Go back to what you were doing and stop commenting here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing Lambert of racism. It appears to be simple ignorance, not racism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That has to be one of the most backhanded, disingenuous apologies I have seen in a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not a racist, and you don't adhere to the past Mormon racist tradition. It's also clear you don't know anything about the climate in Durham at the time of the lacrosse incident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It was quite a backhand, but I had to chuckle. JPL, the problem is that you and a handful of others have been running roughshod over many articles and categories and whatnot that have to do with gender in general, and women in particular. Sorry, but form what I have witnessed, you tend to have a...let's charitably call it a Mad Men-esque view of the world, which is a fair bit out of step with the, let's also say, Filipacchi-esue way that the 21st century actually functions. It is time to catch up. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bugs has been blocked for 48 hrs for WP:NPA. I suggest hatting this as resolved. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So it shall be written, so it shall be  Done. --Jayron32 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User HiLo48

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

---

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in an abusive pattern of edits towards me on the talkpage of Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), beginning with spurious and abusive accusations (first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_Church&diff=616887037&oldid=616886661). I have attempted to report this through email to several administrators, but their intervention has been delayed.

Additionally 207.157.121.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posing as an administer, and inappropriately intervening in the situation. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Cough. Bullshit. I didn't pose as nothing. Zfish claimed to be seeking review, and I kindly did that for them: you're welcome. And I'm sure that HiLo's next post will contain an apology for the one remark that wasn't so nice. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the second issue first: the only thing I see where the IP has posed as an administrator is to refer to an "administrative review" in one edit,[156] which I don't see has taken place. Since it's a thread that's been replied to, it's inappropriate for Zfish118 to remove the full thread—although removal of personal attacks should be done and appears to have already been done. —C.Fred (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, C.Fred, and let me add that I didn't see the attack until after I had restored the edit--it was all the way at the end. It would have been acceptable on Zfish's part to remove just that part, as another editor has done in the meantime. Thank you, 207.157.121.52 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

See my apology on the Talk page, along with further explanation of my concerns. 207...., the probable reason you didn't see the post earlier is that there was an awful lot of unexplained deletion going on. It all got very confusing. User:Zfish118 seemed to think that a solution to the problem was to entirely delete something without discussion, explanation or Edit summaries. It didn't help me understand what the problem was either. But see the article Talk page for my apology and more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. Following all the confusing deletions that didn't help anybody know what was going on in this topic, that very good faith comment from me immediately above was deleted twenty minutes ago, and now it's been restored. WTF? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you ended up with a silent edit conflict that caused your post to inadvertently remove a comment from Bbb23. They undid to restore their comment, then evidently noticed your own addition and restored that too. Resolute 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Insertion of unsourced and dubious info about a BLP

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

---

IP editor 50.12.9.41 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted unsourced and dubious information about a living person (Jay-Z) into Trinidadian and Tobagonian American. While this isn't terribly harmful information as such, I cannot find sources that support the assertion that Jay Z is of Trinbagonian descent. I have tried to communicate with the editor, but they have not responded. I requested page protection, thinking it was the easier solution, but it was declined. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. (Since I am an editor on that page, I consider myself potentially involved for the purpose of admin actions.) Guettarda (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

He was doing damage elsewhere as well, so I have blocked the IP for a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Abuse of speedy deletion tag

User:PrinceSulaiman marked Reckitt and Sons as reviewed and added an unreliable source tag [157] I remove the tag, leaving a message on the talk page to show that the source has been used by multiple academic sources.

About 1hr later the same editor returned, now adding a speedy deleltion label. [158]

The speedy deletion request is ridiculous, as could be trivially discovered by reading the article.

I consider this tagging tendentious and unhelpful.Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Prof.Haddock, I was never abusing using the speedy deletion tag, As the article you created at Reckitt and Sons didn't provide any reliable source neither the company is significant, I strongly encourage you to create a draft article using the Article Wizard and then submit for the approval to get it published, If not then the users will challenge for speedy deletion as well your article has successfully met the speedy deletion criteria. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page ? - I explained about the source. The company is obviously significant - as anyone could find out by reading the article -you can see a short list of obvious reasons for notability given at Talk:Reckitt and Sons Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag and left a note on talk page. @PrinceSulaiman: consider bringing it to AfD if you still want deletion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prof.Haddock:, I suggest you to move the source to bottom of the contents which is easier to be verified, Please do not put the source on talk page its only for discussion of the article, But next time if you're going to create new article please use the Article Wizard instead of creating them manually. @OccultZone:, If you think its significant please provide a reliable source of Reckitt and Sons. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I had, looks like you haven't read Talk:Reckitt and Sons. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Then you need to move them to the bottom of the main contents not the talk page. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Still speedy tag cannot be justified here. You had to look around before you would tag the article. Sometimes article are written differently and the new editors don't know about the guidelines of wikipedia. Before you add PROD tag to article you have to make sure that the subject lacks notability. You can add a {{refimprove}} tag. I hope you have understood. Next time be more careful whenever you are adding PROD tag to any article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@PrinceSulaiman: why do you keep saying "move to the bottom of the contents page" (from the talk page)? That's not correct. The cited source is at the foot of the article. What's on the talk page is the claim that the cited source is reliable because it is cited in other sources which are claimed to be reliable. Those other sources are not being cited in the article however. That should not go in the article - the talk page is exactly the right place for it. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

NOthing to see here, if they aren't the user Checkuser will unblock but that's pretty strong evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, are you sure you meant the above comment for this section? Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: For new editors who doesn't know about the Guidelines for that reason there is the Article Wizard, A user or editor are permitted to complete the article entirely before pressing save button if it left partly it could led to speedy deletion or challenged by other page patrollers, However providing a reliable source will always slim the chance of speedy deletion like you did at Reckitt and Sons's talk page. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Those editors are still not responsible if you have PRODed without any appropriate reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had the same issue with this user today. Initially La Course by Le Tour de France was flagged for speedy deletion, suggesting the given sources were not reliable, this was rejected by Nthep, Prince Sulaiman then re-added the speedy deletion tag, accused myself of removing it then again suggested that sources such as the sports governing body as well as the event organiser were not reliable enough. XyZAn (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Prince Sulaiman, your tagging of that article for speedy deletion A7 was patently wrong. That criterion does not apply to an article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I can only believe you didn't read the article at that point or look at the sources—a company nearly 100 years old, and the precursor of another notable company. The second source was a book published by Routledge in 2004 with an entire chapter devoted to it. Kindly read WP:A7, and in fact read WP:SPEEDY in its entirety. You were cautioned by an administrator in late June about your inappropriate speedy deletion tagging and the harm it can do "Please stay away from new page patrol at least until you have studied up on all the rules and guidelines (including the advice not to tag new pages immediately after they are created)". You deleted that post shortly thereafter [159] and appear not to have heeded any of it. In this case, you appear to have tagged the article for speedy deletion in retaliation for the article's creator having removed your unreliable sources tag. The editor explained immediately on the talk page why they were removing it. But you clearly didn't read that either. I find it very concerning that you continue to defend your actions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Voceditenore:, With all due to respect i'm not concerned to defend my actions, However i have made many article deletion which were created unnecessarily (you could see the records if you wish) and the few of them were only rejected from being deleted since the user edits the article later after an hour or so with an reliable source. And i strongly understand your point on my deletion nominations, However in some cases the editors make different way of creating article which leaving partly uncompleted without providing a reliable source or a reference of the content and this puts the chances of the article to be deleted if there were not verifiable content or reliable sources included in the article, On each new editors i also have provided them the guidelines of Wikipedia and about creating new article (much better on Article Wizard), I hope you understand and this isn't my first time issue. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

But your reply to Voceditenore, "leaving partly uncompleted without providing a reliable source or a reference of the content and this puts the chances of the article to be deleted if there were not verifiable content or reliable sources included in the article" suggests that you do not understand WP:CCOS: "not including any sources is entirely irrelevant to an assessment under these speedy deletion criteria". And your latest A7 in Xhulio Joka and your subsequent request on Talk:Xhulio Joka for "reliable sources and more informations about his career, I find it insignificant director" seems to confirm this. Another A7 from today was on Azis Sadikovic, but I happened to see it before it got deleted under G12, and it had lots of credible claim of significance. Your A9 tag here earlier today is wrong, since Jeff Cardoni has an article. Sam ^Sing! 19:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, PrinceSulaiman, is a "new account" since he "deleted" his old accounts for "several reasons"? Is that ok or should he disclose his "old" accounts? --Malerooster (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Malerooster: My old account wanted to be claimed by another user whom sent me a request to have it claimed, But i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time. However, I'll not able to disclose the username since i had agreed with the new owner that i'll not able to re-claim or mention it on new pages/talk pages the account in future. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not allowed to "give your account" away to someone else - nobody cares what agreements you have between people. If you were editing under a previous account, you're required as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to link to it. the panda ₯’ 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Question -- is he required to do so? Or required except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account? Or is an editor who has multiple accounts for privacy reasons? Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sulaiman, on the very first day you were here as your 14th edit, you redirected your user page to Sulaiman Kuthubdeen. That article was created by Lukman42 (t c) and speedy deleted thrice in 2009. The article is strangely also linked from Sulaiman9 (t c). Following a lead, Apple SK9, from there brought me to Sulaiman7799 (t c), also chairman of Apple SK9 judging form this revision of User:Sulaiman7799. He created an article titled Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubdeen that got speedy deleted five times in 2010. Now, back to where I started, why did you redirect your user page to main space? Sam ^Sing! 23:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor:, I have no idea why you're mixing the topic, This topic was referred to Reckitt and Sons's deletion issue not my account. Therefore please do not mix topics. you could discuss this account issue at my talk page --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As the heading suggests, all topics related to the behaviour can and will be brought up - as you can see, while investigating something somewhat minor, a very major situation arose - that wolverine is out of its cage, and needs to be addressed here the panda ₯’ 12:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• No mixing of topics is taking place here. In a reply to Yngvadottir, here, you said you deleted your old account, technically something impossible. Malerooster asked the community whether or not you should disclose your old accounts. You then claimed in your reply that you had giving your old account away. DangerousPanda commented that this is not allowed, and informed you of the requirement per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to link to it.

I find it is a relevant observation that you tried to redirect your user page to red-linked Sulaiman Kuthubdeen, an article that was deleted 5 years ago and partly shares your chosen username. It in turn leads to Sulaiman9 (t c) and Sulaiman7799 (t c), also both partly sharing your username. I now further notice that the latter user declared to be Sri Lankan, and edited in the Real Madrid player Cristiano Ronaldo; you are, according to your user page, a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka and a fan of Spanish football, and edit these areas.

You're free not to clarify, but be aware that Robert McClenon below has spoken for indefinitely blocking you because of your reluctance to identify the previous account(s). Sam ^Sing! 13:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sam Sailor Its strange that Sulaiman7799 (t c) and Sulaiman9 (t c) was never created by me, But there are lot of people using name “Sulaiman” and i'm not only the one to be here. Actually the fact is that i'm not Sri Lankan. I don't know what kind of investigation is this.

• PrinceSulaiman, I'm the one who left you that message before about being more careful tagging articles for speedy deletion - including telling you you should not be tagging them immediately they are created precisely because some people create the article first, then add references. I even gave you a possible reason - shaky internet connections. There is no requirement to use the Article Wizard/Articles for Creation; there is a requirement to be civil to other editors, it is one of our pillars, and that includes not biting new editors. I just looked at Xhulio Joka, one of the articles mentioned above by Sam Sailor, and I see you ordering the new editor not to edit the article (diff requires admin-o-vision). Perhaps you meant not to remove the speedy deletion template, but that is not what your edit summary said. Then you dropped a high-level vandalism warning on his talk page. That's contrary to policy - never call it vandalism unless it's clear to you that the person was trying to damage the encyclopedia. If you're going to do new page patrol, you need to be a lot lighter in your touch with new editors. Also - it's very rarely justifiable to say that an article was created "unnecessarily". Perhaps when we already have an article on the topic, but if you look at the remaining speedy deletion criteria, that is not what they are about. I'm very concerned that you have caused some useful articles to be deleted - the Albanian film maker being one possibility - and that you have been very harsh to some inexperienced editors. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic-Ban on Speedy Tagging

In view of the fact that User:PrinceSulaiman has created several articles that have been speedy-deleted, his continuing questionable tagging of other articles for speedy deletion is probably not so much a matter of misunderstanding the policy but of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. In any case, I recommend a topic-ban on speedy deletion tagging. This is unrelated to the issue about account use, which appears to be resolving itself as improper but "no harm, no foul". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I have been warned on adding speedy deletion which i have avoided adding speedy deletion tags from now on. I do not think its right to ban me. I believe that i haven't created “Several Articles” that was nominated for speedy deletion it seems like you haven't read the entire topic that i communicated with reviewers and admins regarding this issue. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: It is not just about the speedy tag or PROD tag but it is about whole new page patrolling. If you check the recent contributions of PrinceSulaiman to these pages, you will also find considerable amount of drive by tagging. He has been misusing the tags, on Sergei Kazantcev, he has added {{refimprove}} tag but also {{unreferenced}} tag. On Echo, Louisiana, he added {{lead too short}} when the article is geography stub. So a topic ban on New Page Patrolling would be better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I have been warned for misusing tags on articles by another admin, For now on i decided to avoid page patrolling and speedy deletion tagging on new articles, I believe it would be unfair to have my account banned without giving a second chance after a warning... --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban and Ban are not same words. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: but still i will get banned from editing certain articles which is considered to unfair without giving a second chance after a warning. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@PrinceSulaiman: Sounds better. Just try to concentrate and search about the subject whenever you are patrolling a new page. Also make sure the size and quality of the article before you add any tag. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Yes, i'll make sure to search more on new article before adding tag. Thank you for your recommendation :) --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support but I would extend this to restricting him from the addition of any tag to any page (new or old) for at least six months. This would not impede his ability to improve articles, create articles, revert vandalism, and to actually learn the basic principles of editing here. It would simply prevent the harm he causing by his complete failure to understand the most basic principles of new page patrolling, deletion criteria, and the use of maintenance tags. He has been warned multiple times about this, but up to now has ignored warnings and continues to obfuscate. He has shown no evidence that he understands what is wrong with his approach, the harm it can do to editor retention, and the disruption he causes to other editors who have to clean up after him. This absurdly inappropriate tagging placed 3 minutes after the article was created is a prime example of why the restriction should be extended to all article tagging. His failure to listen has already resulted in a one week block at Commons, soon followed by the current one month block. This relatively mild restriction proposal would hopefully prevent the same fate here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support his being restricted from new page patrol. Older articles have more expert defenders and are less likely to be speedy deleted just because they were tagged for it. I'm sorry, Prince Sulaiman, but as I read it you have had at least two chances, and I'm more concerned about defending the encyclopedia and content writers than about your wish to edit in this particular area: judging other people's new work. I agree with Voceditenore, please get some experience as an editor first if you wish to return to new page patrol later. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Deliberate Compromise of Previous Account

User:PrinceSulaiman states that he gave his previous account away and agreed with the new owner that he would not reclaim it or mention it. That is deeply troublesome. Recommend an indefinite block of the new account until he identifies the compromised account (knowing that the recipient of the account may have sanctions). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't know if his statement is true. If it is true, it is a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy on user accounts. If it is false, then the statement is trolling. Both are grounds for a block. That is not directly related to disruptive speedy nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The user said My old account wanted to be claimed by another user whom sent me a request to have it claimed, But i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time. By "claimed" he could have meant "usurped" and by "sent me a request" he could have meant "left a message on my talk page." He could have meant that, but maybe he didn't, the user will need to clarify that. Rgrds. --64.85.216.41 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon exactly what 64.85.216.41 said, I haven't used my old account (no edits and page creations were made at that time) it was more of abandoned account. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Prince Sulaiman couldn't have meant "usurped", because here he claims that his old account had 200 edits. An account only qualifies for usurpation if it has no edits or significant log entries. So he either turned over his account and his password to someone else, or he's decided to come back under a new name after using multiple other accounts to create multiple speedily deleted articles all relating to Sulaiman Kuthubdeen, Lukman Kuthubdeen, their various start-ups Apple SK9, Gizmaestro and last but not least Kamil Kuthubdeen (allegedly the father of Sulaiman Kuthubdeen [160]). See Sam Sailor's analysis above. Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC) PS And who are all these Kamil Kuthubdeen's? Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I believe there were communication mistake, I mean “PrinceSulaiman” has over 200 edits, Instead i shortened it by mentioning “Old Account”, I apologize for the miscommunication. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying that you gave your account and password to someone else and that instead it was done through the official process of usurpation? In that case there will be a log of the process. There is never a condition placed on usurpation that the previous owner cannot reveal the name of that account, although they are given 7 days in which to object to the usurpation. I'm afraid none of this rings true. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, No sir, I wasn't denying that i had given my account to someone, I only have gave my old account called SLK to my relative and “PrinceSulaiman” is new account, Therefore the old account activities are unused at the time before i handing it over. I hope it doesn't confuse… --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef until user discloses his previous accounts, per WP:SOCK. If they are not willing to reveal them publically, I advise them to contact WP:ARBCOM to disclose, who can verify any other (non-public) issues. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Maybe that is the only way, there is still some time and PrinceSulaiman can still avoid indef block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Indef ≠ forever, only until they reveal their other accounts. They have been adked multiple times to do this, and there refusal pushes my good faith (which get's stretched a lot nowadays) too far. Sometimes, you need to use extreme measures when kindness no longer works. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC).

Mdann52, I understand, But alright, I'm able to reveal the account i had only one this SLK it was created back in 2006 which i had never used it, However i have never shared this account with unknown person i handed over to my relative who wish to manage it and for now i do not know overall activities of that account its already given... --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Prince Sulaiman, it is a serious violation of policy to hand over your account and password to anyone whether they are known to you or not. And if what you say is true, that is clearly what you did because there is no log whatsoever for the official usurpation of the SLK account. But if you did hand it over and that you had never used it to edit, then you handed it over on the the day it was registered, 12 May 2006. The SLK account began editing (with all edits either outright vandalism or the insertion of false information in articles) on 12 May 2006 and continued in that vein through September 2009 [161]. I'm sorry, but none of this rings true. Voceditenore (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, It is correct it was the same day i handed over it. I didn't kept holding the account for more than a day. I hope this clears it and i understand it violated the policy but i did never know about this policy back in 2006. As i mentioned that i was never Wikipedia expertise at that time. --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I concur with Voceditenore. SLK was created on 12 May 2006, but PrinceSulaiman on his user page states he has been editing since 26 April 2006. It doesn't jive here. Sam ^Sing! 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, I edited as anonymous before the month i created my old account SLK and didn't use it, However you're making this very complicated by bring Sulaiman7799 and among of other user accounts which were never created by me. Please do not confuse with that accounts --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I agree. The SLK account made its first edit 2 minutes after registration. So in the space of 2 minutes after allegedly creating the SLK account, Prince Sulaiman was contacted by his relative requesting him to hand over the account, gave all the assurances requested, handed it over, and then said relative began to edit. PrinceSulaiman, you still haven't explained why one of your first edits in this current account was to redirect your user page to the multiply deleted Sulaiman Kuthubdeen which has close connections with 4 other accounts and to other multiply deleted related articles. As long as you haven't used any other accounts simultaneously with this one or edited in the same areas and stop editing under those accounts, it's probably OK, but if you have been editing under any other accounts, you need need to declare all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, Sir, I haven't made any other account at the moment and only “Prince Sulaiman” is active that i use daily to contribute to wiki articles, About the first edit regarding the redirection to Sulaiman Kuthubdeen i simply wanted to test as sandbox whether a user will able to redirect my user page to any article so i and then linked to test whether its linking and i was happy that it didn't work (i mean the redirection didn't go through it) since i would really be worried if it worked because in case of vandalism (or abusing) user(s) will keep redirecting it to random pages. I hope this explained your required criteria --Prince Sulaiman (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, frankly it doesn't really explain things. First of all, the redirect did go through. You simply reverted it with the next edit. And if you "basically picked an article containing 'Sulaiman'" for this test, why out of the dozens of actual articles containing "Sulaiman", did you pick one that was deleted 5 years ago? I also find your assertion "I haven't made any other account at the moment and only “Prince Sulaiman” is active" ambiguous. Perhaps it's a language problem. Are you saying that you have never at any other time created or edited from any other accounts apart from this one and SLK? Voceditenore (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I didn't want to test the redirection on an article that already exists because i believed that could harm other articles (that already exist) if redirection tag was misplaced, So i used the article that is being deleted or doesn't exist. On editing, Yes, I have never used any other than SLK account since because in 2006 i begin to contribute to few articles (minority edits) under anonymity without an account, But for a history of my edits that i decided to create “PrinceSulaiman” account, Do you believe that i seriously violated wikipedia's policy by putting redirection tag to deleted article? Please educate me if i'm wrong --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 18:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, Could you kindly block my old account User:SLK? I don't want this incident to be happened again in the future. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Observations

Let me recap what PrinceSulaiman (PS) have said:

1. Prior account: They say they have been a Wikipedian since 26 April 2006 (Diff) and edited anonymously before creating their first account SLK (Diff). Fair enough. User:SLK was created 16 days later on 12 May 2006. They said twice they never used that account (Diff Diff), "it was more of [an] abandoned account" (Diff), and that their relative (Diff) "sent me a request to have it [and] i accepted to give it away since i didn't use wiki at that time" (Diff). And further that "I have never used any other than SLK account since" (Diff). Very well. But my main objection to this storyline is, as Voceditenore has implied, that their relative makes her/his first disruptive edit 2 minutes later, and while technically all the above and the relative's edit could be accomplished with ~120 seconds, it does not sound as a plausible story.
2. Edit count: They said to Yngvadottir on 21 June, 5 days after they created the PS account that "i've been Wikipedian since 2006 (having over 200 edits) which i basically switched account from my old account" (Diff). They clarified earlier today that "I mean “PrinceSulaiman” has over 200 edits" (Diff). But I did the counting and they actually only had 80 edits under the belt when they replied on 21 June. And as they at that time had not used Twinkle yet, there is no way they could have 120 deleted edits from speedy tagging. In fact they currently have only 55 deleted edits.
3. Sulaiman Kuthubdeen: They have denied being behind the accounts Sulaiman7799 (t c) and Sulaiman9 (t c) that created Sulaiman Kuthubdeen and Mohamed Sulaiman Kuthubdeen in 2009 and 2010, saying "there are lot of people using name “Sulaiman” and i'm not only the one to be here". That is true. It is also true that we have many live biographical articles starting with Sulaiman. But we have zero live articles that include "Kuthubdeen" at all in its title. Actually "Kuthubdeen" returns only c. 6000 Google hits. So when they wanted to "test a redirect" (Diff), they did not pick any of the many live articles starting with "Sulaiman", they made the extremely rare combination "Sulaiman Kuthubdeen" that redirected to a deleted article. What are the chances? Let me think aloud: could it be, that "Sulaiman Kuthubdeen" is their real name? Could it be that they redirected to their old (auto)bio?
4. Likely IP socking: This is not the first time PS's speedy tagging is up for discussion on ANI. That happened on 21 June five days after account creation, archived here, when A.Minkowiski (AM) posted regarding their G7 tag (Diff) of AR.Freeflight (presently userfied to Draft:AR.Freeflight). Obviously G7 did not apply in this case. Their two replies to AM on their talk page are noteworthy, first "The article you wrote doesn't find any notable information from A.R Free Flight, I assume it's not necessary to create an article for unpopular application." AM pointed out their mistake (Diff), and since they neither replied nor self-reverted their tagging, AM removed it (Diff) and told them on their talk page (Diff). Instead of admitting their mistake, they recommended expanding the article and adding sources (Diff). Half an hour later IP59.158.247.90 then tags the same draft with G11 (Diff). What are the chances of a draft being speedy tagged twice within 75 minutes? PS have denied being IP59.158.247.90 (Diff). But ... PS's very first edit was on Talk:1915 Sinhalese Muslim riots where they talk about an article edit they made ... that was 6 minutes before (Diff) made by IP59.158.247.90.

Quack-quack. Sam ^Sing! 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Sam Sailor:: Just one correction - you missed that AR.Freeflight was created in main space. I counseled the creator to accept the deleting admin's offer to userfy it. See the later history of the draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• You are right, Yngvadottir, thank you for correcting me. Sam ^Sing! 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• You could block User:SLK as a compromised account, but they haven't edited in almost 5 years so that really isn't preventing anything. As Prince Sulaiman has disclosed this, and we don't see evidence that both used the account at the same time, I don't see a burning need to act on this. It is against the spirit of WP:NOSHARE but the act itself hasn't caused disruption. No comment on the Speedy issue above, but the user name issue seems moot. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Indef block - great research by Voceditenore, we cannot trust this user and so they should not be allowed to edit any further until they start being honest. GiantSnowman 17:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Sir. I'm being serious and i do not want to be dishonest to the admins and the reviewers which i respect their opinions and point of view. I have also provided my old account as required by fellow admins here. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is the story. You made an account. You gave it to a relative within two minutes. Then, you decided not to make a new account for yourself; you did not make an account for five years! Despite that, on User:PrinceSulaiman, you claim to have been editing during the time that you say you had given the account to a relative and not made another. You could have been an IP for eight years, but I call BS on that because you did decide to create an account. Origamite^{is out right now} 19:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Origamite:, the SLK account is my old account and i didn't get used to it so i gave it to my relative which they wished to manage it, However i have not much been involved in editing articles for last 8 years and mostly are made under anonymity for minority edits, However after years i got used to Wikipedia then i had to create new account which is PrinceSulaiman. Please kindly read the above topic i have already mentioned it and i don't wish to repeat this again and again. Note that i don't use a static IP address --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block - untrustworthy user, the project looses nothing here. Sam ^Sing! 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• You need to file at WP:SPI, most of the above is pure conjecture and it can get hashed out there. ANI is a bad place to try to determine sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• While Prince Sulaiman's evasive and contradictory stories re these accounts do not attest to the credibility of his other assertions re the original complaint, I agree with Dennis that any further elaboration of evidence should be taken to SPI. I'm not sure it will serve a useful purpose, though. The SLK account, which he claims (quite unconvincingly) to have given away, stopped editing in 2009. The other three accounts, which are clearly connected to each other (Lukman42, Sulaiman9, and Sulaiman7799) and may possibly be linked to him as well, haven't edited since 2012. Having said that, the account SLK (talk · contribs) should be blocked on the distinct probability that the password has been shared. That account was used to create multiple attack pages on [162], [163], [164] on students at Fartown High School in the UK. Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a former SPI clerk, we were instructed to not block accounts that old (except in extraordinary circumstances) because it wasn't preventative. That is the point here, that I don't see any abuse, I see some mistakes, but they are too old to be actionable. We don't track down problems from years ago, we can barely keep up with socks from the last month. And again, I've limited my comments to socking only: it is a dead issue, it won't get pursued. Focus on the other stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe this is too obvious to be pointed out or conjecture, but SLK could stand for Sulaiman L. Kuthubdeen. Origamite^{is out right now} 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The plot thickens

Is it my imagination, or is there something odd happening with the series of edits starting here [165]? EEng (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like edit conflicts and ham-fisted attempts to fix them to me.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. It looked kinda like one of those sockmaster-forgot-who-he-was-for-a-minute things. EEng (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thomas and Friends Vandalism

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

---

Special:Contributions/78.150.147.25 has been constantly removing content from Thomas and Friends, without any explanation why. Staglit (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• A quick sampling of his deletions show he is removing large chunks of unsourced material, so that isn't vandalism from what I can tell. I thought WP:BURDEN says that in order to add it back, you need to provide a citation of some sort. Not sure this is something that needs admin attention. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• No Guru has already blocked them for vandalism, but I can't say I agree with that. They did appear to be edit warring but that isn't what the block was for. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree also; it looks like they were removing character introduction cruft that was unsourced. Rare is it I have to disagree with an IP kids show article block, but this is definitely one case; that information doesn't belong there without a source. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I had pinged No Guru but no reply, so I left a note on his talk page. If anything, I'm thinking page protection would have been better, since it was a legitimate content issue, and the BURDEN was on the other editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• • While I agree it's not vandalism, a block for 3RR would be appropriate for the reverts(see below) 3RR was violated at Thomas & Friends (series 5). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He wasn't the only one with more than 3 reverts, and technically, his edits were fine and shouldn't have been reverted back in via WP:BURDEN. Normally with two editors doing that, you do full protection and just get them to talk it out. You CAN block them both, but that isn't the preferred way. The other editors were calling it vandalism in their reverts (WP:CIVILITY....) but it wasn't. I get the feeling this is old fashioned IP discrimination. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Quite right, the IP wasn't the sole violator of 3RR. I suspect, however, that protection isn't going to do anything either; once they have it pointed out that their reverts weren't of vandalism, the reverting editors themselves aren't likely to re-add the content. But of course, that doesn't serve to validate the original block. Meh. Yeah, I think you're right Dennis, that this is just a case of unfairly presuming blanking by an IP is invalid. As such I've stricken my above comment that the block was warranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I've unblocked the IP as it has been 24 hours without a peep from the blocking admin, I've warned the other editor who was calling the IP's edits "vandalism", explained and linked WP:BURDEN, and gave them a pointer here, although I don't necessarily anticipate participation. I'm sure that won't make me popular today, but it seems abundantly clear this was a bad block, based on bad claims of vandalism. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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