Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863

Topic ban for UrbanVillager

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.

---

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See this talk page discussion for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban; the ownership and promotional editing have continued despite all attempts by other editors to intervene. I have long since given up trying to improve those articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sadly, I can simply copy&paste my previous response: I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly a tendentious and promotional single-purpose account with a massive conflict of interest. We don't need to tolerate such editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have not decided on this issue yet but an editor from 2010 who had contributed to a variety of topics does not seem to indicate a SPA to me. Chillum 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The topics edited on all relate either to the filmmaker, to the documentaries themselves or to the people interviewed in the documentaries. I'm not seeing a large variety unless you're including some edits years ago related to Serbia generally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE 5th November, UrbanVillager, today made 7 edits on subjects not related to Malagurski, these are almost the only non-Malagurski edits in the last 3 years, even edits on subjects such as Serbian Canadians, or on talk-pages are almost ALWAYS directly connected to Malagurski (see also global edit histories below). Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A few very close calls. Most recent edits are mostly in the topic area of Boris Malagurski, however there are enough old edits in other areas that I am not willing to push too hard on the SPA side of things to a topic ban (I would need more evidence of actual promotion/advocacy that I haven't seen yet). [1] gets very, close to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point." Which I think applies in this case. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The two ANI's referred to by Ricky81682 above are examples of ACTUAL disruption. Having made these accusations, UrbanVillager, offered no further evidence, (but still repeats the accusations in his response below). Every editor substantially involved in the WoC over the last two years has been a target of UrbanVillager's specious accusations. I have created a section below detailing disruption[2]. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:Ankit Maity made a relevant comment in the discussion further down this page, which I'm going to go ahead and quote:

I don't get this All SPAs are bad concept. Come on, this is not some satanic cult promoting their ancient religion of Sabbatic craft. It's simply a user who is interested in editing a specific topic. Unless the user displays really poor knowledge of policies, has COI or fails to maintain NPOV, he shouldn't be classified as a bad SPA. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

--Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, it needs a showing of "has COI or fails to maintain NPOV", although if it is a SPA that suggests that such a NPOV/COI argument is going to be stronger, but it needs to actually be made. --Obsidi (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Plenty of evidence has been given about the tendentious and promotional nature of UrbanVillager's editing. Given the previous history of disruption and self-promotion by Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets, we shouldn't tolerate very similar behavior by UrbanVillager, even if he's not Malagurski himself. (And why should we care?) No such user (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban per Obsidi, Ankit Maity, and Richard Yin's comments. Yes, there are some tendentious edits here but it is not all UrbanVillager's doing. As an example, see this recent revert war between UV and Pincrete: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable. Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway. There is clear POV-pushing here from both sides. Warnings are deserved all around but a one-sided topic ban does the encyclopedia no service. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, names 5 editors above, one of them (NinjaRobotPirate) has never edited on Malagurski pages, nor (as far as I know), inter-acted with any 'key' editors, it is therefore unfair to make NRP in any way responsible for what has or should have happened or not happened. I will reply to IV's comments about me if he wishes. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary, Pincrete, my point is that I don't think there's anything actionable here. My apologies to NinjaRobotPirate, I thought I saw a comment from you in one of the sockpuppet investigations but I was mistaken, and it was sloppy of me to have named you in my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's alright. No harm done. Like I mentioned earlier, I came into this long-running dispute rather late. I think that I did post to a talk page once or twice, but I quickly gave up. I'm not especially concerned with whether anyone here is a sock puppet or SPA; instead, my concerns are the unending drama, edit wars, and POV-pushing. While it's true that neither side has been purity itself, only one editor has threatened to disrupt the article. I understand why some people are opposing, but it's just going to drag this drama out even longer, and we'll be back here again in a few weeks. I think it's better to resolve it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per User:Ivanvector and because I believe that Ricky abused the tools. Caden ^cool 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As editors have asked for evidence of 'disruptive behaviour', I have created a section below [15], I will attempt later to include evidence of NPOV editing. The two together, combined with edit history, constitute a WP:DUCK argument for a COI. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'd only like to note that most of the editors requesting the topic ban (including Ricky, who initiated the ban and was given the "Official Frown of Disapproval for imposing a ban in a matter upon which they also expressed a deliberative view and been an active editor") are involved in the matter at hand. I came here to edit, not to fight with anyone. And anyone who checks my earlier editing work will see how much I contributed to Malagurski-related articles. He or she will also see how much I am unable to do so anymore because of constant obstructions by editors who would rather have no Malagurski-related articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. So, if the Wikipedia community wants to ban someone who is genuinely interested in this topic and has contributed to the best of my ability, I will respect that decision. It would've helped if there was at least one friendly editor working on Malagurski-related articles who didn't immediately jump on me, accusing me of being Malagurski or promoting him, just because I wouldn't join the anti-Malagurski band wagon. I tried to be neutral and anyone who invests more time into my edit history will see how much criticism towards Malagurski and his work I agreed to be added to the article, how much I brought up myself (sourced, of course). But it wasn't enough. If the decision here is that a ban on my contributions towards Malagurski-related articles should not be placed, any edit I make to those articles will be reverted, by Pincrete, Bobrayner, citing "consensus" they create through mere plurality. I am effectively already banned, so make it official, if you please. Or, instead of just discussing the matter here, have a look at the Malagurski-related articles, edit them, contribute to their quality. Help create real consensus, that's what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it? Anybody can open cases here, write "Support" or "Oppose", briefly divulge why, and leave. If you wrote here, show interest and help make these articles better. Banning or not banning me won't make them better. And I came here to make them better. Since I can't do that anymore, it's up to you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to comment, Ricky81682 has been involved in the articles for approx. 1 month, bobrayner loosely involved for 3 years. How does 2 editors become UrbanVillager's MOST of the editors requesting the topic ban … are involved in the matter at hand? UrbanVillager says how much criticism towards Malagurski and his work I agreed to be added to the article, how much I brought up myself. I know of only one (very mild) criticism supplied by UrbanVillager (that the films are controversial, from a javno interview), correct me please if I am wrong.

I know of no anti-Malagurski band wagon, and when asked by myself and Euryalus, to prove "conspiracies", "editors that openly despise the work" and "canvassing' that UrbanVillager accuses other editors of (in 'response' below), UrbanVillager relied on a single remark from an editor retired two years ago, and (out of context) talk page comments from me on my first day as an editor also over 2 years ago. I'm afraid that the history shows that UrbanVillager HAS fought with every editor in the last two years, and HAS fought to keep article pages as promotional as possible, using disruption, personal abuse, misrepresenting sources, ignoring copyvio and pursuing spurious ANI's in order to do so. Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, you're forgetting Joy, who has been involved in the issue since as early as 2012 ([16]). You're forgetting NinjaRobotPirate as well, who is also involved [17], so the only uninvolved editors supporting the ban are No such user and Future Perfect at Sunrise, both, however, very involved in Balkans-related topics, such as the ones Malagurski discusses in his films. When it comes to editors uninvolved with Malagurski-related articles, 2 are for the ban, 3 are against. That isn't much of a consensus for a ban. Nevertheless, I have already explained why with the help of you, Pincrete, and your friend Bobrayner, I am already effectively banned from Malagurski-related articles as every edit I make is disputed and essentially blocked by you two, so any decision made here makes no difference. It's sad that Malagurski-related articles attract more editors who are against his work than those who are genuinely interested in making the articles neutral and of a good quality, but if that's the way Wikipedia is heading, I refuse to be a part of it. That's why any decision made here makes no difference, and I call on other editors who don't have a personal view regarding Malagurski and his work to join the editing process and help make those articles better. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, NinjaRobotPirate's 'involvement', extends to a single response on talk, to a RSN posting. Joy, has (I believe), not edited on any of these articles for 2-3 years, (though yes, Joy was involved in previous ANIs). You repeatedly allude to 'conspiracies', 'band wagons', 'canvassing' (in the above comment and in 'response' below), you contrast your own 'neutrality' with others (ALL others it seems) POV. I and others have asked for proofs, where are they? Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) … … ps I AGREE that involving new editors would benefit the neutrality of the articles and have posted a request in the past on the film noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone should be banned it should be Ricky. Caden ^cool 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, why is that? It's not like I actually used any tools here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Response

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be. … … (I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 ) … Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [18]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago.) Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) … … Further comment on response, UrbanVillager, above refers repeatedly to 'a few other editors', but (apart from me), does not name them (he cannot, there ARE only a few others). He repeatedly says that I and other editors have openly said we 'despise Malagurski and his work'. He accuses editors of canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Two quick questions - Chillum, are you still considering this? And UrbanVillager, can you please provide diffs supporting your statement that other relevant editors said they despise Malagurski and his work. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No I have not considered this further. Chillum 17:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It would take a while to gather all the diffs, but here are a few: Opbeith saying "'Malagurski's work is crap ... and it's knowingly deceitful crap" [19] (Note: Opbeith stopped editing Wikipedia November 2012, but Pincrete continued Opbeith's mission and gave the following thoughts about "The Weight of Chains", Malagurski's film:

"I'm personally thinking of making an alternative view of the Second World War, I'll start off with some cute film of some Jewish people telling the world how nice the Germans families always were to them, I'll have lots of stories of the rape and slaughter of Germans as the Russians advanced and as the Western Allies bombed .... I'll of course devote much time to the terrible conditions imposed on Germany by the 1919 Armistice ... I can probably find many individual Germans who did - throughout - act heroically and humanely. This won't be a difficult film to make, since all these things are true. I won't of course bother to mention Auschwitz, the invasion of 20 countries, the suppression of any dissenting views within Germany .... Why should I? "It's a movie .... It's an alternative view" ... put your feet up, get some popcorn watch my movie." [20]

Pincrete also presents his POV of Malagurski's film, instead of discussing the quality of the article, not the content itself: "Anyhow, many of the claims made in the film are NOT from verifiable sources ... or are from sources that a MASSIVE weight of evidence contradicts." [21], Also, he said: "those who made, watch and attempt to whitewash this film are painting themselves into an intellectual and moral corner." [22]

Bobrayner calls Malagurski a "minor film-maker" here: [23], and discusses "Malagurski-spam" here: [24]. That's only a part of it, unfortunately I don't have time right now to look for more. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager's quotes are ALL from remarks I made on the talk page on my FIRST and SECOND DAY as an editor in late 2012, I plead guilty to becoming involved (with UrbanVillager and Opbeith) in a somewhat esoteric discussion about intellectual honesty in documentaries, which - green though I was - I quickly realised was going nowhere. Even then UrbanVillager robs my quote of context as much of what I wrote that day was a direct response to HIS remarks earlier in the page. The more substantive point underlying that discussion, was HOW to represent the many controversial claims in this film, since Opbeith's and my complaint in 2012 was that the article was simply a copy/paste of the film's own website and press releases, and remained so till very recently (I didn't know about copyvio at that time, nor how to report it).

The fact that UrbanVillager needs to drag Opbeith into this (who made few article edits during 2011 and RETIRED in 2012), advertises the poverty of UrbanVillager's 'conspiracy theories'. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for further information

Obsidi, User:Ankit Maity, Ivanvector,Richard Yin have, variously, left comments or requested further information above. The subjects of there requests are (again variously), lack of evidence of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour, or of NPOV editing. This section is a response to those requests. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

The two ANI's UrbanVillager recently initiated are examples of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour. In the case of the SPI, brought against me :[25], about which the 'closing clerk' JamesBWatson, later modified his comments :[26]. This SPI is especially absurd, since even if I WERE Opbeith (or his pet monkey), not a single comma was changed in any article as a result of the 3-4 weeks (two years ago) during which we overlapped as editors. Opbeith was not banned nor censured and if Opbeith had chosen to retire and re-appear as Pincrete, no WP rule would have been broken. UrbanVillager has himself been involved in enough SPI's to know that a check-user would be so stale as to be pointless. UrbanVillager initiated this SPI because he had, been warned about clogging the talk page with accusations and disruptive comments . Thus in this SPI there was no suspicion of any 'crime' having occurred.

The earlier ANI (against myself and bobrayner) was almost equally spurious.[27] While the matter was on the ANI, UrbanVillager made this edit on 17th Sept :-[28]. The first review he inserted,(VICE) was already the subject of a RSN here:[29], where it was rejected (editors concluding that this was an advert, not a review). The second 'review' (Elich), was actually from an interview between the director and one of the people in the film. The third review's intro is altered by describing the reviewer ('teaching assistant'), and source ('blog') in a way which UrbanVillager KNEW to be incorrect. The fourth 'review' (Pečat) has ultimately been accepted in the article. That UrbanVillager's changes did not have consensus, is shown by going to the 'next' edit. This happened at a time that UrbanVillager had recently been warned about making non-consensus changes to this section. All of the objections to the reviews (except Pečat), had already been made clear, including here[30], where a threat is made, which is executed the next day. [31]

UrbanVillager's edit reason on 17th Sept, is itself perverse ("re-adding valid response, as per User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's explanations of Wikipedia policy:[32]"), a relatively novice editor had left a comment on the ANI, which UrbanVillager chose to interprete as a statement of WP policy. Having not 'got away with' this edit, UrbanVillager then offered no further evidence on that ANI, replied to no questions, but 'disappeared' for several weeks, having wasted an enormous amount of my, bobrayner's and Admin time and goodwill.

Ivanvector, refers to an edit war between UrbanVillager and (chiefly) myself during the summer (In my own defence I say this, I have NEVER previously been involved in an edit war, I was defending a majority viewpoint, I repeatedly offered compromises which were consistent with what RSs said (which were not even discussable to UV), and I ultimately called a 'truce' voluntarily BEFORE we were both reported and censured). Whereas I attempted to de-escalate matters, UrbanVillager escalated the edit-war by removing/re-writing the entire 'criticism' section. Whereas I have since then been extremely cautious about modifying this section, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to insert dubiously sourced and misrepresented 'reviews'.[33] [34][35]

The first of these two 'reviews', turns out to be an artist's private website, the second (when a source was found, the given ref is simply a mirror), turns out to be a very brief account of a 'panel discussion', written by a student, and Markovic is not a 'Professor', (the word means teacher in many European languages). However despite reservations, neither I nor other editors have ruled out using the quote, as long as it is not given undue weight. UrbanVillager, when reverted by another editor, then attempts to appeal directly to Ricky81682 [36], again misrepresenting both Markovic and Kilibarda(Markovic = "Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received". Kilibarda = "teaching assistants at a Hamilton university"). UrbanVillager characterises me as 'His Royal Highness Pincrete', (because I have asked for a source/author), accuses Somedifferentstuff of disruptive behaviour, and signs off "Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up", a remark presumably directed at me.

I have strayed from 'disruptive behaviour' into NPOV editing, however the two are connected, the behaviour appears intended to retain WP:ownership. I finish this section by referring to interaction with other editors. During the 2+ years I have been (on and off) involved with The Weight of Chains, there have been about 8 editors who have been involved for more than a few weeks, '(additionally a few only on the talk page 'inc.Whitewriter), every one of them has at some point been accused of collaborating/conspiring etc. with the purpose of degrading the article (except recent editor Ricky81682 and Whitewriter), several of them repeatedly accused on ANIs.

Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse (I don't have a brain, can't speak English, can't read, know nothing about film's or festivals, don't know what a film credit or synopsis is, and shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit … as well, of course, as being 'His Royal Highness Pincrete' and various other things … does anyone actually want the diffs?). Enduring this stuff is mostly tiresome, however it does create a toxic atmosphere, which in itself is 'actual disruption'.

I intend to add the case for NPOV editing, when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Note I have not had time, but will do so of requested. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Yes, every time you make a claim about another editor attacking you, you need to provide proof in the form of diffs. I see in one of the discussions you linked to that other editors have pointed that out to you before, as well as advised you not to put up walls of text like what you wrote above. You could summarize: "here's UV re-adding sources [diffs] that were rejected by consensus at RSN [diffs]. Here's UV throwing personal attacks: [diffs] Here's where 700 editors have tried to reason with policy arguments [diffs] but UV reinserted material anyway [diffs]."

We've discussed above and elsewhere how being a SPA is not forbidden, if editors are not disruptive. UrbanVillager is a disruptive SPA, based on what diffs Pincrete did provide, but not the only editor misbehaving in this topic area. However, the extended detail of UV insisting on using sources deemed unacceptable by RSN and repeatedly reinserting material against consensus are more problematic. But is this enough to support a topic ban for a user who only wishes to edit that topic (effectively a community ban) when they have never been sanctioned previously? (except once for editing against an inappropriately applied topic ban - quickly reversed)

I'm not an admin here and I may be punching above my weight, but I would like to propose we try a block, for edit warring against consensus and (if diffs are provided) personal attacks. UrbanVillager will be free to edit when the block expires but if they continue the same behaviour that led to the block, it will be very easy to support a WP:NOTHERE ban as the next step. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, the paragraph above, beginning: "Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse", do you dispute that my record is accurate regarding remarks directed by you against me since approx. April 2014? Can you cite any abuse or accusations made by me against you that might have justified your remarks, EXCEPT my saying that you seem to look upon the film maker himself as the only reliable source of information? (which I don't believe was ever phrased abusively). Do you also dispute that I, and others, have several times asked you to stop making such abusive remarks?

Ivanvector, I really don't have time to assemble diffs for personal abuse and consider NPOV editing more important, however the above para gives UrbanVillager the opportunity to contradict me. Should it prove important, I will assemble such diffs. Regarding bans, I have no opinion, except that those extolling 'assume good faith' should be willing to get their hands dirty by staying involved with the pages, because those who HAVE been involved, even briefly, have all had their patience exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no such requirements for assuming good faith - we expect it of everyone. You've made some serious accusations of wrongdoing above with your "lion's share" comment, but I'm not going to just take your word for it - show your work. Or be prepared to retract. I could go look myself but we're talking about an alleged pattern of abuse going back years over dozens of pages. I don't have time either, but I'm also not the one making accusations. I'll suggest to you that if maintaining NPOV is your primary concern (which is good) and you see UrbanVillager as the primary impediment to that, then you should make time to find those diffs. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, in respect of personal abuse against me, it has taken place since June this year. I have assembled the proofs below, but still regard other matters as more important. I have struck through my earlier remark about 'good faith', which was born out of exasperation. I have wasted an inordinate amount of time in the last 2 months defending myself against accusations which were wholly spurious. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have collapsed the proofs section below, as I do not wish it to distract this ANI. Belligerent behaviour is unpleasant, however, it is less serious than the purpose for which it is employed, which is to retain ownership in order that the article continues to be little better than a promotional outpost of the film maker's own publicity machine, which I contend it has hitherto been. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal abuse

Evidence of personal abuse requested by Ivanvector

I have been asked by Ivanvector, to provide proofs for my 'lion's share' para above concerning personal abuse. Below are the proofs, italics (except in brackets), are direct quotes from UrbanVillager, plain text (and bracketed italics) are used to clarify context. Do you speak English? [37] ... This was a response to my observation that WP should not be using the peacocky description "Official selection for XYZ festival", where "Official selection" was not used by XYZ festival itself. In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis[38] ... This remark was a reply to my observation that the synopsis needed re-writing, from ==synopsis==:-[39] My reply to UrbanVillager's post is Synopsis: I agree[40]. (large sections of the article were removed shortly therafter for copyvio of the film maker's website) Edit reason here: can't you read? It was here before you started editing the article [41]. The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda.[42] ... This last was a response to a compromise I had proposed over the film's 'nationality',(during the edit war referred to by IvanVector above) my response is in the 'next' edit. your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda.[43] ... This was a response to my querying whether, what appeared to be an interview given by the film maker in a Balkan paper (ie self-sourced), was a sufficiently RS for the film maker having given a presentation at Google headquarters in USA shortly before (the only source to report the event but phrased in 'our voice'). No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film" ... I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV. [44] ... Once again my response is in the 'next' edit. His Royal Highness Pincrete[45] ... As referred to above, this also accuses two other editors and misrepresents the 'reviews'. Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus[46] ... I claim that I was informing, since the editor had made edits and comments only 3 days before. The incident referred to by UrbanVillager is here:-[47] "I shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, and ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit", this sentence is my summary of the discussion here.[48] ... The context is that I mis-read an ENGLISH translation, while doing article tidying, apologised and remedied the error. On this occasion I retaliated by pointing out that UrbanVillager's English isn't perfect (I believe this is the only time I have done so). The entire article (created by UrbanVillager) has since been deleted for copyvio.

Additionally UrbanVillager has 'outed' another editor on that editor's talk page, which I am willing to provide proofs of 'off-wiki', do so here would compound the 'outing'.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ps UrbanVillager has never apologised to any editor, (to the best of my knowledge), certainly not to me. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Global edit histories

These diffs show the edit histories of UrbanVillager: … … Commons [49] … … German [50] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [51] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [52] … … Italian [53] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [54] nb complaints about block [55]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [56] … … Romanian [57] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [58] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [59] … … Serbian [60] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … …Global[61] … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently (which caused it to be in breach of copyvio, nearly 4 years after its first warning). Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [62]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Chains: discretionary sanctions

There is probably enough of a consensus above to (re-)implement this topic ban, but as I said (comment buried in discussion) I think that is unduly harsh for an editor with a declared interest in only that topic - we are effectively community banning UrbanVillager by doing so. I suggested a block but that would be against WP:NOTPUNISHMENT at this point. And I also think that this discussion has tired everyone here out already, let alone the multiple other discussions that have happened recently. So I'd like to propose a different avenue of resolution:

The Weight of Chains is subject to discretionary sanctions in the Balkans subject area - the tag was posted by Ricky81682 on October 1, 2014, but all Malagurski-related articles could be tagged for discretionary sanctions for the same reason. I don't see that any of the editors involved in this discussion have been properly alerted (per ArbCom's guidance). There has been enough misbehaviour at that article alone that several of the editors commenting here could be currently waiting out their initial one-month blocks for disruption, had they been properly alerted. I propose alerting those users now with {{Ds/alert}}, and taking no further action at this time. If the users continue to be disruptive, they can be dealt with quickly under WP:AC/DS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think a topic ban may be harsh but the editor is taking on a topic (not just the filmmaker but the theory itself) that falls under ARCOM sanctions for a reason and it's being that there's a lot of nasty arguments from people who aren't here with the right mindset. Four years of warnings about editing on either that filmmaker, his films or other things in the same sphere seems like enough time with enough warnings about tenacious editing to say 'go work on something that isn't subject to these Eastern European arguments so we can see if it's you or the topic that's the problem.' Would this warning about Malagurski specifically be notice? (Based on this discussion it seems). I'm putting it out there, I don't think any editor would understand that the entirety of his works is within the sanctions but I can live with just warnings if everything gets tagged and all the editors all around are warned about it. The talk pages have been nothing but sockpuppetry accusations and other comments that really are poisoning the well all around but that likely comes with the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That definitely counts as alerting under the WP:AC/DS guidance, but that is from 2012, and users are supposed to have been alerted within the past twelve months for discretionary sanction actions to be valid. The template is also supposed to be applied to the user's talk page, so the advisory on the Weight of Chains talk doesn't count for this purpose. My impression is that Malagurski is notable because of his controversial views, so it does make sense to me that the entirety of our writing about him falls under the ArbCom decision. We could request an interpretation, but I see no harm in delivering the warnings anyway - they are not meant to imply wrongdoing (the alert template says so). Ivanvector (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also: this proposal is not intended to be mutually exclusive to the topic ban above. We could block/ban UrbanVillager and warn everyone else, if that is what the consensus dictates (although I remain opposed to the topic ban myself). Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedurally, the old warning on user talk is still valid; last time I looked, warnings under the old pre-2014 system were grandfathered in and are to lose their validity only 12 months after the coming into force of the new procedures, which was around May 2014 if I'm not mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, bureaucracy! Well if that old warning can be considered valid, then the topic ban that Ricky applied is valid, although he did so under the auspices of community consensus and not under the authority of discretionary sanctions, and he may be involved. There's a weak consensus above; if the ban is restored and UrbanVillager appeals to ArbCom, citing procedural nonsense here or not being aware of the old warning, we're likely to end up right back here again. And it's possible that they will get the message from how thoroughly their behaviour is being criticized here that they'll shape up. And if not, then a long block supported by a fresh warning will be very difficult to appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Question. Is it the case that the proposed discretionary sanctions would automatically apply to ANY editors, (including new editors) editing these pages? If so, I think them a very good idea, since whilst I have argued elsewhere that the problems of these pages are NOT classic 'Balkan problems', the imposition of greater regulation would benefit ANYONE coming to these pages for the 'right' reasons. I would hold this point of view regardless of the outcome of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Balkans discretionary sanctions apply to the topic, not the editor or the page. While the sanction is in effect, any editor who disrupts can be warned by any user, and then blocked by any admin if they continue. (This is not my idea, it's from WP:AC/DS) It was determined elsewhere that WoC falls under the sanction due to the film's content, but other pages we're talking about would be open to debate. Ivanvector (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So, it doesn't look like the ARBCOM sanctions are the way to go. Anyone want to close this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Conspiracy theorist at Talk:Illuminati

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.

---

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

Only edits consist of spamming conspiracy theories at Talk:Illuminati about Queen Elizabeth supposedly being connected to the Illuminati, says that we're biased and are censoring him... Actually, would someone mind proving him right on that count? His edits technically fall under WP:BLP, and he appears singularly focused on making sure everyone "knows" about these "facts". He is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, but right great wrongs, and may not be capable of or willing to provide useful contributions. Fnord. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Jon Doe claims that he found his information, quote, "while investigating a paedophile ring within the British government." Clearly not here to help. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Ticks all the WP:NOTHERE boxes - WP:OR to promote the 'truth', attacking contributors in his first post, while insisting that his conspiracy theory about government paedophile rings isn't a conspiracy theory because it is the truth, because he says so, and everyone here is out to censor him because he knows the truth... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And now the conspiracy-monger tells us that "this conversation has been a study for a dissertation about bullying and bias on the internet".[63] Or, in plain English, either self-confessed trolling, or the delusional babbled threats of someone failing to get anywhere with their attempts to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. All the more reason to block indefinitely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Harassment by Widefox

User widefox is harassing me by reverting all my edit or adding harassment tags to my activity everywhere on wikipedia. He has not proved his claim of conflict of interest and still he is stalking my activity and adding tags to my editing to discredit me. I ask him to go to administrator and he does not because he does not have any proof.

I was reported by user Rahat that I made conflict of interest edit at a topic. I gave my evidence that I was not making conflict of interest edit so Rahat has withdrawn his report. This user widefox added me to his list of sockfarm without proof then tried to stop me from clarifying that Rahat has withdrawn his report. Rahat posted his clarification again on notice board only then widefox left that report alone. But he did not remove my name from his list of sockfarm. Then he came to this notice board and an admin told him to be careful who he calls sockpuppet. After this he added conflict of interest tag on talkpage 2 times but I left him alone. Widefox was trying to hinder discussion on talkpage as well. Then I started discussing with one user every single reference which is on going discussion. I even made controversy section longer. If I was ERA worker why will I make controversy long. I made its conclusion as reference said. But widefox wants to revise it to incorrect data. Now he is also saying I am also working for Jason Minter. He thinks I am working for everyone and he is deluded about this. If I was working for other people why am I discussing every single reference in so much detail. Please stop this user from disrupting all my debates and please stop him from discrediting me everywhere on wikipedia. Please see proof of my discussion on talk page. Widefox is still stalking me and harassing me. I created a new topic separate from ERA. Widefox also followed me to that topic and prejudiced a neutral user AuthorAuthor who was voting keep on deletion debate. There is no concern with notability of topic and he is only discrediting me so that he can delete all my edits. Widefox has started same behavior on this topic now he is adding harassment tag on talkpage with my name on it and he is bombing the subject page with tags as well. He has reported me on another notice board without concern to discredit me but I have only removed his harassment tag I even corrected his one edit back when he requested [64].

Widefox has not made even one proven report against me and he is obsessed with conflict of interest. One admin has told him to be careful and still he is stalking me and harassing me. I move that widefox should be blocked from wikipedia until my debates of reference discussion and article deletion are over. Widefox has not proven it on conflict of interest noticeboard or here. And he is telling me to "take it up to COIN" where there is no proof. So he should take it up to admin or stop following. If he does not stop following please block him. Thank you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) TheSawTooth has edit warred Electronic Recycling Association (I was uninvolved) until it was locked, and is now repeating at Jason Minter (afDed by Adamfinmo, where am I involved editing - mainly BLP source checking/maintenance templates). TheSawTooth has been reported Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheSawTooth_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29 to prevent article being locked like ERA. Overwhelming behavioural evidence - articles/timing/ TheSawTooth account did 10 minor edits plus created Jason Minter draft then started promo editing ERA. Links with disclosed Fiverr editors at WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez, SPIs are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amyxcell Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amyxcell/Archive . Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Pinging other editors who've commented Logical Cowboy, DGG. Comment about "careful" is from Dennis Brown about filing an SPI (see 2x SPIs above which weren't linked when he made that comment). Note I'm reworking the SPI as requested. Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Update. Widefox is editing archive to manipulate my outcome of this investigation so that it appears that he has reported me for sockpuppet investigation. But it is clear that he has not reported me in this investigation which he is claiming by editing archive and he is only harassing me without case. Next I think he will add my name to investigation and lie about it too. So I am asking admins to keep check on this kind of manipulation it may be intentional. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith report: I noticed the SPI links weren't there for Dennis (which was his comment), but didn't notice it has just been archived. I've undone already realising the error. TheSawTooth is not on the SPI yet, it is already too big and the majority appear to be meats - I've already said I'm reworking it, which will take time. The behavioural evidence is at the SPIs, COIN, and ANI. Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping me when you file. Dennis - 2¢ 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. deletedhistory permission is a growing issue for me - an admin is needed to see deleted article edit histories. Widefox; talk 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The links you are looking for are [65], [66] and [67], where he just requested a speedy delete on an existing article for A7 (claim of importance). It was soon after deleted for G12 (copyvio). Dennis - 2¢ 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that Widefox is making a tremendous good faith effort to root out a big complicated mess of COI editing while following WP policies himself. I don't see any evidence he is getting "personal"--the only personal aspect seems to be TheSawTooth calling this "harassment" in this forum. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That is my impression as well. After poking around a bit, I can see why he would want someone to look closer. Dennis - 2¢ 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, thanks for the links, can't do anything much with them - all deleted so it takes an admin to see the A7 or who requested it who edited it. I can see more offwiki - those two articles are a paid job offered & taken on odesk.com . That may be all OK as I can't see who edited it to see if they've disclosed or not. Widefox; talk 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

update: seen the A7 notice now, but that's about it. Widefox; talk 20:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You were not ready to report me to admins now saying that SPI was too large but you were happy to put conflict of interest tag on my name everywhere on wikipedia so that is bad faith as well if you want to make it a rule. Three deleted edits by Dennis are not related to ERA. I got them from recent changes and I saw on editor creating article which was not notable. So I asked for deletion. Some one else also asked for deletion at same time I did. So one tag remained and it was deleted. Two other were similar maintenance edits and I did not comment at deletion debate of two topics because I am not interested in that topic. Admins can see my history that I was going in recent changes and doing those edits. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI being too large/complex is the comment from the SPI admin not me. The SPI aspect may be similar to issues faced with Morning277. Widefox; talk 20:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bad faith 2 - right after this ANI, TheSawTooth accused [68] an SPA of "I think you are a sockpuppet" but provided no evidence. Seems to be WP:OWN on Electronic Recycling Association and Jason Minter. Widefox; talk 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

His only one edit is on one subject that is on notice board concern of regular wikipedia users. It is sock but I do not know who is doing this. It is not compulsory rule of wikipedia to assume good faith. So do not accuse me of bad faith again. ERA topic has paid editors who are editing for or against ERA I do not care. I want to make it neutral. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not know what widefox is doing for wikipedia other than this but he is obsessed with conflict of interest. He maybe doing good work if you say but he is following my activity and adding tag to my name and my activity. So it is personal or not? He was doing this on ERA topic but I did not fight with him. See I have replied to every concern at ERA. He is saying that editor that I think is sock is bad faith accusation but he is doing samething saying that I edited ERA so I have conflict of interest only because my account is not as old as his account. This is unfair dealing by widefox. If I am not neutral then why am I discussing references at talkpage? Widefox's attempts to discredit me at ERA so that he can change to revision before my edit are not fair. I have told him ten times that I am ready to discuss and I am ready to make it neutral. I have given proof now that I am discussing. But no. He is not interested in that. He is only interested in his label of conflict of interest without proof to revise ERA topic. Same case with deletion debate on next topic where he has stalked me. Ask him to stop. Any admin can do it instead of him and help me in discussion to make ERA topic neutral. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I want to request that if widefox has no proof that I am related to ERA then he should stop stalking me. If he keeps on stalking and if he keeps trying to ask to revise locked topic he will disrupt my discussion with nikthestunned. Many editors are discussing and doing effort. User Rahat, Jytdog and nikthestunned have discussed concerns with me and I have replied. Widefox is not even discussing. he is just tagging and following to next then tagging then tagging talkpage. Then telling everyone that I have conflict of interest by showing them his list so that they change their vote. But in his list I have replied that I have no conflict of interest and again he has no proof in that list. A list full of other usernames is not my concern so I move that an admin should stop him from doing this or just decide now for future that what he wants to do because I have told him that I am not conflict of interest editor in 10 times. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I can do one thing for widefox. I can invite widefox to discuss with me on ERA talkpage what he want to add or remove in topic. Like a civilized person. I will answer him like I have answered nikthestunned. If he can do that and withdraw his allegation of conflict of interest I will discuss with him as well and answer his concern or remove. I have done this at Jason Minter topic two times at his request. He should have good faith as well because he has not proved anything. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have treated the TheSawTooth account in the same way as all the other suspects. The only difference is that it was also independently reported at COIN by another editor for edits on ERA at the same time as I reported for similar editing patterns to confirmed paid editors (disclosed Fiverr and undisclosed). TheSawTooth's edit warring on the two articles was reported to AN3 but admin wishes it to be dealt with at a venue like this. I see no sign that editor has understood about edit warring on the two articles, and despite protests here, has accused an SPA editor of being a sock without evidence or listing them anywhere, in contrast to the massive behavioural evidence submitted (by me and Logical Cowboy) about their account in this. It would seem prudent to see WP:OWN and refrain editing those articles for now, and wait for this to be cleared up, even if (as editor claims) they don't have a COI. Widefox; talk 20:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The other editor realized his mistake and he has withdrawn his report. If editor who has reported can withdraw and take my good faith work to discuss. Why are you forcing me? You reported me for editwar on only 2 edits. So that admin said I am not in editwar. ERA editwar was stress because I did a lot of effort to make it neutral and he was not even telling any reason to revise it. But now he is discussing it and I am discussing it as well. So no concern in it. I do not own any article but you are accusing me without listening to me in same way. I will withdraw my accusation against new editor if any admin can check and tell if this new comment is possible to be fair new comment. First it was conflict of interest now it is ownership. I do not have both of them. If widefox will not discuss about what he wants to remove and why he should let other users deal with it on talk page. If he has concern he can tell any admin here but just get over with this so that I can use wikipedia without him. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is inevitable than in investigating the related but not identical problems of puppetry and promotionalism, mistakes will be made, especially in the early stages of an investigation. The general way of proceeding is to collect everything that seems likely, and then start more detailed checking. I only do the promotionalism side, but I as well as everyone else active in dealing with these problems have made errors, both in thinking that perfectly responsible editors were promotional (or puppets), and in being convinced that some editors were promotional or puppets, but being unable to prove it. The extent to which someone protests at being labelled does not prove either innocence or guilt: some people get outraged at the merest suspicion, some obviously guilty parties think their best strategy is to complain about it as loudly and often as possible, and denounce the investigators. I & others have sometimes needed to apologize to people whom we really knew were due no apology, but where the evidence did not convince others. It's reasonable that the standard of evidence for proving it be higher than the standard for checking it, or we'd miss a great deal. Sometimes an extensive ring of puppets has been first noticed as collusion at a single article.

I think that Widefox's investigations have been reasonable, and almost all the people they identified are indeed in need of blocking. A few are equivocal at least at present. What we need to be careful about is doing actual blocking on insufficient evidence, and we need to at the least be willing to remove the blocks if we or others think them unwarranted. I've been stopped by traffic police for infractions of which I was not guilty and been able to show it; I've been stopped when not guilty, and been unable to prove it & had to pay the ticket; I may also have been stopped once or twice when guilty, and talked them out of it. And of course I've committed traffic offenses and not been caught at it. Obvious the possibility of injustice gets very much more concerning for more serious matters, but unlike the real world, nothing we deal with here will lead to a criminal conviction. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your reasonable remarks. Can you tell widefox to not use COI word for before he can prove it. It is not a good excuse to delete data from subjects without proving COI when one editor is discussing with other editors. --TheSawTooth (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Early stage behavioural evidence is already at WP:COIN. In the meantime the COI tag hasn't been added to the article as a courtesy. TheSawTooth is, meanwhile, still edit warring on two three articles Kargil War [69] [70], Zarb-e-Azb [71] [72] [73] [74] [75], Jason Minter [76] (older with COI tag [77] [78] - note these BLP failed sources were correctly removed by User:Adamfinmo [79]) and claims harassment by several different editors in several forums. Widefox; talk 15:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I gave up on Jason Minter to wait until deletion debate is over. Saadkhan12345 crossed topic to revise me on Jason Minter you know that. I do not have COI at Kargil War and India is not paying me. Kargil war got to compromise just like real Kargil war stop now. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have agreed to Jytdog's draft idea. I hope they do not call me COI and help me to revise the draft by agreeing or disagreeing on each point like me and nikthestunned are doing. --TheSawTooth (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Longshot's voice actor

Something is really suspicious on the article for X-Men character Longshot (permalink: [80], as it mentions Formula One driver Fernando Alonso as the voice actor in the 90s animated series. I can smell vandalism, but revert fights prevent me from tracking who inserted that. Please help. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 11:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really an ANI issue, but the edit was made by an IP back in 2012 [81]. The acting was previously attributed to one Rod Wilson. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Check IMDB and see what it says. Not foolproof, but more likely to be correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even see that character listed in the IMDB credits reference.[82] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Really don't want to post at ANI again, but since no one else seems to be willing to actually do some proper legwork - [83] and [84] support the presence of this character in the series, and the former also supports the Rod Wilson voice acting bit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Genre warrior on the loose and periodically changing IP addresses!!!!!!!

(non-admin closure) Techno-rampaging IP blocked for 72 hours by Dennis. demize (t · c) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

79.166.125.45 appears to genre warring some of the articles relating to mostly Sash! and Faithless. Is there any way to stop this?

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S: Please don't sue me, I'm here at Wikipedia.

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

Contacting them about it is a good first step. Also, please notify them that they have been mentioned at ANI. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked them. The IP was on a very obvious rampage to insert 'techno' into every article, ignoring sources and being disruptive. He was doing multiple per minute, there is no way he was checking sources. He isn't the first to do so, and my gut says this isn't the first block he's seen for it. Dennis - 2¢ 00:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

67.236.182.55

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 started adding funding information at various PBS related articles. Contributions were formatted oddly. There were no bullets, there were `` marks instead, and excessive whitespace.[85][86][87][88][89] It got messy. I fixed a few of these and notified them of correct formatting. They then started posting this odd content to their talk page, then got into a strange set of disruptive edits at Talk:Main Page,[90][91][92][93][94] which eventually got them blocked. At some point either during their block or after, they started up again on their own talk page [95][96][97][98][99]. Not sure what's going on here. Robot editing? The edits make sense generally, but there's some unclarity why we can't communicate with the user and why they keep submitting the same problematic content. Need admins. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bot. It's vandalism or incompetence. at first it seemed similar to how you optimise a blog for a search engine then I noticed it was PBS related stuff mixed with none PBS related stuff. I think the Admin was right in blocking them but wrong in putting on a 24 hr block. None of there edits seem to respond to anyone at any point. They've posted alot of nonsense I think it would be best if that block was switched from 24hrs to indef until they come forward with a human response.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it is all vandalism. None of it is sourced, and some of the edits are clearly nonsensical - see [100] for example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a poorly-formatted list of the ads at the beginning of the tape. Silly thing to include, but probably not vandalism. --NE2 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I blocked for two weeks. All edits are relatively fresh; if they continue after the block, I wouldn't object to a longer block. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User dissing Banglapedia and repeatedly removing citations to it; a topic ban may be warranted

User:বব২৬ has been involved in some heated arguments with several others, with a previous ANI for edit warring as discussed on their talk page User_talk:বব২৬#Warned for edit warring at Bengali calendar, which resulted in the reporter being warned as well as this user. It is my impression that two skilled editors, @Redtigerxyz: and @Nafsadh: have been driven away, outlasted by the combatant. I thought I could help matters by carefully adding sourced statements to the article, but User:বব২৬ has continued to remove them, including removing the citations. Most recently, the pattern appears to be that citations to the venerable work Banglapedia are removed and dismissed as in the note added with this edit "is at times also miss-romanized as Banggabda instead of the correct phonetic romanization". The article concerns difficult material, but this attitude is not helpful to sorting it out. It is not clear whether this person has a generally dismissive attitude towards Bangladesh and/or Muslim culture, or whether their failure to understand other people's edits and explanations and their aggressive responses are the real problem. In either case, I believe it would be helpful if this person were banned from editing pages related to the country of Bangladesh so that others can get a chance to patiently and carefully edit the material involved, including sorting out the points of confusion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• EdJohnston warned him under Discretionary Sanctions for WP:ARBIPA, which means he is one step away from a topic ban (or any other sanction the admin feels is warranted, including blocks) that can be given by any uninvolved admin. With these types of problems, that is usually the most effective way to deal with it, as it doesn't require a lot of debate. So now he will either get the point, or get topic banned. Dennis - 2¢ 18:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. First, let me say, I am fond of both Sminthopsis84 and বব২৬; they are good editors.

I am not driven away, but I became busy with other things and thus I cannot gather much time that is needed for those articles. I hope to come back when I find more time. I suggested both বব২৬ and Redtigerxyz to refrain from editing Bengali Calendar, until the dispute resolves. Instead of trying to resolve the issue, বব২৬ started to edit the article after three days cool-down period ended. I also noticed, Sminthopsis84 is also involved there. However, the article has turned into a mess. Initially, Redtigerxyz appeared to be confused about Bengali calendar, and he is a bit pushy about relating Hindu calendar to Bengali calendar. While, বব২৬ is bold about not allowing any such relation. Banglapedia stipulates fully Muslim and Mughal basis of Bengali calendar, which is prevalently popular theory in Bangladesh. Redtigerxyz's source relating Surja Siddhanta, is however notable.

But, I am afraid, বব২৬ is either confused about the subject matter or cannot understand other editors' edits. I am not sure what he means by the modern Bangla cal. is not solar in nature! while it is indeed a solar, sidereal calendar.

The Wiki romanization is phonetically more appropriate, but I don't know who designed it, and it is not authoritative. বব২৬ should take note on that.

Sminthopsis84 has dissed some edits of বব২৬ which seems to be better wording.

I would say বব২৬ is a very skilled editor. But, several recent edit war indicates that, he may have to rethink his approach to other editors. – nafSadh did say 18:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. It is a catch 22, you need the skills to edit, but you also have to get along. It takes both traits. Both can be learned, however. Dennis - 2¢ 18:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope বব২৬ would refrain from editing the article for one or two months, otherwise, a temporary (may be 2 months) topic ban is warranted. He is very experienced in Bengali Wikipedia, but he has to understand, there are different community standards in English Wikipedia. – nafSadh did say 18:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can go to his talk page and explain this? Being an "admin" doesn't make us better at explaining nor give us exclusive rights to do so. I get the feeling you could explain this better than some random admin, such as myself. We all want the same thing, peace. Dennis - 2¢ 18:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The only user here in this thread that I know is Sminthopsis84 (talk · contribs), for whom I have the utmost respect in all regards. If only all users were like said user. As for the combative attitude by one user brought up here, all I have to say is that all users should edit in a polite, mature, and cooperative manner. Wiki does not need users who can't get along. All material should be sourced with reliable quality references. If there are opposing views, both can be in article as long as they have quality references. HalfGig talk 18:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I posted a message in বব২৬'s talk to read this discussion. I assume, he haven't been online in a while and hope would respond when he is back. – nafSadh did say 22:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have tried discussing with বব২৬ on Talk:Bengali_calendar#User:.E0.A6.AC.E0.A6.AC.E0.A7.A8.E0.A7.AC.27s_edit. But I was getting was WP:OR. The WP:RS were removed, however the user never introduced a RS to say the info I added was inaccurate; besides violations of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and WP:OVERLINK. As nafSadh suggested, I stayed away from the article but in the while বব২৬ continued to edit on the same day. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why other users report me without understanding and having a proper talk on the page. Anyways I recently am going through stress due to this and I give up on this article. Hope other users will develop this article well. Thank you. Cheer up ^__^ বব২৬ (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@বব২৬, I was in a long Wikibreak for more than a year and when I came back this summer, I noticed you to be a very good, prolific and careful editor in Bangladesh related articles. But, it seems to me that, you are probably stressed from something else than just Wikipedia. If you are disturbed and stressed up, it affects your personal and professional life. Recent events about you is very unlike you; you are more patient and collaborative. May be it will be great if you can take a vacation; winter is coming, make a trip to St. Martins Island may be (I assume you are in Bangladesh now); recharge yourself. Cheer up and nJoy! – nafSadh did say 08:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Sadh, I'll try planning going there, ^_^. Thanks for the traditional tea. Cheer up . বব২৬ (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And let me make clear to Sminthopsis84, That I am a Bangladeshi and Moslem. Why do you think I would have a dismissive attitude towards my own mother country and religion? You are one of the editors I have seen who edit without understanding users and articles. You misunderstood my identity and are stating "It is not clear whether this person has a generally dismissive attitude towards Bangladesh and/or Muslim culture, or whether their failure to understand other people's edits and explanations and their aggressive responses are the real problem. In either case, I believe it would be helpful if this person were banned from editing pages related to the country of Bangladesh so that others can get a chance to patiently..." againstt me! What's up with you? I would suggest you too a WikiBreak!

Do you like to plan go to St. Martin's Island to take a WikiBreak together? (A bad Joke to Sminthopsis84)

Like this one, you reverted my edit without understanding that it was enhancement.

Thank you, that's all I wanted to state. বব২৬ (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. However, it is not necessary for me to know anything about you, since the essence of contributing to Wikipedia is that edits should be encyclopedic, and backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not your personal blog; it is a social endeavour that gives little credit to individual contributors. In Wikipedia credentials are irrelevant; edits can be judged on their own merits. Your joke is in bad taste, an attempt to create an in-group that excludes me. That would be in bad taste no matter who it was directed at, but to explain a little, I will let slip one fact about myself: I have been to St Martin's Island; I spent two weeks there with my family and my father's students from Dhaka University. It wasn't really a wikibreak; it was hard physical work.

So back to the main point: why do you keep removing citations to Banglapedia? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(off-topic) If you go to St. Martin's Island, you should not engage in hard physical work. What I like to do there is, just lie down and count (literally) waves.

Banglapedia, might not be comprehensive, as limited by its physical size, but it is a venerated RS and shall be cited. বব, please try to keep citations intact everywhere. – nafSadh did say 08:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of my archived talk page.

I have anonymous editor Special:Contributions/86.152.18.72 disruptively editing one of my archived talk pages. In short they posted a potentially libellous on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_American_Football_Referees%27_Association&diff=633356397&oldid=633292149 They then entered in an "argument" on my talk page where I pointed out that such a statement would need to be verifiable, relevant and adhere to the biography of living persons. They stopped the disruptive editing. I moved the conversation to an archived talk page. They've now started disruptively editing my archived talk page by removing their comments. I've asked them to stop with my reason being that I want to keep the comments in my archive as I want to record why I wrote what I wrote and why I acted. I have put the appropriate warnings on the users talks page, but I can do no more. I don't want to turn this into a revert war --Rehnn83 ^Talk 23:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

1. User:Dennis Brown beat me to the block. Secret ^account 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Rehnn83, in cases like that, repeatedly reverting the IP is fine; WP:3RR lists exclusions. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 thanks Rehnn83 ^Talk 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's "fine" is the sense it's not an edit-warring violation, but it's probably a bad idea because it's going to amuse the troll. Revert once or twice, then file at WP:AIV, and/or WP:RPP. NE Ent 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Rehnn83, if this recurs you could ask to have those pages semi-protected. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

I had actually applied a short-term semi-protection to the talk archive on the 16th - once it expires, should disruption resume, a request to WP:RFPP could get a long-term semi-protection applied. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you but I am no troll , I was trying to remove my words not his , as I had decided I was in the wrong. but hey keep calling me names it makes you all look really intelligent 86.152.18.72 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of recommendations: (1) The OP could ask for semi-protection on his archived talk pages. That will put a stop to such nonsense. (2) The IP could ask the user to strike-through (rather than deleting) any comments he regrets making. That's done by bookending the verbiage with < s > and < / s > without the spaces of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou , but he is refusing to even accept an apology. I admit what I put was in the wrong place , but he wont admit that what I put is the truth even though he knows it is. Anyway on the advice of a better editor , I am going to do what he said and that is drop the stick and move on.86.152.18.72 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

There is something of a backlog at WP:AIV, your assistance is appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, people at WP:RFUB would be nice; the longest request open has been unanswered for almost a month. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't there be a bot with edit count checks and only blocking tool etc to block users with obvious vandalism and a final (or escalating) talkpage warning(s) present on talk? Cluebot seems to be quite accurate in reverts. A category for unblock requests by editors blocked by bots would invert the backlog... just an idea. Probably needs to go through village pump. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors like yourself have requested this feature for years. Predictably, admins fight against it with their last breath, and make up all kinds of silly excuses why it won't work. Of course, it will work, and it will work so well that it will inevitably replace admins and their elected-for-life-why-should-I-care attitude, which is precisely why they are against it. Automating admin tools so that the rest of the community can get back to building an encyclopedia is precisely the reason why technology was invented. But they won't allow it, because adminship is really a mechanism for social control and authority. Take the red pill... Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So the significant chunk of my evening that I spent clearing the AIV and UAA backlogs was a complete waste of time? Or an exercise in social control? Pick one. I know it's popular to go round bad-mouthing admins, but actually some us work bloody hard so that people like you aren't bothered by the shit that we deal with. We don't sit in darkened rooms grinding axes all day. For example, just this evening I blocked about 50 vandals, a couple of dozen spammers/self-publicists, and the odd sockpuppet or obvious case of NOTHERE. As a result, they're not at liberty to replace your writing with profanities or distract you from the mainspace by igniting old disputes while pretending to be new or get their self-promotion indexed by Google and risk damaging Wikipedia's reputation. And that's not the worst of it—if you could see how much effort goes into cleaning up after nutters who can switch IPs in the blink of an eye you wouldn't moan about admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point. Automation can replace all of your admin tasks and free up your time to improve articles. You've been sold on the noble lie that these tasks require admin tools to handle while the true purpose of creating an authoritarian control mechanism in a flat environment escapes you. Just as the shackled prisoners in Plato's cave preferred their slavery, so too do admins. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There's still a human factor required. I've said several times here, to equally deaf ears every time, that there needs to be a way for established users to issue temporary blocks against obvious vandals. They created the rollback feature years ago, there's no logical reason they couldn't do this as well. That would buy some time for the admins to review blocks and take some pressure off them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Viriditas's proposal is boneheaded, which he'll realize the moment some overeager patroller starts slapping around incorrect vandalism warnings and he gets blocked. Or the moment some sock starts slapping around retaliatory vandalism warnings and he gets blocked. Or the moment ClueBot acts up because he makes some weird edit that ClueBot interprets as the insertion of a foreign word for "penis" and etc. If you can't understand that the trigger for such a system, the warning template, is still placed there by human people and that this creates the possibility for enormous abuse, well. HJ Mitchell, I appreciate all the work you've done here and still do. And every afternoon when school goes out somewhere in the US I think, ah, here we go again. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As a vandalism fighter and administrator hopeful myself, I can see the arguments for both sides here: yes, an automated blocking robot would be useful, but no it really wouldn't work. Whether I'm using STiki or Huggle, there are always edits that I mark as vandalism (or even do a good-faith revert) where I can't be completely sure my action was warranted. I do my best to make sure that I'm actually reverting vandalism, but sometimes there are edits that look like vandalism because they're improperly sourced or just poorly written. If a human can't always make that distinction, why would it be reasonable to expect a robot to be able to? Admins are necessary in order to sort through all that crap and make sure that they're only blocking editors they're sure are persistent vandals. A warning can be easily reverted, and an apology will make it likely the editor will stick around. It's awfully hard to revert and then apologize for a robot blocking someone who never did a single thing wrong. You gave some great examples of what that could be here. I think it's easy to forget that bots aren't perfect, that they're based on people. I'll probably get blasted a bit for "being sold on a noble idea" for posting my opinion, but that's alright. Maybe I am sold on a noble idea, but it's an idea that I'm firmly behind. demize (t · c) 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Drmies. I can see already; some idiot figures out that he can temporarily block the guy reverting his vandalism, or Cluebot, or Sinebot if he just copy pastes a template a few times and boom! encyclopedia anarchy. To say nothing of the fact that this wouldn't work for those who (gasp) remove templates from their talk pages. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but I suppose we can make a bot that looks into the edit history of the talk page, or devise a warning log or something. Which in turn will beg the question of how long until a warning "expires". And of course many of us don't start with level 1 warnings, which for most vandalisms is ridiculously mild, but ClueBot does. And some vandalisms are instantly blockable, and if you leave this to bots (and thus give admins less of a reason to keep an eye on things) then the worst of the racists may well have more opportunities to strut their stuff. Despite all the proceedings at ArbCom right now, I can't help but think that hasty, templated warnings and hasty blocks that sometimes result from them, esp. for IP editors, drive away many more potential editors than the occasional f-word. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I just turned down two requests at AIV, one of which was for a brand-new editor who just doesn't get it yet. BITE, anyone? Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Drmies. How many strikes before a bot decides that a newbie is out? Felony charges and plea bargaining, anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UAA is backlogged as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Holy moly NYB, you weren't kidding. Thanks for pointing me that way--and thanks for not doing all of them rightaway so there would be something left for me. Real grand of you. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• It looks like a random user came by this discussion by accident after hitting the wrong key on their keyboard or mouse and failed to read for comprehension. Perhaps they were in a hurry or maybe English is their second language, I don't know, but rest assured I am more than happy to correct them once again. As this thread shows, this particular proposal was made by TopGun, not by me. For the record, I merely noted that the proposal is of the perennial type, and is, IMO, a very good idea, as it eliminates the admin problem we currently have and replaces it with an automated model. I maintain that we have no need for admins, and that all of their tasks can be automated. This would free up these noticeboards and the valuable time of other editors to focus on improving the coverage of the encyclopedia. It would also remove 90% of the drama that many of the editors on this page seem to enjoy perpetuating through their MMORPG behavior and actions. Far too much time is wasted on primate dominance displays. The admin function is a throwback to ye olde mainframe days when sysops were needed. Computing is now more distributed than ever, and there is simply no need for anyone to block, ban or discipline anyone else. This can be done automatically with rules, mechanics, and karma metrics. Anyone with half a clue knows this. Stop wasting my time with puerile hand-waving. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course all admin tasks can be automated. All you have to do is create a select group of trusted editors, say about a 1000, who are allowed to instruct the bot when to speedy delete a page or to block an editor, to avoid that too many incorrect or vandalistic blocks, unblocks, deletions, ... are made. Give those editors a toolbox, where they can check e.g. all pages tagged for speedy deletion and indicate that yes, the bot may delete it (perhaps some protected page where they can list them?). This will make admins obsolete and give the new group, let's call them sysops, the last word instead. To decide who can become a sysop, let's create a voting process, we can call it RfS. Brilliant idea! If you want to eliminate the new sysops group altogether, first have someone create a bot that correctly tags pages for speedy deletion. If it can't do that, it can't correctly delete them either of course, as it will need to judge whether a tag is placed correctly. Good luck with that though... Fram (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • If it was possible to write such an admin bot (it isn't), we could just write an editor bot to write the encyclopedia. NE Ent 10:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Whoever writes that better be certified in English by Dr. Viriditas hisself, to whose karma metrics and superior manners I bow like a proper servant should. Perhaps they should run the show here, since they probably have more than half a clue. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • In all seriousness, the problem with automated processes is that something is needed to automate them, and they can't make judgement calls. If we only found copyvio based on Earwig's tools, a lovely page which I got speedied twice in the past two days would have been passed over because the computer only found ~60% probability. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 16:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Can we require that this bot utilize a random number generator on the grounds that it's safe to assume X% of the AIV filings will be invalid for one reason or another? I think it would be reassuring to the editing populace to know that even if they were reported at AIV there was only a 70%...oh, let's be optimistic and say 80%...chance that the bot would auto-block them... If the bot could utilize a Big Six wheel graphic so that editors could view their likelihood of blockage in real time, so much the better...in fact, I say open up the betting to the masses and alleviate the need for fundraisers! DonIago (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • How about the bot just blocks every 3 out of 4 users listed at AIV, and deletes pages with CSDs and PRODs randomly? With all the equal-rights movements going on now, that will definitely give everybody an equal opportunity at being blocked and everything deleted. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as it's a system we can monetize I'm happy. :p DonIago (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. "Do you want to opt-out of automatic blocking from this bot? You must pay $1 fee every day." =) Epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to take that approach I'd prefer that every dollar paid reduced the odds of an editor being blocked by 1%. :p DonIago (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Suicide threat

I've found a suicide threat on this page, so I thought I'd post here. Users who threaten to commit suicide should be indefinitely blocked, right? --Biblioworm 21:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Contact the emergency address per WP:EMERGENCY. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm

• (edit conflict) An annoying one, yes, contact the emergency team. --Tito☸Dutta 21:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• I just sent the email a few seconds ago. --Biblioworm 21:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Biblioworm. I have also posted {{Suicide response}} to the user's talk page. Hopefully, if the threat is genuine, the user will be open to finding assistance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR rule by User:Natty4bumpo

The article 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre is under the 1RR rule. User:Natty4bumpo has violated the rule by performing this first edit, this second edit, and this third edit. Furthermore, he rebuffed an editor warning him about the 1RR rule by claiming that he is not restricted by it in this comment. A block is usually helpful in such a situation. Tkuvho (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, he was also edit warring at Asperger syndrome and warned. Secret ^account 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Tkuvho (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

He seems confused about 1RR, he came to my page to ask for help. John Carter said at the talk page that this was probably more incompetence than malice, but if he's been edit warring elsewhere then ok. On the other hand User:ShulMaven removed the tag twice, once last night,[101] then earlier today.[102] ShulMaven has been warned about a 1RR violation earlier this month. Unless someone can see a way to see the 2 reverts as not a 1RR violation, Shulmaven also should be blocked and I probably will if there isn't a convincing argument otherwise. User:Secret? Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dougweller. If the article is under 1RR violations, and ShulMaven violated despite knowing about it, feel free to block him too. In a high-profile page like that, its better to block the edit warriors than to protect the page. Knowing that Natty was edit warring (and blocked in the past for it) in another page a few days earlier, I don't believe he's clueless about edit warring. Secret ^account 19:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, Natty4bumpo hasn't actually edited Asperger syndrome since being warned about it 5 days ago. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I guess if one person who violates 1RR is sanctioned, others should be as well, but I would feel more comfortable letting @Secret: decide that. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I told him he was being discussed here and why, and he came to my talk page asking where with no comment on violating 1RR - not impressive. I've given him a link now. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I truly thought that I was making an edit (removing the POV tag) according to a consensus on a talk page.And that the page was being edited by people who were trying to get solid sources and facts up in a timely and responsible fashion.ShulMaven (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And Nattybumpo felt he wasn't violating 1RR or subject to it. You were warned about 1RR before, where did you get the idea that you could violate it simply because of the position taken by other editors?

I have no idea. It's not like I studied a manual. More like I slid into this sideways, writing articles when I wanted to know about something that didn't have an article, or saw an error or omission in an article that I was reading because I did want to know something. And I more or less figured out the rules and the grammar as I went along. Or not.ShulMaven (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, Natty4bumpo continued to edit war at Asperger syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) well after multiple warnings. To such an extent that I am surprised that his block isn't longer than 24 hours. History:

1. There are multiple 3RR warnings dating back years on his talk page, including (but not limited to): June 2009, August 2010, January 2011, and October 2014.
2. On November 6 23:07, after seeing that Natty4Bumpo was editwarring against seven other editors, and against strong consensus on talk with no editor supporting the position taken by Natty,[103] I again warned Natty about 3RR.
3. After two previous warnings about his edit warring at Featured article Asperger syndrome, and with no editor concurring with the edits s/he was making, s/he again reverted three more times, after the warning. [104], [105], and [106]. (If I got those diffs wrong, please have a look at the article history, where Natty has reverts on November 6 at 23:38, November 7 at 00:03, and November 7 at 06:52 ... ugh on my diff gathering.)

This is edit warring supreme from an editor with a long history of same (please peruse Natty's talk page). I do not understand why the block is so short, and suggest perhaps this editor should not be editing in the area of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are not made for punishment. He hasn't edited Asperger syndrome since Nov 7, the date of his last warning. Today is Nov 19. This does not in any way justify his behavior there - and maybe a topic ban is warrented, I have no idea - but saying this block was in part because "he was also edit warring at Asperger syndrome" is deceptive. It strongly implies the behavior was today or at least very recent. We do not give blocks 12 days after an event, they are used for preventing further harm, not punishment. (The actual reason for the block is completely justified, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User returns from block to resume battleground strategies

Spotter 1 has returned from being blocked to resume the same tendentious editing activities he was blocked for in the first instance. While I don't usually revert any talk page entries or comments, I felt compelled to revert this entry on the RT TV network talk page as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The call outs to other editors was undoubtedly a WP:Pointy tactic to draw other editors back to the talk page in order to maximise disruptive impact because of his WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach to consensus and reliable sources. Evidently, he did not understand why he was blocked in the first place. I honestly don't think he has any intention of WP:LISTENing now or in the future. --Evidently (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not true. This user accused us of a minority position without any evidence! ("Two users jumping up and down and making a lot of noise in as many forums")[107] under "Motion NPOV tag") and the post was meant as a rebutal of her claim!.Spotter 1 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I might add that Iryna Harpy's behaviour is unacceptable. Reverting a talk page entry without understanding even slightly the intend of the post. Evidently Iryna Harpy wants WP to be immune to any ideologically inconvenient criticism.Spotter 1 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to also make a note of Spotter 1's aggressive resumption of casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding other editors per the section he's just added to my talk page here. The user is convinced that there could only be a WP:CABAL at work if consensus does not lie with him as a seeker of 'The Truth'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As regards not understanding the intention of the post, I beg to differ. Your intentions are being evidenced by further additions, using the talk page as a forum within a few minutes here and here. As regards my 'obfuscating' ideologically inconvenient criticism, you're tossing in red herrings. I've argued for and against 'ideological' positions, but always within the parameters of policy. I don't actually care what position you're advocating, so long as you don't pursue it by bullying and being WP:POINTy. You just don't seem to want to grasp that there are constructive approaches to discussing important issues and intentionally disruptive approaches (which your behaviour epitomises). I don't care whether you represent 'The Truth' according to small l liberalism, Ukrainian nationalism, Russian nationalism, or any miscellaneous branch of neocon kneejerk-ism: I would do my best to stop you from flouting Wikipedia's processes. The fact is that you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No not forum, what I do is setting up my argument into a context, point being how it is possible to arrive at a point where a multitude of editors is contesting the NPOV of the RT article. The core reason for all the disputes is the fishing for reliable sources which are used to justify any claim (mainly in the political sphere). Giving the example of Ofcom's methodological fact based approach to criticism of RT is part of my INTENT to show what a fact-based article actually means, thereby giving a constructive model how disputes can be avoided in the future. I don't care what your mission statement is but I do care if the claims stated in articles are factbased and therefore the encyclopicdic value of WP is preserved. I do not claim to have the "truth". I eschew any ideology that is not fact based. I'am open to constructive suggestions how to improve my approach, but keep in mind there is a history to our disputes which I pay special attention to. That's itSpotter 1 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"I'am open to constructive suggestions how to improve my approach" - a good idea would be to start with editing something less controversial, and learn the ropes of discussion that way. Volunteer Marek  01:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The "Information-System", which WP is a part of, is one of the most important topics and RT is one of the most exposed organisations which are under considerable scrutiny right now. I think WP has much to gain through resolving any issue regarding the usage of opinions and facts.Spotter 1 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing looks like a POV issue with Spotter, particularly at RT (TV_network). They seem to have decided that neutrality mean showing 50% pro Russian perspectives, when that is not what neutral means. It means we follow the sources, where ever they lead us. No amount of verbosity or wikilawyering gets around that. Until you learn the basics around here, I strongly suggest you take Volunteer Marek's advice and avoid contentious articles. Dennis - 2¢ 02:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, this shouldn't be a "what is the majority-opinion" contest but what are the facts and which RS is corroberating these facts. In effect you are saying that facts are meaningless, everything we do here is parroting American mainstream media talking points; that's not a neutral point of view, it's the mirroring of whatever is the majority opinion of the "Western" mainstream media.Spotter 1 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I said we follow the sources. If the majority are reporting one thing, that is where the majority of coverage goes. That is how it works. You keep saying "facts", but for some reason, it comes across as "Truth®". We should include more than American perspectives, but you seem to have determined what "fair" means ahead of time, and you are trying to find sources to back your claim. That isn't how we define "neutral". That is probably why you are getting into so many arguments. Your disdain for the American sources is pretty obvious as well. So yes, I smell a NPOV issue and that is a problem. Dennis - 2¢ 02:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious how the user seems to think he knows the facts ahead of reliable sourcing. That's like putting the troika before the horses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. That is the difference between searching sources for facts you don't know, and looking for sources to prove the truth you already know. Dennis - 2¢ 02:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I was about to warn the user via WP:ARBEE, but I see EdJohnston already has (its on his page, but not logged). I'm tempted to sanction Spotter, but I've got to leave now, and couldn't follow up. Any admin can use any sanction they feel is appropriate here, without delay as this does fall under Discretionary Sanctions and he was warned on th 14th, and I wanted to make sure they knew that. Dennis - 2¢ 03:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The answer was absolutely warranted because the accusation of being "only" two editors who try to make up things or a dispute was disproven; if it weren't for Iryna Harpy's accusation (others made it too) I wouldn't have posted the rebutal!.Spotter 1 (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok let's make it more tangible (RT and almost every other media organisation did report on it): RT in it's coverage of the MH 17 crash reported on the Russian Defence ministries public presentation of the tracking of a unindentified aircraft near MH17. Now the claim is becoming a fact when other entities (f.e. other defence ministries) independent confirm the claim by comparing their recorded data (radar signature etc.) with the Russian analogue. The most important thing here is the recorded data which can be used as evidence for a factual statement.

Or take Ofcom's report on RT's coverage. When it makes a judgement, it uses actual facts (starting on page 6, reproducing the actual coverage of RT), which can be independently verfied by footage (which is the data if you want) and applying it's rules in its specific judgement (becoming an opinion when it leaves the territory of facts, which it actually readily admits).

The link to its report: [108]

The summary statements about facts have to be sourced in/from independently verfiable data.

Spotter 1 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. Now you're using the ANI as a WP:SOAPBOX. Before you dig yourself in for another BATTLEGROUND stand-off, take the good advice you've been offered about learning the ropes by starting with uncontroversial articles you don't have a vested, emotional POV interest in. The majority of regular editors here have extensive watchlists and patrol, copy edit, check sources for articles from religion in the Maldives to the history of novellas to popular television shows. Whether you're prepared to accept it or not, they're all important and interesting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You see what I am dealing with? As soon as the argument is reaching its climax, editors throw different jibberish accusation at me to avoid any further discussion (when it looks like it is not going in favour of the respective editor). I have no intrest in a BATTLEGROUND stand-off, I think I've made it clear what my intent was and is, I pull back; let the reader decide.Spotter 1 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you persist in calling Wikipedia's policies and guidelines "gibberish"? You've not even familiarised yourself with policies as they have been pointed out to you but, instead, find essays that appeal to your POV and try to base discussions around this along with huge tracts of anything you can find to throw into the mix. Policies and guidelines have been developed with care and much deliberation, and if you took some time out to understand them you'd see that they are most certainly not some form of irritating obstruction (except to your own agenda). The fact that you don't want to read them doesn't make them 'gibberish'. As to your assertion that "As soon as the argument is reaching its climax, editors throw different jibberish accusation at me to avoid any further discussion.": what 'climax'? You've established nothing other than the fact that you believe yourself to have proven some sort of spurious pseudo-case. Please be so good as to point out examples where editors were about to have an epiphany due to your insights. Are you really going continue to be so arrogant as to believe yourself to be the only person who has questioned how best to implement and serve policies designed with the spirit of Wikipedia in mind? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of what I wrote. I agree with WP:POLICIES and I am prepared to reflect on any mistake I make. "you don't have a vested, emotional POV interest in" this is gibberish nonsense. "Climax" as in the debate has reached the point when there is not a objective statement to make and you resort to ad hominum attacks. "only person who has questioned how best to implement and serve policies designed with the spirit of Wikipedia in mind?" I count on our fellow men to do just that.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Will topic ban for EE topics be in order here?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly someone who is a neutral party but the complete opposite. I stated my reason for the rebutal if it is deemed invalid, so be it, but be aware that Ymblantar is not someone who should tip the scales. Ym is part of the conflict from the beginning, not a neutral observer and very distinctive by threatening to ban anyone who disagrees with him for a period of time (he had to retract from a recent threat made against Kenfree). Spotter 1 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong prospective (I am not against you, I am against breaking Wikipedia policies) and outright lie (I did not retract from anywhere). The thread is about you, and I am perfectly entitled to propose a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Well then you should READ Wikipedia policies, Yblanter. They do not say that "any" admin is free to impose sanctions, but any UNINVOLVED admin. And you, sir, have been identified as "involved" ever since you declined to participate in the mediation request to which you were named as an involved party, and by your many one-sided comments before and since. Kenfree (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A lie? [109][110] and if I remember correctly the relevant passage was crossed out. Still you are not a neutral observer in this context, the proposed sanction is in your interest.Spotter 1 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Iam obviously involved, and this is the only reason why you are still not indefblocked despite beinmg an obvious sock. However, I am perfectly entitled to propose a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It is very sad that false charges like Ms. Harpy's here are allowed to distract constructive editors (I am wondering if she can provide even a single instance of constructive editing on the RT page) from their work. Nothing could be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding than that the intent of this editor (SPotter 1} was to document the widespread opposition to the continual violations of NPOV on the RT web page. Not liking this message, Ms. Harpy seeks to kill the messenger by alleging illicit motives for Spotter 1's post, whereas amyone who reads it recognizes its clear intent, anyone whose purpose is not to provide yet another "energy sinkhole" (not eaccidentally a favorite term of Ms. Harpy's) for one of the few PRODUCTIVE editors involved with the RT TV network page. Kenfree (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Spotter 1

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

---

I'm going to make Ymblanter's proposal official. Spotter 1 has been nothing except disruptive on this particular article. Classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE. Just got back from a week long block and immediately resumed the kind of activity that got him blocked in the first place. I'm tempted to throw in Kenfree into this as well but that's probably best dealt with separately since they might be separate persons. Spotter 1 is topic banned from anything to do with Russia and Ukraine, including the RT (TV Network) article.

• Support as nom.  Volunteer Marek  20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Spotter 1 has demonstrated responsible editorial practices and has done nothing to merit sanctions of any kind. Kenfree (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support; it's the classic pattern of tendentious editing. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This user made less than 50 edits in article space, and almost all of them are reverts [111]. There is also something common between him and User:Kenfree. Kenfree also made less than 50 edits in article space, and almost all of them are reverts [112]. Both are SPAs. After looking at their contributions ([113] and [114]), it seems they operate as essentially the same account (meat or sock). My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Technically, any admin could do this with the stroke of a pen, but I strongly prefer it be a community decision, and I support on that basis. And My Very*, file if you must, but it is common for two people to have exactly the same opinion on articles like this. Very common. Dennis - 2¢ 22:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this idea is strange. There are so few editors here in Wikipedia who are opposing to the pro-Western views and you want to ban one of them. You should treasure the person who for some reason hasn't yet left the English Wikipedia. (I've noticed that some people have gone away while some of the most ardent Maidan supporters became more aggressive.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I don't believe that to be a correct evaluation. There are many articles related to the events in Ukraine over the last year and plenty of pro-Novorossia, pro-Russian editors working within policy and guidelines. True, at this point (as events are still underway), some of the articles lean to one side or the other which is something to be cleaned up further down the line. These I've tagged as being POV and in need of better sources where they're based on Ukrainian media outlets or Russian media outlets alone. And, yes, we've been inundated by nationalists from all sides, but their edits are removed. Discussions regarding DUE and UNDUE content are being slogged out on a daily basis and allowances are made for minor violations of policy in these heated discussion. If editors are working in good faith and bringing up valid points, everyone gets their say and content is adjusted per consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Yes, you are right. Probably it's just that since a few days back I've started noticing some other articles, like "RT" and "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17", articles that some of the most neutral editors don't seem to touch. While some other articles aren't edited as often anymore and I don't see them in my watchlist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is a very problematic article we're looking at and trying to figure how best to approach the problems surrounding it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work! --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: While I am sorry it has come to this, and I've never supported a topic ban where the user recognises that they are not working in good faith, and has even been willing to ask for mentoring, nothing about Spotter 1's approach to his return from being blocked as a matter of preventing further damage and using the time to actually bother to read policies and guidelines speaks to a genuine desire to do anything other than persist with disruptive behaviour in the name of 'The Truth'. Even his response below is that of assuming the role of martyr to editors he keeps casting WP:ASPERSIONS about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Response I am truly amazed how a simple response to Iryna Harpys accusation is equated to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It's clear that Volunteer Marek, Ymblanter and Iryna Harpy want to crush any dissent that doesn't comply to their view. If I'm not mistaken the block was for a specific event (with the verdict still out on basis of principle but not according to 3rr). Now to concoct a continuation from these past edits and hypocritically using my past edits (which I'm ready to review anytime) against me, is simply put abhorrent.Spotter 1 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - user's first edit after coming off a week-long block is to resume the exact behaviour on the exact article which led to the block, on which they were alerted to WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions in the meantime. A topic ban is getting off easy here. Ivanvector (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This person has been winding up the drama crank far too long on the issue of whether RT is reliable news or Russian state propaganda. The behavior following the release of the block cements my impression of battlefield behavior. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  The problem is that the person is right in principle. Here, search Google Books for the words "BBC disinformation" in Russian [115] and rewrite the whole BBC article based on what you will find. What will be the result? What will British people think of Wikipedia after that? And this is exactly what is happening with the RT article here in Wikipedia now. I wonder if people are serious when making edits like this [116] and accusing RT of disinformation while preferring not to notice the beam in their own eye. And yes, I understand Spotter 1 cause it's very hard to continue assuming good faith. I think Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for anything Russian and I can't do anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Well, I am Russian, I write about Russia for many years, and I think it is pretty reliable. It just presents propaganda as propaganda and not as honest opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  But do you think the opinion of the Western media is an honest opinion?
  Like, an example found in Google Books, it's about Libya:
  "Western media spread lies and disinformation. The climax of truly Goebbels' lies by BBC was reached with allegations of bombing "peaceful demonstrators". Allegedly two pilots ..." ("Западные СМИ распространяют ложь и дезинформацию. Венцом поистине геббельсовской лжи «Би-Би-Си» стали утверждения о нанесении бомбовых ударов по «мирным демонстрантам». Якобы два летчика ..."). [117].
  But the BBC article is very respectful to its subject matter. While the Russia Today article reads like a collection of allegations and criticism. Basically, its very purpose appears to be to criticize RT as much as possible. The whole article just says "RT is evil, don't watch it! Everything it says is disinformation!". --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Now we are talking about opinions, right? Not about facts which I will run to add to articles immediately? Then, yes, I think what RT says is what the Putin administration tells them to say. They are just paid for that, and both Kiselev and Simonyan have a long track record of creating propaganda (for Simonyan, that is her entire career, she was appointed the head of Russia Today at the age of 23 or smth). If tomorrow the administration tells them to praise Ukraine as the best democracy in the world, and slap the separatists in Donbass and call them terrorists, they will do so and will not even provide any explanation. In contrast, BBC does not work like this, because they have their reputation at risk. Yes, sure, they often have to provide info on topics such as Lybia which they do not understand and have no idea about. Then they often fall flat. But it is very difficult for me to imagine that a head of the Prime Minister administration or whatever this position is called, phones them and says: Guys, tomorrow we start calling Kaddafi an asshole. It is just impossible. If this leaks out, both would lose their jobs within a day. Where BBC falls flat is systemic bias and sometimes incompetence. This is why BBC is generally accepted as a reliable source, and RT is not. (And, to answer a next question, I am of very low opinion of all Ukrainian media I have see, and do not see currently much difference between them and blogs). I am not interested at the moment in the article on BBC, but if I would, I would not object adding a section on criticism based on reliable sources. You can try proposing it, though I am not sure how successful your proposal could be. (It may even has such a section, I did not check). Additionally, I have the RT article on my watchlist from its creation (I also have the Russia Today article for a couple of years). When it was announced that Russia Today is transformed to RT, I though: well, look, now we are waiting for trolls. Russian government invests a lot of money into internet trolling, and I was sure they could not miss this article. And, sure, trolls came. I do not mean you - I have seen you on other Wikimedia projects and I know you have your own views. I mean first IPs with very bad English, who could only edit war, and then doemant accounts - on one occasion, when an IP was blocked and I reverted their POV edit, within minutes I was reverted back by an account which did not edit the English Wikipedia two years prior to that - and the account is still around and occasionally editing. Then a strange influx on new users came, who started to create large-scale disruption, using wikilawyering, pretending they are still misunderstand policies, reverting three times so on. They are all over the place, and it becomes very difficult to edit Wikipedia in such situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  I understand your position. But still, I think you wrongly assume that 1. The only way to influence the press is to call them directly; 2. Only BBC cares about its reputation. (I'm sure RT does too.) 2. People who are making pro-Russian edits are trolls or get paid. (I don't see any large pro-RT disruption at the RT article. Quite the contrary, I see people randomly adding bad things there and in their edit summaries they seem to express their enjoyment of hating RT and when I tried reverting a couple of times, they acted very aggressively and immediately started edit warring.)
  But okay... I hope RT gives some air time to pro-Ukrainian opinions in order to comply with any British regulations and people will ease up.
  (Btw I watch RT very rarely. It's boring, so I'm not sure what it's like, even. I enjoy watching news on Ukrainian television, though. :)) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Both "Moscow connection" and Kenfee (who is currently blocked) edit war in article RT-TV to support version/views by Spotter_1 [118]. Should their votes be counted here? My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  ?!!
  I reverted to Sidelight12's version once... You probably forgot. I'm assuming good faith... (I also reverted bold changes by Sayerslle and Bobrayner and this is probably all I have ever done in the entire article history. While you and some other editors who have voted are there 24/7...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in addition to first revert you are talking about [119], there were two edits, clearly annotated by you as reverts on this page on November 17 [120], [121]. You also made this ANI posting below to get an upper hand in edit war conducted by you on another page [122], [123]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

1. I have mentioned all three edits already in my previous reply; 2. I started the ANI discusion exactly because I didn't want to continue the edit war you started. I let you have it your way, didn't I?
(I don't think all this is even relevant here.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• To answer My very best wishes, a block user has no right to participate in a discussion where there is no personal jeopardy, either of sanctions to them, nor to the work by them. They gave up the right to participate by committing the action that led to the block. To allow them to !vote while blocked is proxy editing, which is not allowed in this context. Dennis - 2¢ 22:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Further response to My very best wishes: I don't consider Kenfree and Moscow Connection analogous in any way. Kenfree and Spotter 1 have been (at the least) WP:TAGTEAMing, and both are acting as aggressive, disruptive and abusive crusaders. Moscow Connection has been editing for some time in multiple articles and is essentially a good faith editor who has been vigilant about BLP violations and articles being turned into COATRACKS. Few users editing controversial articles manage to avoid moments of sailing a little too close to the wind. Wikipedia would just be a blatant POV resource if we all got our way and silenced editors we don't want here. In fact, if we all got our wish, no one would have a voice here. Besides, you know that this is WP:NOTAVOTE. It's Spotter 1's editing that is being discussed, and it's not the number of votes but his ongoing policy violations that will determine whether a sanction and terms thereof should be implemented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Should someone close this thread? My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that ample evidence and discussion has been provided regarding Spotter 1's continued violations of Wikipedia policy for an admin to close before the thread ends up being archived as stale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

ban this ip for 36 hours

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 about to go on a MASSIVE bender and for protection of Wikipedia suggest my IP is blocked pre emptively. 217.43.232.141 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that the IP in question seems only ever to have been used for vandalism, I suggest that it be blocked for a considerably longer period. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is why we have WP:IAR, so we can preemptively block IPs who want to get piss drunk and mouthy, at their request. Dennis - 2¢ 01:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request is granted, 48 hours for vandalism threats. Secret ^account 01:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good block. Massive Benders can be very dangerous. --NE2 04:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Seven years' worth of music vandalism

Nothing to do here; I'm simply reporting that I have begun taking action against a long-term vandal who engages in BLP violations and original research on pop music articles, never citing a source. Yesterday I put together a case page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Music vandal from Greater Detroit.

Right on cue, the LTA vandal came to a handful of typical articles today, inserting typical wording such as "disappointing" sales figures[124] or "disappointing" chart performance.[125] I reverted those edits and tagged the account.

I'm not the only one who saw a pattern here; Candy156sweet has been working to repair this vandal's activities since June 2007, creating a workpage at WP:Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1, and in August 2007 Ebyabe created the category of suspected sockpuppets. Hopefully we can nip this person's damage in the bud now that we can refer our vigorous cleanup actions to a case page. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is vandalism? It sounds to me like a long-term content dispute in which a couple people are attempting to win said dispute by calling their opponent a vanndal. 69.210.241.175 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's about an editor persistently posting editorial comments in articles. That's not a content dispute; it's vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that such comments are unwanted (generally speaking, unless there is a reliable source saying the sales figures are disappointing), but is there any evidence this is being done in bad faith? Cluelessness rather than malice may be the issue here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Seven years of this kind of thing adds up to a lot of bad faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Replying to IP 69.210 from Chicago: The earliest activity of this person demonstrated a battleground attitude, with lots of edit warring against Candy156sweet, along with the not-very-clueful content additions. He signed his name "Marcus Watson" in this series of edits, along with adding many fawning descriptions of how singer Richard Marx was super hot physically. When challenged on his talk page about his edit warring and problematic additions, Watson called Candy a bitch.[126] One of the Watson IPs was blocked twice in 2007, for vandalism-only edits, and for using multiple accounts. Two others were blocked for vandalism using multiple accounts.[127][128] In June and July 2007, one shared IP was blocked for activity related to these same music articles, obviously the same Watson person.[129] He hasn't changed at all, never once wanted to learn how to edit constructively. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats re Kannada language

(non-admin closure) User has been indef'd. Should be the end of this. demize (t · c) 13:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Karnāṭa dēśamaṁ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Threats here and here. Warned here. Response here. Also on their 7th revert in 24 hours on that article, but that's a separate issue. Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not above law. Any unlawful categorisation demands complete scrutiny. Else block public editing and make it a private company. write whatever you want.

All edits are verifiable and questionable Karnāṭa dēśamaṁ (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your screed is not wanted on Wikipedia. I think you'll be forced to find someplace else for it soon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have indef'd for the legal threats along with the edit war. -- GB fan 13:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Continual vandalism of pages by User talk:Bigbong12

(non-admin closure) User warned by Origamite, nothing else to do here. After a final warning, this can be brought to WP:AIV. demize (t · c) 13:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I would like to request that User:Bigbong12 be blocked, as he (or she) has continually vandalised and falsified some information on a few pages on Wikipedia and I have had to revert several of his (or her) edits on Wikipedia (see this for some of the edits that I have had to revert), in particular the page 2015 State of Origin series. He (or she) had continually filled in the tables of players, when the event (let alone the matches) has not even started yet (for the record, the series starts in May next year). I was going to consider giving him (or her) some sort of formal warning but I didn't feel that I had the administrative privileges to do so.

Have a look at some of his (or her) edits when considering your case. While some may be constructive, most of them were either false and have had to be reverted, some by me, some by others. Regards, MasterMind5991 (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

1. You have to notify him when you create a section about him here. I did.
2. Anyone can put warning templates on someone else'e talk page, such as {{subst:uw-spam1}}.
3. I suggest the vandalism noticeboard, instead of here. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 11:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Racist insults from user 188.231.192.218

(non-admin closure) Blocked for 31 hours by Future Perfect at Sunrise and the reporting user welcomed, in quite a friendly manner, to Wikipedia. demize (t · c) 16:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

See User talk:194.85.30.158.--194.85.30.158 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Y Blcoked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. --ThaddeusB (talk)

---

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

Insult

This message and his other recent edits at my talk page: User_talk:Titodutta#How_are_you_.3F. The message is written in Bengali and almost all words are abusive slangs.
Few translations from Urban dictionary 1, 2, 3 etc. --Tito☸Dutta 21:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I get this from time to time, Tito, and it is often pretty vile stuff. Ask for your talk page to be semi-protected. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I can't recall the last time I received an Indic-language message on my talk that was not abusive. The problem is that they slip through the net precisely because of not being written in English. There might be scope for a more rigid enforcement of TPG here but I do know that some people receive non-English messages that are perfectly acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've occasionally received English messages that are perfectly acceptable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Distortion of consensus at Talk:lift_(force)

(non-admin closure) Discussion has been moved to the appropriate venue. demize (t · c) 18:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

A disagreement between two principal editors has been discussed for many months at Talk:lift_(force).

The discussion is ostensibly about content, and highly technical. I have tried to assist and provide technical input, as have others, but consensus appears to be distorted by one expert user who continually refuses to WP:LISTEN or accept opposing views. In his latest post he dismissed months of detailed review of evidence for his claims as 'speculation'.

A request for closure has been filed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Lift (force) but no volunteers have come forward. I have suspected for some time that nobody at Wikipedia will be listened to on this matter. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of his behaviour on the community. Please help. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I too came in to try and help resolve this. The problem is, we seem to have exhausted the reserve of knowledgeable editors willing to contribute and no uninvolved editor from either the Aircraft or Aviation wikiproject (both ave been asked) has come forward to close the discussion (or to say why not). If I close it myself, despite being drawn into it, what is the worst that can happen? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As one of the principle editors in the dispute, I support having a non-involved editor close the discussion. We didn't get any takers at Project Aviation, so I'd suggest casting a wider net by posting a request for closure at other notice boards. If this is the right place to make such a request, then consider it requested. If not, perhaps some of the regular participants of this board can suggest a better board. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The place to file a formal closure request is at the Requests for Closure board. I have gone ahead and done that for you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:lift (force). As you can see, there's quite a backlog, and the case is complex, so it might take a while before anyone arrives to close the case. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'd suggest this discussion here at ANI can be closed now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

ToQ100gou

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.

---

ToQ100gou (talk · contribs) lacks the maturity and competence to contribute to Wikipedia. Several months ago, I had to clean up vandalism at Ai Moritaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that claimed that she had committed suicide which came out to be because an IP editor was upset that no one had written longer episode summaries on Wikipedia for a TV show she is currently starring in. ToQ100gou has admitted that it was him. In the past week he has been repeatedly restoring a comment I had removed from two articles' talk pages where he was using it as a forum and responding to months old threads on issues that have since been changed. He also moved a page based on a 3 year old comment I made as well as leaving me several nasty messages and making other personal attacks ([130], [131], [132], [133]) and vandalizing other articles. While he has not been intentionally doing so, he has been using several dozen IPs to edit war and vandalize. As I said in the start, he is not mature or competent enough to edit. He should be blocked because I have made multiple attempts at talking to him but he refuses to listen to me anymore, considering I've been dealing with him on Wikipedia since late August at the earliest.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef as one of those single purpose accounts only used to harass you. No useful contributions from what I've seen. Secret ^account 01:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

user:Leitmotiv Harassing me on my talk page after I asked him to stop multiple times.

please see [134] CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not harassment. I've been using Combat's talk page to "communicate" my thoughts with him. If a talk page is not for talking, then I must assume it is for, and excuse my words here, masturbation of some kind. Small ancillary note: "Multiple times" is hyperbole. Only once. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Have to concur with Leitmotiv. Quite frankly, the responses from CombatWombat42 to Leitmotiv's messages sound simply like those of a spoiled child putting their hands over their ears yelling "lalalala". Leitmotiv, editors have a great deal of leeway with regards to their talk pages. If CW42 has asked you to stay away, then apart from the required notices, it's probably better to keep your comments to the article talkpage. Blackmane (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's Wikipedia's policy on talk pages then I can fully respect that, though I don't agree in cases such as mine where I was trying to point out (politely I might add) that CW42 and I have been through this once before. But again, if that is policy for communicating on a talk page (AKA: to not talk), then I will go forward with that noting, that CW42 "talked" on my page, which is a double standard. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No snarkiness required, Leitmotiv: "to not talk". No, to not talk with you, and this has nothing to do with any "standards". Users have the right to request a particular user stay away from their talk page (except for mandatory notices); not fulfilling that request is blockable. You may do the same with them, if you like. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No snarkiness intended, I just tend to be a little blunt and for that I can apologize. I find it a little bewildering that in an internet community it is frowned upon to use their talk page to communicate personal feuds in a constructive manner as I did only to have it interpreted as harassment. It seems as if that is what the page is designed for. I can see blocking people for actual harassment, but whatever. I certainly don't want to be present on a person's "talk" page if they are unwilling to cooperate and see another's point of view.

Yeah Lor I see that and find it more than a little ironic since it is okay to post attention notices on my page and others, but as soon as it is on CW42's it's somehow a whole different story. I'm fine with it all. If I need to get work done with CW42 through mediation, then I guess that is just how it will have to be. I hope he likes being married to me.

So where do we go from here? I have a mediation page opened, but it got all jacked up somehow. I don't know how to edit the script to fix it. It's almost as if there is a subscript I'm not seeing. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) And this is coming from the person who has done this theirself Lor^Chat 03:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Potw edit warring after admin closure

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

---

About Pigsonthewing and {{infobox book}}.

An admin closed this TfD. Part of the closing action was this edit in a template that was not tagged in the TfD. Note that the closing admin says in the editsummary: Add Release number from Template:Infobox Doctor Who book, per discussion, please revert/discuss if this is controversial. I did revert [135], linking to the talk I started at the closers talkpage (as is the route to go). Clearly I did not contest the closure itself. So far, so good. Then Pigsonthewing (Potw) reverted once, I reverted that [136] and Pigsinthewing reverted again. This left the current version. The trouble is that Potw did not enter the discussion (twice), and did not use the editsummary information provided. I note that it takes TE permission to do these edits, which implies knowledge of procedure.
I stepped out of the reversal sequence, and warned the Potw [137] and the closing admin about the situation. Only then Potw first entered the discussion with a copy/paste of my warning slightly adjusted [138] (turning it into an oblique accusation of improper conduct, not helpful, and childish I say). Unfortunately the closing admin did not edit since (48+ hrs); that could have settled the situation earlier.

I conclude that this constitutes editwarring by Potw, explicitly so by not entering the existing talkpage discussion. The current version of {{infobox book}} is not the one following the admins closure outcome corectly. Their first talkpage post, only after the edits, does not constitute a contribution to the discussion. Potw has written that they do not want to discuss their edit [139], thereby indicating that any future talked outcome they don't like can be reverted again. I request: 1. To conclude edit warring by Potw as noted, taking into consideration the non-talk attitude and the TE-level of editing. 2. Reversal of their last edit [140], installing the version as explicitly pointed to by the closing admin. 3. Some block or ban for Potw to prevent further disruption of the current discussion in this (why should someone contribute when it can be reverted without talk?). Note: this ANI post is about due process only, I don't think this page should go into the merge-discussion itself at all. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit made to Template:Infobox book by User:Plastikspork was to add a parameter to the infobox for "release number", since that parameter existed in the Doctor Who Infobox template, but didn't exist in the Infobox Book template. From reading your comments on Plastikspork's talk page (and correct me if I'm wrong), you don't even object to the content of that edit, but instead you object to the way the edit was made (i.e., that no discussion preceded it, and there was no opportunity for anyone who watches Template:Infobox book to participate in a merge discussion). Not every edit needs to be discussed, nor does every merge. If you have a legitimate objection to the edit (i.e. it causes an actual problem with the template, it is not used in any transclusions, etc.), then let's hear it. But if you're just complaining for the sake of complaining, then all you're doing is wasting everyone's time, and I honestly can't blame PotW for not engaging in a discussion with someone who can't even come up with an objection to the additional template parameter. I don't believe there is anything actionable in this ANI thread, and I'd recommend closing it. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 14:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to know what the problem is here other than an excuse to "stick it" to Andy Mabbett, I'm afraid. The edit warring on Template:Infobox book appears to have now stopped, with consensus to stay at Plastickspork's edit, which from all actual discussion on content, appears to be favourable as it allows additional parameters covered elsewhere. I fail to see any value in keeping this thread open. (or, tl;dr - what Scottywong said) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, allow me to correct you, Scottywong. It's just that I did not mention the content discussion at the closers talkpage. Your assumption that I did not actually have a content proposal (i.e., alternative change) is wrong. In the expected line of going, the closing admin would have responded and we would, in communication, have found a next step. I note that the closing adsmin themselves clearly left this option open. And, as you can read in the ensuing merge discusison, there are issues brought up. So this is not complaining for complainings sake.

Your blaming me for my edit plus post is not correct. Your early shortcutting conclusion along "this is the desired outcome so it's ok" is incorrect, it is rewarding the disruption. And even if Potw meant to say this, they should have said so in a talk (I read no judgement by you on that). But why discuss an edit at all if an editor can drop by and revert at will?

re Ritchie333. "The edit warring appears to have now stopped" - yes, I did that, Thanks for noting. Are you saying that by stopping it, I lost my right to question? Next. Taking a preliminary shot at the outcome of a content discussion (even if your shot were right in hindsight) does not make the edit warring right -- not at the time, not without discussion. Anyway, compliments for being able to judge without reading. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Shorter, listed. re Scottywong: 1. Incorrect, there was an alternative to be discussed. Please reconsider. 2. Such talk could evolve from the closers responses (and elsewhere, as has happened). 3. The excuse you mention for reverting is not mentioned by the reverter (twice). You are filling in, with polishing, for someone else. 3. Allowing reverts without talking, as you are doing now, would make any next talk useless -- any editor can come along and revert any outcome without having to answer. 4. So next time, you'd still say this behaviour is not edit warring? 5. re Ritchie333: no sense in judging without reading. -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is just silly. The linked tfd discussion clearly supports the action of the closer in making a small alteration to the merge target (which would never be tagged). It is DePiep who should be censured for reverting an edit authorised by the tfd discussion, and DePiep who should be admonished for this further waste of time. Oculi (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the closing admin's es. Ask the closing admin whether they would disapprove my edit. Explain why two reverts without going to the talkpage are OK with you. State that multiple untalked reverts are OK by your sixth pillar. Or, more easily: just say you don't need AGF and you can pick any conclusion you like. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I see DePiep in a minority of one, so far. Oculi (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

re Oculi. As I said, once you drop AGF, you can conclude anything you like. No reasoning needed. I can count too: Scottywong wrote "correct me if I'm wrong", I did, and they have yet to return. (They have also build in their safety valve "then let's hear it" - I have to explain the wording of my talkpage contribution. Had I edited without one, like Potw, I would have been safe I guess). I count Ritchie333, who did not read the post and so by intuition was able to judge (as intuitions go, mine says that Potw was the one to "stick it"). And there is Oculi, who resorts to !vote counting when challenged on their own writing. That's three admins approving edit warring when it suits their preferred outcome, and blaming me for stop the reverting and starting a talk. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, I have never encountered you on WP before (and admittedly, I'm not terribly active here anymore), but my first impression of you is that you are a textbook wikilawyer. I'm not trying to insult you; this is just my honest assessment. Bottom line, nothing is going to come of this thread, PotW is not going to be spanked for any minor transgression that caused you insult. So, your best bet at this point is to continue the discussion on the template talk page, and when it comes to a consensus, implement that consensus. The extra template parameter doesn't cause any harm, so there is no reason to remove it while the discussion takes place. I feel like the discussion is leaning towards leaving the extra template parameter as is, but there is no harm in taking the discussion to its natural conclusion. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 02:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

129.10.9.121

Could an admin please look into the edits by this IP. And this edit too. I googled but found no reference to support the claim that Hitler had any impact on the said philosophy, and given the IP's contribution, I smell tricky vandalism here. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Almost every edit ever by that IP address is vandalism, and the edit you mention is unsourced and highly improbable, so it's an easy case of revert and block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am striking the word "almost", because I now see that the one edit I saw that looked constructive was in fact no more than a minor amendment to an earlier vandalism edit by the same editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Continuous vandalisation of Elon Musk page by user Andyjsmith

For the last 6 months, there has been an ongoing dispute on the Elon Musk page, and about the status of him as a cofounder. It is approximately split with half of the talk page and editors, including myself, believing that his status under Tesla Motors and PayPal, because of his time of inception, would not qualify him as a cofounder in normal terms. But we also acknowledge that the majority of the community, rightly or wrongly consider him a cofounder, including the US court.

What this side of this community wanted was "Musk is considered by some to be the cofounder of Tesla Motors and Paypal, despite his inception as a series A investor, well after initial funding and incorporation. 1 of many references, noting the history of Tesla Motors: https://web.archive.org/web/20140212093533/http://www.marketbusinessnews.com/tesla-motors/12064

Note: I am not asking for the dispute of whether he is a cofounder or not to be solved, rather displaying opinion neutrality in the article and not just one view/a one sided argument.

The other half of the talk page wanted "Musk is the cofounder of Tesla Motors and Paypal". After 6 months of continuous discussion on the talk page the whole community decided on compromise. "Musk is considered by many to be the cofounder of Tesla Motors and Paypal." The dispute was settled and forgotten, until recently.

For the last month, user: Andyjsmith has continuously ignored all talk page discussions and conclusions, and has continuously changed the cofounder status, to the one he personally believes is correct. "Musk is the cofounder of Tesla Motors and Paypal". When this vandalism is undone, said user, merely changes the page again. His most recent reason for changing? "I'm sick of all this cofounder crap".

This user is continuously editing, based on personal opinions and completely ignoring all talk page discussions and community-reached conclusions. Please could you help resolve this issue, by explaining the need for an absence of editing because of personal opinions and the need for taking notice of an already settled dispute on the talk page.

Thanks, Heuh0 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• For reasons that are totally beyond me it seems to matter a lot to some people that Musk should be shown as not the person that he appears to be, but merely a co-founder of SpaceX and not even a co-founder of his other companies. This has been hotly debated on the SpaceX talk page and the Musk talk page. In the former case the matter seems to have been resolved - zero evidence. In the latter case no firm conclusion has been reached but weasel words remained in the article and an out of date reference that appeared to support the contention that Musk is a charlatan. I removed the reference and the weasel words.

It's not acceptable that Heuh0, who has a very limited edit record and has recently been engaged in a dispute about the use of reliable sources in another article, should immediately cry foul and escalate a very trivial matter when I pulled him up short over the aggressive tone of an edit summary. Is there something more here than meets the eye? Who knows? Who cares? Not me. andy (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: FWIW Although the reference given above by Heuh0 implies that Musk isn't a co-founder of Tesla, the company website states that he is. This is typical of the kind of scholastic argument and selective use of evidence that rages around this profoundly unimportant issue - as is so often the case with wikipedia one or two people get bees in their bonnets. andy (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a content issue, not a behavioral one. The original poster, if indeed a new editor, can be forgiven for mistaking this page for a place to resolve such issues. On the substance, for what it's worth, "founder" is not a term of art and is more of an honorific. It's silly to waste words pointing out in the first sentence of a lede that people disagree on what to call someone even if the substance of what he did is not in dispute. But that's a content issue to resolve through appropriate content channels. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Another IAC sock

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.

---

Romana Busse (talk · contribs) has just appeared and is another of the India Against Corruption sock/meatfarm (WP:LTA/IAC). Anyone fancy blocking now? I can provide info by email if desired. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am verifiably Romana Busse as Sitush has found from some Whois. Sitush is sexually harassing me by passing lewd and sexually coloured remarks. Why can't Sitush's information be shared publicly. Romana Busse (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Can some admin block this latest IAC avatar, Romana Busse, now apparently piggybacking on the GGTF arbcom case ? Blocking admin: please make sure that talk-page access is also removed, since it will inevitably be abused otherwise. Background Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. Also pinging @Bishonen, Sitush, and Voceditenore: who should be able to verify the quacking.

PS Given the puppetmaster's confirmed record of real life harrassment and filing of lawsuits (not just legal threats), I don't intend to inform the account of this ANI discussion myself. Abecedare (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just merged this with my earlier section. Email needs to be disabled also. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The police complaint I filed for child pornography was against the Wikimedia India Chapter (an autonomous organisation). The complaint has no mention of Sitush or Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation or India Against Corruption. I have no link with India Against Corruption. Romana Busse (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please block / ban Sitush for OUTING my real world identity on [141]. Now he is trying to erase / hide the OUTING and cover his tracks. Romana Busse (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please block Romana Busse ASAP because the pathetic attempts to sling mud with completely bogus claims about good editors are disruptive. Prior incarnations of WP:LTA/IAC have concocted lies about copyvios, and now they are resorting to an old favorite of sex. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• EXTRACT OF OUTING / Stalking "Actually, I now know that you are a sock/meat. Whois is a wonderful thing. You will be blocked very shortly, I am sure. - Sitush (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• ... I am sure any such Whois will also show a social privacy organisation I work with and which contains my complete verifiable address and my assertion of privacy protection to defend against stalkers and Arbcom sanctioned abusers of women like you. Romana Busse (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)" Romana Busse (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have been AFK for some time for reasons of health, but Romana's behavior on-wiki combined with Romana's behavior on gendergap-l are enough to convince me that she is likely an IAC sock, and if not, can be justifiably blocked for not being here to contribute productively to the encyclopedia anyway (her emails to gendergap-l threatened to sue arbcom members.) As such, I have indeffed her. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Kevin Gorman and me.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly a sock. The "sexual harassment" charges against Sitush have been a part of their campaign for over a month as has their on- and off-wiki harassment of a female WMF trustee and another female Indian editor active in WMF initiatives via posts on the Wikimediaindia-l mailing list and at the WMF websites. Here on Wikipedia, observe "Duffycharles"'s edits here (where he claims that "Lindashiers" has filed a sexual harassment suit with the WMF) and here (where he issues legal threats against the Trustee). Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Gee, I had to be asleep, not fair. I would have liked to be the one to block this time, for more reasons than one. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

• It was a bit like buses in the UK, bish: nothing turns up for a while, then two turn up at once ;) - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Another one

‎PhilipRothman (talk · contribs)

Any admins interested in this game of whack-a-mole, should watchlist the Sarbajit Roy RFD. Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeffed by Secret. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And another

Prof Ravi IIT Kanpur (talk · contribs)

Another duck continuing debate on RFD talk page after main RFD page was semi-protected. The RFD has been closed as delete, so there is some hope of a reprieve. Abecedare (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen was AGF'ing on that one. Since her last post on her talk page, I noted this. IIT Kanpur is, btw, a hotbed for IAC. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Operation Zarb-e-Azb

• TheSawTooth
• Faizan

I'm having a problem with two aggressive P.O.V. pushers who are now bombing my talk page with inapplicable warnings. [142] [143] Users TheSawTooth and Faizan keep on adding "Afghan terrorists" and "Afghan militants" as belligerents in the infobox of Operation Zarb-e-Azb, [144] [145] which are unsupported by the cited sources (I've read them all). I recently started a discussion on its talk to have this attack on Afghans removed because the reports simply don't mention Afghan terrorists or Afghan militants but these two editors won't allow me. [146] I also added a latest New York Times article explaining that the operation has thus far resulted in 1.5 million Pakistanis becoming displaced. About 250,000 of them were forced into taking shelter in Afghanistan. [147] This is obviously important information as it involves the lives of so many civilians and very relevant to the article but TheSawTooth removed it. [148] I recommend TheSawTooth be blocked for disruption, it was created less than a month ago and has already engaged in edit-wars with multiple editors. I also feel that Faizan be blocked for P.O.V. pushing and deliberate source falsification. This will teach him that falsifying information in articles based on personal feelings is not accepted in Wikipedia otherwise he will continue and create more problems. I don't enjoy seeing editors get blocked and that's not the reason I'm here, but these two are asking for it. I warned them to stop but they took it as a joke. We are probably dealing with this guy ("Chronic sockpuppeteer who primarily attacks and disrupts articles on India-Pakistan-Afghanistan (often Military History) with a Pro-Pakistani bias.)").--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheSawTooth_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_No_action.29
• WP:ANI#Harassment_by_Widefox
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Active_sockfarm_linked_to_Morning277 (not relevant)
• Final warning(s) for disruption [149], [150]. Widefox; talk 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not revise after last warning widefox why are you putting same report everywhere? Faizan and Krzyhorse22 have this dispute. I came later. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Krazy horse made first edit in his life at administrator notice board [151]. He knew what sock puppet is at that time? How can new user go to noticeboard and report another user without knowing wikipedia users? I am still learning and I have stopped edit war. Now I do two revisions not more. He is not replying to Faizan on talkpage after 5 november but he wants to revise this main page. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have told admins here in the past that my first edit was nominating an unfree image of Mullah Omar back in August which was deleted along with my first edits. You think first edit of a new editor should be putting "hi" on own page like you did on 27 October? [152] Don't bring up outdated and irrelevant information to this discussion. I'm not concerned about you being new or abusing multiple accounts (that's a different issue), you're plainly an aggressive P.O.V. pusher engaged in edit-wars with multiple editors. This is the problem I'm addressing here. Tell admins why you're adding "Afghan terrorists" and "Afghan militants" in the article Operation Zarb-e-Azb, when the sources do not support it? Also, explain why you removed the latest NY Times report about the 1.5 million displaced Pakistanis? Is it because you don't like people to read that the operation created such a massive problem for the native Pakistani civilians? Is someone paying you or telling you to remove this particular information? Please explain.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To me only a sock can make his first edit at ANI calling another user as a sock. In-fact bringing a content dispute to ANI is another attempt to create a melo-drama. This is not a drama board. You could solve these issues at the article's talk, I tried my best to stay away from conflicts and took a Wikibreak but he is hounding me and dragging me to conflicts, just as User:Lagoo sab used to do in his time. Probably he is back. I have started an SPI here. Regarding the content disputes he has not cooperated on the article's talk since November 5. He tried to add insult to injury by calling all users with usernames starting with "Faizan" as my socks. Content dispute be solved at the appropriate talk-pages or dispute resolution or third-party comments. Regarding the number of IDPs, there have been different disputed figures. For example this source, it gives varying disputed figures. So please do not try to get content disputes into ANI. Faizan 17:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In his last comments at the concerned article's talk, he accused all Pakistanis of terrorism and Pakistan as a terrorist sponsoring state from the point of view of every knowledgeable person. And it caused the harassment of Pakistanis. I am not a nationalist, but calling a whole country as terrorist bothers me, and that's why I left a message on his talk. Faizan 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "dragging me to conflicts, just as User:Lagoo sab used to do in his time", please provide a diff to verify that. The last time you commented on the talk was November 5 [153] and it's now November 20 so bringing the issue here was appropriate. You can accuse me of sockpuppet but that isn't going to change the fact that you're an aggressive P.O.V. pusher falsifying information in Operation Zarb-e-Azb. I didn't call any country a terrorist, you're the one adding "Afghan terrorists" in an article and citing sources that don't support it. This is source falsification and it seems you're an expert at this. This is the issue at hand here and in the talk of the article.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this, one can't help it but to suspect sockpupptry when he spots this and this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's you who is edit-warring with multiple users, including me, User:TheSawTooth and User:Saadkhan12345. Your last edit on Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb was on November 5, which was infact an accusation of terrorism on all Pakistanis, harassing and personally attacking them, and since then you have not replied to the concerns raised by SawTooth. If you think it's the case of source falsification, this is not the appropriate forum. What's the similarity in my edits and that of nehal that you tried to portray here. Completely tragic. Faizan 08:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No. You're falsely accusing me I'm not edit warring with anyone. There's nothing more for me to explain at Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb, you added "Afghan terrorists" but none of the sources you cite support your illogical opinion. I was expressing my opinion about Terrorism in Pakistan which is often highlighted in major news reports. [154] I'm practicing my freedom of speech (I'm American and Wikipedia is based in America), that's not an attack on anyone and such information cannot be censored, see WP:CENSOR. Only if admins say you're not related to User:Faizannehal and User:Faizanalivarya can I be satisfied.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

...for an edit-warring POV pusher on Hyksos, Egyptian mythology, and other articles--Sirius is the best example of their disruption. I'm following up on a note A. Parrot left at User talk:Dougweller; I do not know if Doug's advice to file on IRC has been followed and/or if anything came out of it; if this is redundant, my apologies. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

see the most recent thread on AN. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked 166.170.14.0/24 for 72 hrs.--v/r - TP 17:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

John811jd disruption

John811jd (talk · contribs) is posting POV-ridden screeds such as this, despite attempts to explain that Facebook etc are not reliable sources. They have also been inserting large amounts of copyvio, principally at Rajput and its talk page. I've just lost my temper trying to deal with the TLDR stuff that is going on and which is completely screwing up that article's talk. They've had some warnings, including with regard to the sanctions in place for the topic area.

I don't care what is done but please can I have some help resolving the present behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples of copyvio include this from this and this from this. There are other examples that I've come across along the way.

Other stuff, such as this, seems to have been copied from other articles without attribution, which I guess is a slightly more technical issue for a newbie. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm on my way out of the door, and I am unfamiliar with the whole administrative side of things with regard to discretionary sanctions, but this should be an indef block IMO. I'm not placing it myself because I currently don't have the time to find out how to file, and wrap up the paperwork, but if anyone else could, that would be great. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at some of these diffs. Sitush, I don't see the copyvio in your second set of "this from this", and I can't access the book in the first set. This diff, which you singled out, has text found all over the web, including in our article Akbar where it is sourced to a book. So there may be an attribution problem for the copied paraphrase, yes. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, dear Sitush--this edit of theirs borrows your edit to Jaipur State, without proper attribution. Newbie problem, maybe, but, John811jd, you can't edit like this: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you cannot follow that guideline we may have a competence problem.

  It's clear that edits like this are highly disruptive--POV, FORUM, non-recognition of RS, etc (oh, that's the one you linked). Now, I see that they've already been warned about the discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups), so a block is in order and I will place it; I will let further discussion decide on whether this should be an indefinite block or not. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, in the second set of diffs, check for "Accepting Mughal overlordship, the princes were admitted to the court and the emperor’s privy council and were given governorships and commands of armies." - straight out of Britannica and not in the article at the previous diff.

  I think that the fundamental issue here is going to be one that has quite a long history: members of the Gurjar community do not like members of the Rajput community, and vice versa. Periodically, we get combinations of puffery of their own article and attack of the other. Gurjeshwar has recently been temporarily blocked for warring and socking, and John811jd was active in attempting to slur on Rajput at the same time as Gurjeshwari was attempting to promote on Gurjar. It could be just coincidence but, in any event, inflammatory talk page stuff as in my original diff are very problematic. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I placed a temporary block and have logged it. I have no qualms about making that an indefinite block if the disruption continues, nor do I have a problem with another admin extending it on the basis of the evidence here. I'm not going to be able to pursue this any further right now; I gotta pee and there's other work to do, so I'm going to press the BOSS button and *pff* Drmies (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Try and keep it professional. There is no benefit to Wikipedia in descriptions of your bodily functions in this or your edit summaries. AnonNep (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it's my daughter's variation on what happens to the fairy in Sleeping Beauty, but I understand if you didn't get that. Feel free to point these things out elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If we're supposed to be professionals then I demand a raise. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I offer you twice what you're on now, Ponyo. I've left a note on the blocked user's talk page. I'm getting a bit wound up and so am taking a break - please can someone monitor that page in case they respond, copying any response to here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So I get another Wikipedia golf shirt? Score! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nah, the shirt is a perk, a bonus. I was talking the basic rate (now backpedalling like mad!) - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We should give Ponyo his own farm with a sandbox, a village pump, ducks, and a spacious barn(star)! Weegeerunner (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Fram's block of User:Amss125

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

---

User:Amss125 created a a large number of articles, which all took a great degree of effort and time, relating to different bus stops in Norway. Each article was nominated for deletion for being non-notable and you can see the discussion taking place here which is fine, I even contributed to the discussion. However, the user (who I feel was only trying to enhance the project in good faith) was blocked for disruptive editing without a single warning. It bugs me that he was treated worse than a traditional vandal who generally gets some kind of warning before being blocked. I've brought it up with Fram, but looking through their talk page history, she's previously been brought to ANI for similar trigger happy incidents. She claims he had plenty of warnings with the numerous AfD templates on his talk page but since all the articles were based on bus stops in Norway, there's a possibility he didn't even speak english! I believe there was a distinct lack of assuming good faith, a massive douse of biting and inappropriate use of admin tools — BranStark (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this a bit longer, I agree that my block of Amss125 for 24 hours was inappropriate. It should have been an indef block as a block-evading sock of User:Leee84. @Rettetast:, as the admin who blocked that editor, can you confirm my very strong suspicions? First edit of Amss is creating Template:50 most populous metropolitan areas of Norway (not really a common first edit). Third edit, seven minutes later, is adding Template:Most populous metropolitan areas in Norway to bergen: note that this is not the template he just created, but a template created by Leee84. And then, compare this edit by Leee84 (the drug and porno statement) with this edit to the same article by Amss125. Both edits, which were undone as good faith edits, should probably be oversighted (or at least rev-deled) as very serious BLP violations. Fram (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: it looks as if blocked editor User:Krsno was an earlier incarnation of this editor as well. Fram (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite all this, which you've discovered after the block (and yes, it does all seem pretty conclusive), you still blocked him without a warning for "disruptive editing". — BranStark (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Which shows that my disruptive editing radar works pretty well... By the way, you said that I had "previously been brought to ANI for similar trigger happy incidents." Can you link to these, so I and others can see whether there is a pattern, and what the frequency is, and what the conclusion of these earlier reports was? As far as I recall, my most disputed blocks were completely different, things like a block of Eric Corbett (which, no matter if my block was right or wrong or something in between, is not comparable to this situation at all). Fram (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your only warning message here — BranStark (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Which, again, is a completely different situation: no one was blocked, a warning was given, and it was not some clueless newbie biting, but a WMF employee. That doesn't mean that I was right or wrong, but to see some similarities between the block of an uncommunicative "newbie" with loads of soon-to-be-deleted new articles, and the warning of a WMF employee over WMF-related stuff and discussions, only because both end up at ANI, is grasping at straws (or poisoning the well, whichever you prefer). Fram (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"The block of an uncommunicative "newbie"" - this is exactly my problem! Granted since the block, new sockpuppetry evidence has come to light and I'm pretty sure your suspicions will be confirmed. However, you still blocked this individual, for what? Not replying to a couple of AfD template messages? — BranStark (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not replying to anything, not the AFD or Prod templates nor a personalised message, and continuing with the creation of articles after it should have been clear to every slightly attentive editor that there was much opposition and very little support for them. Note how the editor created Festningsgata/Tolbodgata (bus stop) with the AfD template in place! So it's not as if the editor didn't return to any pages and never saw the AfD notices (and somehow missed all the talk page messages as well), he simply didn't care (he also e.g. edited an article after it had been AfD nominated as well, again evidence that he had seen the notes). When all an editor does is creating pointless work for other editors, and there is no indication that his behaviour will change or that he cares about the concerns, then the most logical thing left to do is block the editor. Fram (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone over on Commons can also note that Krsno and Leee84 have both been blocked there for uploading copyright violations, and Amss125 has received a warning for doing the same, with images of very similar topics, as well. Just a few too many coincidences for my taste. I'll file an SPI here, but checkuser will probably be impossible as the data are stale (hmm, User:Krsno was blocked 12 October 2013, User:Leee84 was created 4 January 2014, or nearly three months later: Leee84 was blocked 27 January 2014, and Amss125 created 25 April 2014, or again nearly three months later: one starts to wonder if a deliberate attempt to avoid CU is part of the deal here). Fram (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this BranStark. Too often, people don't get the opportunity to see the good work people like Fram do. Thanks Fram. --Onorem (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Onorem. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krsno now filed. Fram (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the underlying point is valid, the snarky sarcasm with which it was delivered provides no benefit. NE Ent 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fram's behavior before the ANI thread was pretty much exemplary -- this is polite but clear [155], as is the block statement [156]. We grant some editors the tools to act on our behave specifically for situations like this -- it's a false, saccharine sweetness to allow an uncommunicative editor to waste their time on stuff that's going to be deleted, and pointless work for the editors who have to flag the content for deletion. NE Ent 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be done to prevent disruption, which was clearly the case here. Notwithstanding the now-known evidence of sockpuppetry, a disruptive editor who is unresponsive (even if because English is not their first language) is still a disruptive editor, and competence is required. Good call, Fram. Ivanvector (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

A repost by a banned editor?

Is Misty Lown a repost of the frequently deleted previous versions of this article? This has been a subject of Wiki-PR in the past. I'd appreciate if an admin could look at it and delete if necessary. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Past deletions were for creation by a banned user, and then by WP:PROD. Neither of these makes it eligible for speedy deletion merely for being recreated. I suggest you try AfD instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadžid Husić

A User gave me the advice to talk about this decision here. I explained everything on a AfD page for this article. (Long story short: A sock creates articles about famous politicans, singers and soccer playes with the same name - all born in 1992 in Salzburg, Austria - he also creates "sources" for this articles) As long as you don't delete this article and block the obvious sock you make a joke out of English Wikipedia. --Yoda1893 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted contributions reviewed, and Demise21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely as obvious sock of RealMadridCF2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I would ask people much smarterer than me do the templating and categories, as SPI is not really my area of expertise. As they say in German, "Das ist nicht in meiner Job Description!" And also because I don't actually have any area of expertise. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Insulted by Lugnuts

Hi. User Lugnuts, to insult me trying to law violation there. I have with respect all rules try on creation, and efflorescence have, but this Lugnuts user The law violation leaves with There accusation racist to my nationality, Please hold front of this person. Thank you Mattewina (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mattewina: Where are you suggesting this insult took place? —C.Fred (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly related to the 'Copyright violations by a sockpuppet' section above. [157] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This User unadvised of i and my status, To me the addressed infringement. for works my It good, must insult it is lawful? What is my sin?. Am me abiding law, but only user Lugnuts have law violation.Mattewina (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You're clearly the same person who was adding copyrighted material into film articles, per the link above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, I have undone a copypaste move by Mattewina and stopped short of blocking them (mainly because I had no time for investigation). Given that apparently they do not speak English, I am not sure their further participation in the English Wikipedia as an editor is beneficial.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You're Dick Laurent is dead clearly doing insult. You try to rule of law you with force tell, all of me thanks to but you Insult.

Ymblanter Dear user, many of the articles rest Is wrong, but just me snag you!. You're know yourself, i much am helpful. Please refer to the rights of others respect.Mattewina (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done On the second thought and after looking at the latest contributions of the user, I blocked them for an indefinite duration. It is clear that since they do not speak English, they do not really understand what they are adding to articles, and most of their edits just make no sense. This is on top of a record of copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Teste.sys

Deleted the excessive text dumps per CSD U5. This user is WP:NOTHERE for building the encyclopedia. There was unexplained removal of past CSD taggings of unrelated users. Warned user. No further action needed. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 14:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Something is going on with User:Teste.sys. The editor's only edits over the last three weeks are large text dumps at subpages which were then taken over by User:201.86.138.29. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

CSD U5 every page, as they are clearly not here for building the encyclopedia? I added the notification of this discussion to user's and IP's talk pages. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 10:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Kevin Gorman complains about Giano

Giano has both recently admitted that he only joined an arbcom discussion because I did so while throwing untrue accusations at me, and has managed to find a post I made in a different place within three minutes of me making it to throw some extra insults at me. Would someone uninvolved mind telling him to stop stalking my contribs and violating NPA? Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to look like a fool Kevin, don't behave like one. Giano (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

1) Why don't you ask Arbcom clerks. 2) Your comments on the GGTF talk page are pretty vague as to what earns someone removal from a mailing list. And while Giano isn't my favorite person, I think Giano's comments are spot on. You seem to want the mailing list to be a giant patting on the back for everyone on it without dissent. So, I'm not sure what to tell you, Kevin.--v/r - TP 22:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Because one of the pages involved isn't an arbcom page. Whether or not you agree with how I moderate GG-L doesn't really negate NPA or civility. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want him talking to you, why are you replying [158]? NE Ent 22:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Most people reply to repeated violations of NPA by the same person. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevin (I had a hamster called Kevin when I was little) you really are becoming tres tedious. I have said all I need to here [159]. Now do put a sock in it. Giano (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone comes here with an alleged stalking issue Victim blaming is far from the ideal way to respond (to say the least). AnonNep (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's assuming there's a victim of course. Eric Corbett 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that would be true if Kevin were a victim, but he's not. I'm very sorry that he doesn't like my opinions, but that won't stop me expressing them. What's the point of a debating chamber where everyone who doesn't agree with you is "kicked out"? I would have thought that was of very little use to anyone. Kevin's mailing list reminds of another censored and blinkered list I came across some time ago - that recommended banning anyone who was able to speak German - just imagine, if I hadn't put a stop to it, we could have lost Sandstein - that would have been unfortunate. Giano (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP:HOUNDING is still policy. You've admitted that you only post because I do, and you do so in a way that violates NPA/civility. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, Giano has a long-standing reputation as a hothead. Unless he's literally preventing you from posting, you should just pretend he doesn't exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Giano, if you are innocent or guilty in this case is not important. What is important is this person feels stalked by you. I would be a nice thing to do if you gave this editor some space, doing so would not be an admission of wrongdoing. Chillum 23:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I could say Chillum that you appear to stalk me, but I'm not that silly. If this editor wants space then perhaps he had better stop making the most ridiculous and ill thought posts and then being surprised when people respond to them. Giano (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• You can say all sorts of things but that does not make it true Giano. We have had very little contact since you have toned down your incivility to a more tolerable level. Thanks for that. Chillum 18:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

{{archive top}}Giano, please don't follow Kevin Gorman unless he mentions you or goes to a page you've previously been editing. You may comment freely on the arbitration pages, subject to the customary arbitration rules of decorum. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not, if you think I've been stalking him, then take me to Arbcom and prove it! If you can't prove it (and you can't) then please stop casting serious aspersions. I shall post exactly where I please, a right I enjoy along with all other editors. Giano (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

↑ Jehochman's close statement and Giano's reply to weren't appearing in my browser -- my guess is it was overloading the {{archive top}} template? -- so I've refactored thus [160]. NE Ent 14:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Elvis Image Usage

The following Elvis image is under public domain.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Creole_poster.jpg

Can I publish this image on my book without getting the permission from the Elvis estate.61.245.173.186 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This kind of question is better suited for the Media Copyright Questions page. Let me just remind you that there are other kinds of intellectual property issues besides copyright — you may need to check into trademarks (who knows, they might have trademarked one of the two images?), personality rights, and other types. Talk to a lawyer. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.61.245.168.91 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats by DungeonSiegeAddict510

Here DSA threatened legal action [161] over alleged threats offsite. I've previously notified his constant habit of soapboxing and WP:FORUM here [162]

• [163] Soapboxing about Gawker media and a commentator, misrepresenting their position as "20k+ white males are doing it purely for "misogyny""
• [164] Soapboxing on the arbcom case, promotes conspiracy theories, referred to Gawker as "encouraging domestic abuse under the guise of "feminism" or whatever" and their authors as "sick bullies on their payroll". Dramatically exceed the word limit despite admin notice .
• [165] Soapboxing on the Arbcom case, claiming that Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are more neutral than the WP article
• [166] Soapboxing on Gamergate discussion page, equating feminism with fearmongering against men ""All men are rapists" "Kill all men" "Die cis scum""
• [167] Making nonsensical proposals on talk pages eg, using unsourced images from the internet [168]
• [169] Violates WP:CIVIL, referred to User:Tarc "It's only because your No True Scotsman BS"
• [170] Again, soapboxing, referring to a source as "trite from a known troll".
• [171] On RS noticeboard, claimed that all Gawker sources should be blacklisted, and that they're nothing but clickbait.
• [172] Soapboxing about OpSkynet, refers to Gawker and GG critics as promoting an echo chamber and censorship
• [173] Reposted BLP violating material on his talk page

• [174] Warned about sig policy violations
• [175] Warned by uninvolved admin for edit warring
• [176] Indirectly notified for violating WP:FORUM

He was cautioned by the closing admins, yet his behavior continues [177][178][179][180], and his battlefield mentality in pushing a pro-Gamergate POV is completely unconstructive.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Expect legal action" is a blatant legal threat. Regardless of what side anyone is on, that is not allowed. The user must be blocked until, or if, he recants and disavows the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Because of the pending arbitration request I'm not going to respond to the context of this specific user or comment on his or her overall pattern of editng. Nonetheless, I must emphasize that Baseball Bugs' knee-jerk reaction is a far too simplistic analysis and must be rejected. The editor here is alleging that he was threatened on IRC with being "SWATTED" in retaliation for his editing. This refers to the dangerous practice, constituting a serious crime, in which one calls in a false police report against a targeted individual, claiming the existence of a life-threatening emergency at his or her residence. The intended result is to cause the residence to be invaded by a SWAT team of armed police officers. Again, obviously I have no way of knowing whether such a threat actually was made, or if so in what context, but if this actually occurred in a serious context it would be entirely appropriate, if not essential, to report it to law enforcement and doing so could not reasonably be considered to violate Wikipedia policy in any fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"No legal threats" is a bright line that cannot be crossed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So if you credibly threaten to shoot me and I call the police, I should be blocked? That's absurd, and if that's going to be the quality of your input on this noticeboard then you shouldn't be allowed to post on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with Newyorkbrad here. I have no sympathy, personally, with Gamergate, and this editor may have behaved unreasonably. But discussing the deep consequences of off-Wikipedia threats of "swatting" does not violate our ban on legal threats regarding Wikipedia editing. "Swatting", to the extent it actually exists, is an extremely grave form of online harassment that results in significant risk of severe legal problems, destruction of property, personal injury, and even loss of life. This is not an online game. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. Also that IP has a vetted interest in me. Go away. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone's being seriously physically threatened, they should go to the police for help, not Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You seriously think i haven't? --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

also let it be known I am not " pro-gg". I'm a former anti turned neutral. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and they are forum shopping since the arbitration enforcement request has gone with no action, and are presenting in effect that same amount of diffs, and took the diff of the supposed 'legal threat' out of its necessary context. I'm gonna just say that this IP seems to either be a heavy troll, a dedicated sock master, or someone's bad hand, good hand sock. They also seem to have a vendetta against Dungeon for some odd reason...I wonder if the swatting threats also have some importance in this. Oh, and why do sides matter in this? Does someone who's 'Anti GG' get more leniance in policy or guidelines than 'Pro GG'? They shouldn't, but in this, this is in effect an anonymous IP user only here to stir the pot of drama and to forum shop for no reason at all. Oh and even seeing it in its proper context is iffy with me, but we should go with the spirit of the policy for WP:NLT: A chilling effect. If it turns out that some member of Wiki is literally sending swatting threats to Dungeon--a waste of SWAT teams' money and their ability to respond to actual emergency requests, I'd hope they get their comeuppance. I also don't see within the spirit of the policy of Dungeon breaking such. Tutelary (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's at least give a full sentence worth of context, shall we?

Anyways, I've already reported that little farce, however, if I find that it was condoned by a member of this wiki, expect legal action.

That's clearly a conditional statement. No party was identified as a potential target. I don't see how this can credibly be called a legal threat. Am I not allowed to say, for example, "any WP editor who breaches a signed contract with me in real life should expect legal action"?

As for the other diffs you've supplied, I don't see how any of them are relevant. This comes across to me like an attempt to just throw a bunch of grievances against the wall and see if anything sticks. Further, you seem to be misrepresenting at least some of them. DSA510 did not, for example, propose to "use unsourced images from the internet"; he used an unsourced image from the internet, informally, as justification for a separate proposal to remove material from the article. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

so shall we boomerang the IP because of the WikiHounding? Imho this was a blatant attempt at forumshopping after the IP didn't archive his desired result at the enforcement page. I fear this will not be the last of this Avono (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean the other IP, right? x.x 74.12.93.242 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I noticed DSA's "legal threat" the other day myself, and thought it was too mild to warrant any sort of action. Besides, if it were to be interpreted as a legal threat, he made it in an Arbcom case request, possibly the most foolish place a user could make a block-worthy comment. If it was actionable, someone would have by now. As for the IP, remind them that asking the other parent is disruptive, and let's move on. Ivanvector (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note new complaint against DSA at [[181]] for overnight WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX in defense of Gamergate (including comparisons of opposing editors to Holocaust denial and Birtherism). Note also ?psuedo?-sympathy offered to Ryulong regarding his doxxing [[182]] [[183]]. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Mooted (I believe) by 90-day topic ban at discretionary sanctions. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's late and I'm going to bed but this wholesale, random behaviour doesn't look right to me

[184]] Leaky Caldron 23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Nick. Is there some magic tool to revert the recent revert en masse? NE Ent 23:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Death of Molly Bish

IP editor 64.222.129.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and logged-in user CoffinNails420 (talk · contribs), who seem to me to be likely to be one and the same, have been posting screeds of accusatory material into the Death of Molly Bish article that are, at the very least, a violation of WP:BLP. I've revision-deleted both their edits and the edit comments. It may be necessary to protect this article to prevent further similar edits. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

BOOMERANG - John Carter

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.

---

While we're here, does John Carter know not to template the regulars?

This appears to be a level 3(!) templated warning to a regular, after a single undo to a project that Carter admits to being involved with!

Odd behaviour? It sure is, but it was justified by a really stupid edit summary "(Undid revision 634115966 by Demiurge1000 (talk) founders may not, but this is now a 3-1 WP:CONSENSUS decision that the discussion be taken somewhere else as it seems nonproductive here)". I am really interested to learn where 3 friends and 1 opposer equals a "consensus". Does John understand the concept?

Just to quash any possible rebellion, John himself turned up on my talk page to deliver the templated warning mentioned.

It would be great if we could restrict someone so ignorant to appropriate areas only. I am willing to entertain and encourage involvement from John Carter for the time being, if he will learn to treat other editors with respect.

I would be willing to mentor him if he is willing to learn. If he cannot learn, then eventually some limits will need to be set on his behaviour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with anything this thread has been talking about? If so, can you clarify how? If not, could you please pursue it in a new thread or something, to keep things untangled? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Please try to work this out directly with John before posting on a noticeboard. Chillum 01:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:TTR NE Ent 04:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User not here to build an encyclopedia

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.

---

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

User added a bunch of unsourced original research (doubtful usefulness, certainly unacceptable phrasing) to the articles "Thought" and "Immortality". He responded to reversion by claiming (quote) "I have correct answers that are true" (see WP:THETRUTH) and generally being silly.

I explained a few relevant policies and guidelines (WP:NOR and so forth), to which he responded by asking me to debate his ideas. When I more or less summed up WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX for him, he ignored the point and acted as though we have a duty to entertain his pretense at philosophy. I asked him outright if he was here to contribute to the encyclopedia or argue his personal beliefs about senses and thought, and he responded by trying to continue his debate.

We've either got a troll, or someone incapable of the mindset to build an encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, all of you are useless yourself, wrong, we do each have 5 senses, idk how that could not be said anywhere! You's are very crazy! Talking about thinking/thought/ideas I am the best perfect thinker, and I only get 5 senses, they work and link with eachother and are the understanding such as seeing a object or game or 8 sheets changing order and lik so~! I can choose through them, or to move a arm unless all automated by mechanics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortal_Discoveries (talk • contribs)

Exhibit A, everyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and this certainly falls under WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY, if not WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Should add something that definitely is correct, only 5 senses a consciousness like I or you have. I will get all my answers governized. Time for corrections, plato and you's!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortal_Discoveries (talk • contribs)

• Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Paperzz.com: useful or spammy?

Not sure about this one: At first contributions from 80.249.180.3 seemed like 100% citation spamming replacement, but for dead links. But the first two new URLs I checked really do have archived content, though one has to work some (2-3 clicks) to get it; if there are advertisements, I don't see them (thanks to AdBlock).

Anyone see a problem here? —EncMstr (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I visited the first link in their recent contributions and disabled AdBlock. No ads that I saw after a quick look and I didn't have to do anything more than just click the link to access the content (dadletter.pdf in this case). Seems fine to me. Non-admin comment demize (t · c) 19:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I also didn't need any extra clicks, but I did run into a heap of ads. I'm inclined to say the replacements are both useful and spam; the two aren't mutually exclusive. Better replacements, like the Wayback Archive, should be preferred if available. Sideways713 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the past, where dead links are replaced with links to copied versions of the content, is that the new link will someday be replaced with an advertisement. Deli nk (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, we should find better archives, then. I'll help if I can. —PC-XT+ 10:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I went through the contributions of that IP and fixed all links that were still in the article. I also checked with Special:LinkSearch, and I think all links to this site have been removed. —PC-XT+ 06:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

TODAY Show 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.

---

Livelikemusic [185] keep removing Al Roker from TODAY Show Page when Al been there for years. [186] Morningtv13 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User's report is completely biased and uncalled for; as I've explained prior, just because something has been listed prior, does not mean it should remain. Roker's position on Today is completely inappropriate, as I've tried to explain on several occasions to the editor (to their continued disrespect and ignored nature), and user's actions continue to violate template guidelines for their own personal liking; exhibiting signs of owning pages to their own liking, despite template guidelines and attempts to discuss, despite several warnings on their disruptive editing. User is also acting irrationally, yelling and shouted throughout Wikipedia, as well as edit-warring to the point of vandalism. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop editing the article back and forth; instead you should both calm down, let the discussion on the talk page play out, and see if there is any general consensus on this. Wikipedia is not about "winning" and the surest way to ensure that you "lose" any conflict at Wikipedia is to take a "I must win because I am right" mentality. Instead, you both must back off, regardless of whatever state the article is in this minute, leave it there even if it is wrong, and let the discussion on the talk page play out to see where consensus lies. Many thousands of people used to edit Wikipedia and thought that their own "rightness" meant they could force articles to look like they wanted them to. That's why they used to be editors. We'd like you both to stay editors here at Wikipedia, so the path forward is to slow down, let the article be wrong for a few days, and hash out the right article on the talk page. If anyone cannot do that, they're likely to join the ranks of the "used to"s --Jayron32 02:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Roker is a weatherman on the series, and is not a presenter on Today; user's irraticla editing and inability to discuss things show severe signs of owning the article and their continued string of edits this editing is borderline vandalism and Wikihounding. I'm merely trying to follow the template guidelines, as citing in my editing. User is against any level of change (taken from their edit history). I'm not trying to "win" anything; I'm merely editing in the best intentions and for the most concise is proper way for Wikipedia in accurate information. User has been against any kind of change since they joined the website a few days ago (following their edit summary history). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Al Roker is Co-Host of the third Hour and is part of The TODAY Team. He does segments soemtimes in the 8am Hour. You might as well remove Ginger Zee from good morning america page then. Morningtv13 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above again. This isn't about being right or wrong. This is about behaving correctly and not fighting back and forth in the article text. You could be right. You could be wrong. It doesn't matter. If you're right, convince others and wait for them to agree with you. That's how you build a consensus. Use the article talk page, treat people with respect, and be willing to not get your way. People who do that spend a long time here at Wikipedia. People who demand other people do what they want merely because they think they are correct do not. You choose. --Jayron32 02:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

TODAY Show Page list Al Roker as Co-Host http://www.today.com/allday/al-roker-co-anchor-weather-feature-anchor-6C10110723 Morningtv13 (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to post the same thing multiple times; once is more than enough. May this silly report be closed, please? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but Al had been listed since the creation of the page. Why did no one remove him in those 12 years then?? He is part of the team and a Weatherman and presenter and TODAY Show page sit him as a co-Host of third Hour. I gave you proof as well but seem you choose to ignore it. Morningtv13 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

To state for record, I have not removed Al since I was told not to; it's you who believes I am. Changing of an NDASH per WP:DASH is not removing him. We can continue to have a discussion on Today's talk page, it's not needed to be here in a report that should've never been opened in the first place and take up time from Wikipedia administrators that would be better placed in other issues. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the starring section which he belongs. He is till on the show, He is not a Newsanchor or coanchor but he still Co-Host of the third Hour. Sometimes odes segments in the 8 hour. Kathie Lee and Carson Daly aren't Co anchor or News anchors either. If you going by that rule then shouldn't you also remove ginger Zee from the starting section of the Good Morning America page? Morningtv13 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "starring section"? If you mean the list of "presenters" in the infobox at the start of the article, his name is listed there, and has been through the last half an hour of repeated reversions of an en dash instead of a hyphen in his entry, to bring it into compliance with MOS:DASH. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the section where it says presenters. as I said on the TODAY Talk page. they are mostly the same tihng: He is not a Newsanchor or coanchor but he still Co-Host of the third Hour. Sometimes odes segments in the 8 hour. Kathie Lee and Carson Daly aren't Co anchor or News anchors either. If you going by that rule then shouldn't you also remove ginger Zee from the starting section of the Good Morning America page? Morningtv13 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You still aren't listening to us. Don't make this argument here. Make this argument at Talk:Today (U.S. TV program) and then do nothing. Let other people comment as well, and see where consensus goes. The behavior that you must have your way now is what is going to cause you problems. The willingness to just wait and see if people agree with you eventually and also the willingness to sometimes not get your way, is a net positive and will let people at Wikipedia see you as a reasonable person. In any event, stop trying to convince people over and over that you are right. Make your case at Talk:Today (U.S. TV program) and then let it go for a few days. Repeatedly saying the same thing over and over doesn't mean you "win", it just means you piss lots off people off. Pissing people off is unlikely to get you what you want. Take my advice. Make your case, then walk away. --Jayron32 03:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Roker's name is listed as a presenter, and it has been the entire time you have continued to argue about this for now going on an hour. Will an admin please close this silly complaint? We are still trying to resolve this confusion with this editor on the Talk page of the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Further violation of interaction ban and incivility by The Rambling Man at ITN, etc

Well, once again, in violation of our iban, User:The Rambling Man has quoted (with quote marks!) and responded to me directly at ITN nominations: "For the fiftieth time". Given the Iban I am not going to put a notice on his talk page, but he's been mentioned, and I invite an admin to notify him for me. Apparently the last ANI was entirely ignored, as were User:Newyorkbrad's warnings today to TRM to stop the personal comments:

• that you should stop sullying this page with gratuitous personal comments
• As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease

and these edits and their edit summaries of TRM's:

• oh dear Jayron
• oh, what a surprise
• do what Brad says, he's Arbcom after all
• you're the pest

which show a pattern of unnecessary incivility.

Note also this comment by User:SemanticMantis on the Ref Desk talk page: I don't know what you do elsewhere on WP but when you seem only show up on the ref desk to disparage said desk.

So what am I to do, just put up with iban violations, or ignore the iban and respond in kind? My understanding is that TRM is both an admin and a sysop. Is this appropriate behavior? I request the minimum of a warning block, to stop this behavior. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Notified--v/r - TP 21:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• The comments on Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_RD:_Mike_Nichols are really out of bounds. Drmies (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us note that on his user page, TRM first

• blanked it in response to this complaint, then restored it with the comment he'd be away for two days, during which he himself expects a block:
• "restore and add note regarding intermittent availability, should i be blocked in absentia"

Meanwhile, on his talk page he dismissed (and deleted) notification of the ANI case and his fellow editors and admins with:

• "more hilarity, more circus games, i'll continue to make decent articles while the parade continues"

And on Newyorkbrad's homepage (NYB has expressed his wish to remain impartial) TRM describes himself as "disagreeing" and me as "abusing":

• "It'd be rewarding to see how such esteemed members of the hierarchy treat content editors who just vocalise their disagreement, while completely ignoring others who directly abuse people." That is, he is just talking civil, while I am attacking him and admins are ignoring me? When NYB merely asks for civil discussion, TRM responds
• "if you didn't just wade in and act like a schoolmaster"

This sounds like a confession and a retreat mixed with, "It's not me, it's Medeis and the admins." See "you're the pest" above. μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm loathe to respond to these kangaroo proceedings, but given the plethora of false assumptions and incorrect assertions I see (yet again), and given the absolute stone cold intensity with which some users wish to see me "punished", I felt compelled, even today, my son's first birthday, to say a couple of things. I (as well as many many others) have become sick and tired of the self-centred approach, the "why always me?" claims, the incorrect assumptions being hurled around so often at ANI. Some users wish to have their cake and eat it, as evidenced in the multiple responses to the last time I was dragged here. I'm certain if Jayron or NYB have a real problem with me, they are more than capable of doing something about it themselves. Jayron and I frequently have robust discussion, no-one dies and everyone survives to the next time. NYB on the other hand appears from time to time to believe he can sweep into ITN and do exactly as he pleases (usually regarding posting poor quality articles on recently deceased Americans from the movie industry). Indeed, NYB's insistence on threatening to make illegitimate posts has been rejected by four, maybe five different admins in the past. When it comes to ITN, he's just an editor, nothing more.

Regarding the policy issue, some users need to be continually reminded that claiming specific policies at ITN is actually factually incorrect. We have policies, guidelines, essays etc. There is a clear difference in the significance of each of these, it's worthwhile understanding that.

Finally, I added the holiday notice to my page because, yes, I'm taking my son out for his first birthday and wanted people to know that I'd be unlikely to respond to the current pack of misrepresentations, leave alone any more incorrect claims which may be dug up throughout the day. I restored some of the content with something of an ironic edit summary. Sorry if some users didn't understand that, I must try harder to ensure our "global" audience gets it. Finally, unlike one of the bogus claims above, I have never named any user as being "abusing". If some users wish to assume it to be in reference to them, that is entirely their problem, and they should try hard to address their insecurities. It was, in fact, with reference to those editors who swear at others, who edit war with them etc. If a user believes they meet that profile, bingo.

Have a good day all, I'm going to the big smoke for lunch with the little 'un. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the first accusation re the interaction ban violation (that this edit was a direct response to Medeis), it doesn't look to be the case. I read the response as being directed at Masem, and actually supporting what Medeis said. Number 57 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Of all the diffs above, two are allegedly violations of the IBAN. The rest are alleged incivility, to other editors than μηδείς, and pretty tame by the standards we see here. Am I right?

Of the diffs regarding the IBAN, I'm struggling to see the violation in the first one - TRM and μηδείς are making similar points about the lack of policy, but I'm struggling to see it as TRM interacting with μηδείς. The second one might be construed as a violation, I guess - responding to NewYorkBrad who was responding to μηδείς. It's not exactly smoking gun material, though.

I've a great deal of respect for both these editors, and a TBAN for both from ITN would be a great loss to ITN. But it seems that the IBAN hasn't helped cool things down between them. Any suggestions for other ways of cooling things down? GoldenRing (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no justification for a TBAN. First, there's no complaint against me, no diffs, and no reason to ban me, since I have not commented once on TRM, while he has on me, as well as reversions, etc. Second, TRM is perfectly capable of doing good work on ITN, all he needs to do is stop addressing me. Third, any such TBAN would be pointless, as we still both edit many overlapping pages. The solution is clear and simple: enforce the IBAN that's already in place. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seriously suggesting a TBAN, just thinking out loud about how to cool the situation down. It needs cooling down, on both sides. This is the second time this has ended up at ANI in recent times, both times because you've perceived a violation of the IBAN where other editors have said either the violation is not clear or that you have to work very hard to read it as a violation. And this report has a long list of diffs completely unrelated to you or the IBAN tacked on. It reads a lot like you're on the lookout, just waiting for the slip up that you can bring to ANI and get him blocked/banned. On the other hand, TRM'S response is not exactly conciliatory. Both of you remain unprepared to work in a collaborative, collegial way, then. Ideally, tips both take a long, hard look at yourselves (not each other), let the past go and get on with building an encyclopedia which, so long as you don't cross paths, you both do well. Since that seems unlikely to happen, sadly, I'm trying to think about other ways of making the situation less explosive and, largely, coming up empty-handed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I was summoned, I might as well make some brief comments. It would be nice if TRM tried to influence discussions by the strength of his arguments, and could also quietly let other people have opinions which differ from him. It's only the ad hominem diversions that create a problem, that and his deliberate attempts to poison the well against people who don't hold the identical opinion he does. Otherwise, I don't really care what happens. TRM makes himself more and more irrelevant the more he behaves in uncooperative ways. It would be nice if he could become a more effective person who was able to actually create the important changes he wants to; but his treatment of others prevents him from being successful in ways that would benefit the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

^I'll support this. I only know TRM from the ref desks, and it seems he could be a big help there, but he doesn't choose to. That's fine, we spend time where we want. Whatever his abilities and skills are, it seems that TRM has managed to step on a few toes. Then again so has Medeis. If I could hand out sentencing I would give TRM and Medeis both a trouting, remind them both to respect the IBAN, and hope that they learn that a more cooperative attitude would make both of their efforts more productive. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You people created your own monster. The Rambling Man, a productive editor and an admin, is perfectly justified in expecting the Rule of Corbett (i.e. productivity means you can be as rude as you like) to apply to him as well, and I can't say I blame him. The only difference is he doesn't appear to have the squads of acolytes and fawning admins ready to fall on their swords in his defense. What a joke! --Drmargi (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the rule defines a "valuable contributor" as one with acolytes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I won't be able to comment at length or research the diffs for about 12 hrs from now, but the issue here really is violations of the iban by TRM. The incivility is just part of the pattern. There have been previous iban violations by TRM, and a previous ANI that documented them in October. I'll search the archives tonight. The "for the fiftieth time" and quotation of the word policy in the edit above was directed at me. He quoted me, and my occassional use of the word policy has been a bugaboo of his apparently for over a year now, hence his "for the fiftieth time" statement. I'll look for these comments tonight, can someone tell me how to search for the use of the word policy by TRM on the ITN nomination page only? I find searching the history of that page very difficult. Bottom line, TRM has repeatedly been warned not to interact with me and continued to do so, I have made no comments regarding him. He should be treated like any other editor would who violated an IBAN. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Several people above have agreed that TRM is too snarky (add me to that list), but is there any chance that you could stop to contemplate that what TRM said about policy is totally correct? He did not address you, and writing "policy" is just a standard use of scare quotes. Being snarky is a problem. But so too is failing to grasp fundamentals such as use of policy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rapid-fire 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.

---

There's rapid-fire vandalism going on at Regression (film), by User:Hs17596, repeatedly replacing Ethan Hawke as the movie's star with "Himanshu sharma". I reported to WP:AIV several hours ago, but nobody seems to be active there right now. I'd wait longer, but it's persistent and disruptive, and I hoped someone watching here might be able to help Squinge (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:I JethroBT got it just a moment before you reported it here. DMacks (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks all! Squinge (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Just after, actually. @Squinge: Thanks, the editor has been blocked. I noted that the editor wrote on your talk page that they would "change their changes," but it's ambiguous what that means really, and the persistent nature of their changes in the face of warnings is obviously problematic. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, even after their message on my talk page they continued to repeat the same edits, so I can only conclude that they meant they intended to continue. Squinge (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

He's back with User:Hs654321, vandalising Regression (film) again - maybe protect the article too? Squinge (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked super-quick, thanks Squinge (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Amrit Ghimire Ranjit

• Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since I had seen these changes[187]-[188]-[189] to Hindu astrology, with the reasons like "This section will make India centric. So it is better to remove it", it was becoming obvious that this user's main purpose is to promote Nepali POV. His contributions have either got some error or they are very one sided. Diffs:-

[190] -[191] Sikkim is not a country or territory.

[192] - Not written in English, unrelated too.

[193] Removing every other location, except Lumbini, with the explanation "Ok then I will publish Mahatma Gandhi was born in Nepal", "What if I publish Mahatma Gandhi was born in Nepal?"[194]- [195]

[196] - POV wording.

Moved Hindu nationalism to Hindu nationalism in India because "The article is fully concentrated to India only" [197]

Forking List of World Heritage Sites in Southern Asia for making a List of World Heritage Sites in Nepal[198], redirect seemed to have been established for a long time and when I reverted this Wikipedia:Content forking, he considered it to be vandalism[199] because "Same page for India is acceptable but that for Nepal is not accepted?"[200]

On Template:Gautama Buddha, he keeps inserting Lumbini,[201]-[202] but the status of Buddha had no connection with Lumbini.

Template:History of South Asia - Clear violation of 3rr [203]-[204]-[205]-[206]-[207] and Nepali POV [208] he is removing Indian subcontinent because he finds that word to be similar to India.

It is usually unclear that what he is speaking about, due to severe competence issues, he told Acalamari that I am threatening him for Legal threat[209].

I have tried to discuss with him, but he misrepresents me or the policies, and carry out personal attacks, see Amrit Ghimire Ranjit#Buddha.27s birthplace, Amrit Ghimire Ranjit#What is vandalism and what is not. He would hardly ever discuss about the subject, he would try to distract from it, as much as he can and continue reverting. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note on Amrit Ghimire Ranjit's talk page asking them to discuss changes on article talk pages. Please let's not get content disputes tangled up with accusations of personal attacks and legal threats.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As the suggestion seems to have fallen on deaf ears, Amrit Ghimire Ranjit blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Template:History of South Asia.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

He just said that "Block me for more 2 days so that I can concentrate in my upcoming exam."[210] Seems like a request for Wikipedia:SELFBLOCK. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Stalking, venomous Attacks on my talk page, and sequential reverts of all my edits

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

---

See my talk page and List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014‎, and then check the editors contribs. Just hostility and incomprehensible edit summaries, with one aim, to revert any work I do. I would appreciate some administrative oversight. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen blocked the user two minutes after you filed this report. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attack and abuse of multiple accounts

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

---

User:StanMan87: "Krzyhorse22, you're a ignorant fool". He's also abusing multiple accounts, see User:StanTheMan87 and User:StanTheMan.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:BilCat's Use of Rollback

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 noticed that BillCat used rollback on two separate occasions to revert good faith edits by an IP address who was removing vandalism. (See diff and diff). I believed at the time that the reverts were likely mistakes, so I left a message on BilCat's talk page asking why they used rollback (diff). Rather than explaining the reversions or apoligizing to the IP for the mistake, BilCat rollbacked my message (diff). I attempted to work it out at the talk page level, but that clearly didn't work, so I believe an ANI discussion would be an appropriate alternative. Abuse of rollback (especially to re-add vandalism) twice then refusing to clarify or comment does not appear to be in good faith to me. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 06:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) has blocked the IP Bill was rollbacking for being an attempt by vandalism-only account Sargeant Stone Cold (talk · contribs) to evade their block. However, it looks to me like that were reverting Sargeant Stone Cold's vandalism, and Bill ended up reverting them. This all makes my head hurt! Bill/Anna could you please shed some light on this situation? I note that both of you are hardened vandal fighters. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's my fault. See the history and this diff. BilCat accidentally put back the vandalism (several times). I saw the history, and knowing BilCat is experienced, concluded without checking, that the IP must be Sargeant Stone Cold. I've unblocked and apologized. A bit of a comedy of errors, I'm afraid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see how BilCat made the mistake in the first place:

• Sargeant Stone Cold vandalizes
• Crboyer reverts
• Sargeant Stone Cold vandalizes
• Crboyer reverts
• Sargeant Stone Cold vandalizes
• Crboyer reverts
• Sargeant Stone Cold vandalizes
• An IP reverts
• BilCat misses that and reverts adding back the vandalism
• IP reverts
• BilCat reverts
• IP reverts

I see all this and block the IP missing that crucial An IP reverts too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I see how it happened as well, but BilCat ignored and rollbacked the message I left on his talk page rather than correcting himself. If he had corrected himself with a dummy edit and apologized to the IP you probably wouldn't have blocked them. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 07:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation Anna - I figured it was something like that when I looked at the diffs. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed a comedy of errors. The IP had originally reverted me here, restoring Sgt Stone Cold's vandalism, so I had assumed the IP was SSC. Then when I checked his contributions and saw that he had edited the Osama page, I assumed it was SSC again, and misread the diff, twice. By the time I realized my mistake, the IP had already reverted again. Then Seahorse left a rather demanding note on my page, so I chose to ignore it and go to bed. Thanks Nick and Anna for defending me. - BilCat (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, SCC placed an address in the text with this diff that should probably be rev-deleted. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Though for future reference, a high-visibility noticeboard is not the best place to report that sort of thing. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and noted. - BilCat (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Seahorseruler:, my apologies for not responding to your note on my talk page. I was upset at your tone, and embarrassed at myself for having made the mistake with the IP's edits on the Osama page, in addition to being up past my sleep time. Please note that the IP did re-add the vandalism to the US Army page, and it was in that context that I revert them later. Hopefully both the IP and I will pay closer attention to the diffes in the future. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for using a harsh tone in my messages. I had only seen those two reverts and not the entire context, so I was somewhat shocked that a rollbacker had done that at the time. I will try to use a softer tone when pointing out others errors in the future. Thank you for responding. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 19:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

We've either got a shared account, an impersonator, or a tendentious editor

Jooner29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jooner29 claims to be Joshua Bonehill (the subject of this BLP), but also claims he's not him.

If Jooner29 was telling the truth both times, we've got a shared account (violating WP:ROLE). Otherwise, he was lying the first time and is impersonating Bonehill (violating WP:IMPERSONATE), or he was lying the second time in an attempt to WP:GAME the system and WP:TENDentiously get around WP:COI (which, given the complete lack of good faith in such actions, and how he refers to anyone who undoes his edits as a vandal, deserves at least a topic ban).

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And he's now currently blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, for inserting material contrary to sources (source says "one poster," he acts like a bunch of people put thousands of posters all over the place). Jooner29 needs to be at least topic banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Block review for User:Mondolkiri1 requested

I'm just going to request a review of my block to User:Mondolkiri1. Back in July, I blocked the editor here based on edits like this which were just argumentative and not appropriate. I unblocked him some time later but I just reblocked him again indefinitely based upon what looks like what invites to youtube videos this extraordinarily strange editing. Seeing that the flags at the ISIS page were screwed up here and based on his prior editing, I just think the editor needs to not jump into things like that. I don't know if this is too aggressive but if so, I'm more than willing to unblock and leave it be for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed, no complaints here. NE Ent 02:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. I think he behaves as in circus because he actually believes that Wikipedia is a circus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Too bad he hasn't paid attention to my suggestions. That's a perfectly valid point of view to have and he could go work on it as an issue of systemic bias but instead wants to correct the great wrongs the quick and easy way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor keeps reverting after I asked for input from other editors

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 there. I created an article about a populated place in the United States called Fair Play, New Jersey. I used this source, which describes Fair Play as a "populated place". Another editor, User:Alansohn, kept redirecting my new article. There were a few reverts, but I clearly stated on the article's talk page "this article is about a populated place that is legally recognized by GNIS. Please allow other editors to comment before reverting". Well, that didn't happen. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I expanded it so it has more than just "foo is a bar". Hopefully that will do. --NE2 12:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It will do. Per WP:GEOLAND, Fair Play is not a "populated, legally-recognized place". It isn't incorporated in New Jersey as a borough, city, town, township or village, nor is it a Census Bureau CDP or a USPS post office. Fair Play clearly falls under "Populated places without legal recognition", as it is an example of an "unofficial neighborhood". Thanks to User:NE2 for making a meaningful start to add the independent coverage about the place that would demonstrate that the article merits an independent existence. Future such articles for GNIS dots on the map should at least meet this standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Abuse of talk page access at User talk:Reguyla, and requesting writing of guidelines for use of talk page by blocked users

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 believe I am justified from the nature of the recent edits to the page listed above as per here to request that Reguyla's access to his talk page be revoked for the duration of his block. I also believe that there is good reason to perhaps request that we have some serious attention to what sort of activity editors who are blocked from editing everything but their user talk page can and cannot engage in during the time of their block. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Trout: This page is on my watch list, as pretty much all pages I edit, and if I see continuing misuse of this page... just unwatch his talk page if you don't like what he posts on it. Nothing is against policy, though maybe some of it could be moved to a subpage.

In fact, everyone should just unwatch his talk page. That goes for Chillum, Beeblebrox, etc. They have no good reason to be there and it smacks of drama-mongering. KonveyorBelt 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A valid concern, but it does not address the matter of the numerous pings the editor has fairly regularly made to draw attention to his page, which are rather clearly visible, or the request I made, admittedly possibly in the wrong place, to have some clarification of what sort of use of user talk pages should be permitted for editors who are blocked from editing everything but their user talk pages.John Carter (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 As far as clarifications on talk page access, I don't think that further rules and bureaucracy would help. Rather, I think just standard discretion and common sense on the part of admins should determine what is clearly inappropriate and what isn't. His complaints are not out of line, thus yet, but if they devolve into purely disruptive and offensivepersonal attacks, then that is something of greater concern. KonveyorBelt 21:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The use of pings or anything else which triggers the notification system seems inappropriate for a user confined to his/her talk page, since it causes text to appear on other pages, contrary to the intention of the ban. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And if the guidelines regarding what is and is not acceptable for editors whose edits are confined to their user talk page don't say that clearly yet, I think they should. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

To quote the closing of the community unban discussion "Accordingly, the block on Reguyla should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance"

These are the terms the community came up with and the closure that was accepted by that community.

I see 4 options:

1. We reset the 6 month offer we have given him where Reguyla is to make zero disruptions as was the community offer and we allow him talk page access.
2. We reset the 6 month offer we have given him where Reguyla is to make zero disruptions as was the community offer and we we remove talk page access. In the spirit of not giving him too much rope.
3. We withdraw the offer because Reguyla did not accept it.
4. We ignore this behavior and let the timer run out.

I support option 2 as I really don't think this user recognizes that starting a sentence with "Bullshit!" is not civil and is above zero disruption. If he can not sock puppet or send any nasty e-mails during this time we welcome him/him back with open arms.

I don't like option 1 because I am sure he will just do it again, I don't like option 3 because I know this person can be an asset to the project

I cannot abide by option 4 as the offer from the community was very generous and today alone we have:

"Bullshit! Your remarks were intended to be a personal attack"... and "another typical crap Arbitration decision written by people who don't know anything about arbitration"..."mindless admins trying to make a reputation for themselves". That is today, there are other examples on other days. If the community came to a consensus that this user needs to show zero disruption for six month then that is what I want to see from this user. Chillum 20:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I would favor either the first or second of the options listed above, probably option 2 as the preferable among them. I haven't myself looked that much at the page prior to his recent pinging of me and others, so I don't know how much misuse had been done earlier. And I would also support clarifying to him as clearly as possible exactly what does and does not qualify as a disruption as per the zero disruptions. I would assume any pinging of any other editors regarding matters of articles and/or discussion on pages which the editor is not allowed to edit would qualify, but clearly indicating to the editor involved what will and will not qualify as disruption would be very welcome. And sorry about the ridiculous length of the section title. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that I explained what was considered acceptable talk page use for a banned user in September. Chillum 21:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And the pinging seems to rather clearly, if not specifically, qualify as inappropriate use as per that link, and I very much thank you for it. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't rather clearly violate anything. He's inviting people to discussion on his talk page, and as others have noted he has not devolved into personal attacks. He is highly critical of a variety of things happening on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with criticism. When it devolves into name slinging, that is different, but that is not what is happening. If you don't want to be pinged, ask him not to. It's that simple. He's respecting Beeblebrox's request to do so. Just drop the damn sticks and walk away already. This is being turned into more of a mess than it need be because of the people getting up in arms over what amounts to...NOTHING. Just ignore the pings and/or ask him not to ping you. If he continues to ping you after being asked to ping, then fine. But, in the meantime you're adrift in a sea of bureaucracy because there is no policy governing the use of ping while blocked, there's questions marks as to whether this is a ban or a block, etc. Just drop it. Walk away. Disengage. The microphone is only on because _you_ (I mean that collectively to anyone/everyone) are letting it be on by way of paying attention to his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• The above looks to be a rather longish comment which seems to me to state rather clearly that "pinging" is in a grey area, and that one of the things I requested in the beginning is clarification regarding the use of pinging. And it seems to me to be completely irrational to say that the "microphone is only on because" other people are letting it be used. The pinging is the microphone in this case, and some clarification regarding the appropriate or inappropriate use of it would be useful. This matter raises that issue naturally, and it does seem to be a reasonable question, considering there is to my eyes very much a "slippery slope" regarding what would qualify as appropriate pinging and what would not for an editor blocked from everything but his user talk page. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• What is wrong is that there is a grey area, but no matter; people calling for his head on a platter anyway. Let's just make up policy by fiat, and retroactively apply it to Reguyla. Easy, right? The solution doesn't involve use of tools. The solution involves not paying attention to him and/or asking him not to ping you, if you are being pinged. This discussion might inform changes in policy, but it is flat wrong to change his block settings based on a perceived offense because he properly used a feature available in the software. He is honoring requests not to ping him. Use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• I believe what is wrong here is the completely irrational and unsupported jumping to conclusions in the above comment. And, as the comments involved regarding the arbitration election are not among those which are indicated as acceptable as per appropriate usages, I believe that even the statement that this is a "grey area" is at best dubious, and once again request the closing admin to take note of the full discussion in his closing. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• You have a choice before you. People can drop the stick and walk away, in which case the 'disruption' (which, it isn't) stops since they won't be involved in it. Or, they can continue to fan the flames, insulting Reguyla and creating far more heat than light. Reguyla can do nothing to the project. Do you understand that? He is blocked (not banned, which is not an esoteric discussion), and can't do anything BUT edit his talk page. He is honoring non-ping requests. Use it. End of 'problem'. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• You have the same choice, and personally seem intent on specifically not doing what you seem to be demanding of others. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reset the clock and throw away the key. He shouldn't be pinging anyone from anywhere using one of his 196 soapboxes. Leaky Caldron 21:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What gray area? The terms of the unblock was zero disruption, no gray there. "mindless admins" is an attack against admins who are people. Some disruption is more than zero disruption. The community was very clear and the waters are not muddy.

No need to make up new policy Hammersoft, WP:BAN already says what can be done on a talk page. You can pretty much only appeal your ban. I told him this in September.

We should take away his talk page privileges for sure because the only legitimate uses under WP:BAN is for appealing the ban and we did that and gave him a way back in. The 6 months should probably be reset because the community asked for 6 months of zero disruption as a condition. Chillum 22:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Facepalm. I was just thinking this week "wow, it's impressive how Kumi is really serving out his ban terms in quiet good faith," but as it turns out, I'd just removed his talk page from my watchlist in one cleanout or another. I don't necessarily think that him using his talk page while banned would be a ban-terms violation. Policy doesn't strictly say that he can't comment on his talk page while banned, and I was prepared when I read this ANI to tell everyone to take a deep breath and calm down. However, what I see on reading that talk page isn't just "commenting on articles that need fixing", or even "sharing opinions about ongoing community stuff". Those things are there, but I also see bad faith, continuing accusations of persecution, overuse of pings to draw other editors in at his whims, and generally holding forth about how horrible everyone/thing is in exactly the same manner that led him into trouble in the first place. There's some improvement, too, but it's like any time he's not consciously thinking "ok don't talk about how everyone is awful and how they've persecuted me", it slips back in full-force. Whether his using his talk page is a strict violation of "what WP:BAN or WP:BLOCK says you can do" or not, they way he's using it is disruptive and he seems to be continuing the same behavior that led to his long spiral of trouble in the first place. I can't find it in myself to be comfortable with him auto-returning in a few months while following the same disruptive path that got us here in the first place. If nothing has changed at this point, and he doesn't even seem to recognize that anything needs to, there's no reason to think it will have in four months.

  I would very regretfully support either options 1 or 2 from Chillum's list, but given that I don't think Kumi/Reg set out with an attitude of "aha, the ban clearly says I can't do this, so I'll do it anyway!" I'd rather go with a one-time, last warning along the lines of Reguyla is instructed to cease using his talk page to express opinions on the community, its processes, or other editors, or to summon other editors for non-ban-related discussions, for the remaining duration of his ban. Failure to do so will cause the ban length to be reset and his talk page access to be removed".

  I'm...really amazed at how disappointed it makes me to be having this discussion. I was so damn impressed and so looking forward to watching him return to content work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Policy does say you cannot use your talk page while banned, except to appeal your ban. This seems to support your view. Chillum

And his comments about the arbitration election, about which he pinged several people, do not qualify as appealing his ban in any way shape or form. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Fluffernutter's final warning at this time. I'm unhappy at the double standards, many editors would get away without a warning for the comments, there shouldn't be a different interpretation of what constitutes disruption as a mechanism to keep a blocked/banned editor from returning to productive editing. Nick (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Giving him a final warning when the only thing he is allowed to post is an appeal and his appeal is already accepted is just giving him rope to hang himself. He has no legitimate use of his talk page so give him the ban appeal e-mail address and remove talk page access.

I still think since the community came to a consensus that there should be 6 months of zero disruption that we cannot leave it at 13+ weeks left without disregarding consensus. It should be reset from the time of his last disruptive act.

Putting aside petty talk page violations his most recent personal attack was just a few hours ago. Chillum 22:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought this comment which I made and which was, so far as I can tell, ignored, at least in terms of that editor's conduct, was already fairly clearly a "final warning" John Carter (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: Please do not misconstrue criticism as personal attacks. In the diff you supplied, Reguyla was criticizing ArbCom, not any one person. You may not like his criticism, but it does have some validity. Criticism <> personal attacks. If there are actual personal attacks, I'd welcome the presentation of it. This isn't it. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The oft-repeated claim that the "only use" of a blocked users talk page is unblock appeal / ban requests is not supported by WP:BAN, and I challenge anyone to link to and / or quote the section that supports that.

The fundamental problem is that "Notifications" were added relatively recently and they provide a loophole to the lockdown of the user. I made a request at Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Blocked_users_pinging in response to another incident; more voices there would be appreciated.

I got a ping from K /Reguyla sometime in the past month and personally found it very easy to ignore.

Anyway, I recommend a final "do not ping" anyone anymore final warning (no clock resetting). NE Ent 23:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I will meet that challenge, from WP:BAN:

Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.

Provisions mentioned below:

Post an appeal or comment there and ask (by email or other off-site means) for it to be reposted to the appropriate discussion. This is a voluntary act, and should not be abused or used to excess.

and

Appeal by email directly to the Arbitration Committee. An e-mail appeal must specify the banned editor's Wikipedia username and any other usernames he or she has used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years. (Using Wikipedia's email feature to email Ban Appeals Subcommittee automatically reveals the account used for sending it.) The appeal should clearly but succinctly explain the reasons the editor feels the ban should be overturned, such as what lessons the editor has learned since the ban or block was imposed, how the editor would conduct himself or herself differently in the future if they are allowed to resume editing, or why they believe the ban was unfair. The editor should also include links to any relevant on-wiki discussions and any other information necessary to understand the grounds for the appeal.

The second one does not seem to have anything to do with talk pages but is in the list of allowed actions by banned users with access to their talk page so I included it.

Same thing I quoted this user in September. Chillum 23:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

He's not banned. He's blocked per the AN close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/User:Kumioko_ban_review#Close. I did screw by using the word "ban," sorry. NE Ent 23:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The deal was he was unbanned after 6 months of zero disruption. Chillum 23:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Closed with a modification of Kumioko's community ban to a 6-month block, as an implementation of the standard offer." NE Ent 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I admit I may be misinterpreting things. @Protonk: When you said Accordingly, the block on Reguyla should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance. did you mean that the Reguyla is immediately unbanned and blocked for six months, or did you mean that the block setting should be set to 6 months and after 6 months of zero disruption be unbanned? Did you mean something else? Chillum 23:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If the fact is that the user is in fact blocked rather than banned I will drop that stick right now and apologize. Regardless the recent personal attack justify a reset of the 6 months. A final warning regarding person attacks resulting in another reset and loss of talk page privileges too. Chillum 23:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this for a bit and look at the talk page posts so far. The block was altered correctly (allowing talk page access) and I think the intent was that they would be free to communicate on their, but with zero disruption. I mentioned on the ban closure that I didn't want the community to adopt a zero tolerance approach once they return but while they're serving out the ban I think anything that resembled the behavior during the ban is cause enough to tell them to stop immediately. But like I said, I'll need a bit to make a firm decision. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: I don't have a good answer for you. The Land may have a better one. I think they're still banned, but we just allowed them to use the talk page normally as a courtesy (I had hoped use would be infrequent and innocuous). I don't know how to thread the needle on what that means for the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 November 2014‎

While I had difficultly understanding the position of the closer even after asking for clarification I have apologized to err on the side of caution. This does not change the fact that the personal attacks were out of line and above zero disruption. I don't mind apologizing when I am wrong, or even when it is unclear if I am right or wrong. I would rather apologize when I am right than refuse to apologize when I am wrong. Chillum 06:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So my first thought is that we didn't get the logistics of the ban appeal down very well. Rather than wikilawyer about banned/blocked, as I think immediately extending talk page access means that Reguyla probably had a reasonably expectation they were in the latter category vis a vis talk page access when they did so without controversy. I also don't think the mentions themselves are disruptive, per se. But damn if I'm not frustrated and disappointed with the tone and wikilawyering here. I'll have more later. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this whole blocked/banned thing is a distraction. Lets make it a given that he can edit his talk page. The use of it for personal attacks is certainly a violation of the zero disruption stipulation. Chillum 01:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's a distraction and that is a good stipulation. I'd be willing to give them a little leeway until now, when this has been explicitly clarified, but that's merely a suggestion. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So, Kuimoko has been allowed to use his alternate user-talkpage, wrongly. Yet, my user-talkpage was barred for all but the first 2-weeks of my own ban. Not fair, not fair at all. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Withdraw talk page access and restart the clock. I actually supported changing his site ban to a block. I empathised a lot with him over the last year or so during his rants at WT:RfA. I also met him once a couple of years ago and he seemed a decent chap. Now I am sorely disappointed - all I get are innuendos about my and others' participation in Arbcom elections, disruptive pings (which due to WP:ADMINACCT I'm obliged to go see what's up). I am very thick skinned and I just ignore, but the use of his talk page while blocked as a blog to simply criticise Wikipedia, its admins and users and in an attempt to continue business as usual on such a scale is beyond the pale. He's been warned at least three times in the last few days by various admins, including me) to either STFU or have the plug pulled on his talk page. Enough is enough. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note to everybody I have given a final warning regarding personal attacks to this user. Any further personal attacks will result in the removal of talk page privileges. I consider this a reasonable course of action and within admin discretion. I will not be participating in this discussion further, my talk page is available to anyone who wishes to discuss this further. Chillum 06:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• It does not take another community discussion about the last community discussion - admins may proceed on the basis of the last - "disruption" is obviously a term with wide meaning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• summarizing my concerns here.

• First off I, like pretty much everyone on the current arbcom, was the subject of a harrassment campaign by this user earlier this year that stopped only just before the community, in it's infinite wisdom, chose to change the ban to this weird "standard offer block". This harrassment included repeated trolling of my talk page using socks, extremely abusive emails, and endless tireades on off-wiki criticism sites, including his repeated promise in all of these forums to be the worst sockmaster and vandal WP had ever seen.

• There is also the whole myth that arbcom contacted his employeer. arbcom did no such thing. In fact technical evidence (which I unfortunately cannot share as it includes private information) makes it fairly clear that whole incident was faked and nobody contacted his employer at all. I think this bears repeating as I believe this false perception that someone actually did this was directly responsible for the sudden leniency the community extended to him.

• The standard offer is generally understood to mean that a user goes away entirely for a period of about six months. This doesn't just mean no socking or block evasion, it means showing some self-control and just not editing WP at all for a while. So, Kumioko/Reuyla is not really eligible to be unblocked by the standard offer. Of course it is not a policy and the community is free to ignore its terms as it pleases, but it should be made clear that the offer is absolutely not being followed/accepted in this case.

• So, down to current events. A few days ago Reguyla pinged me.

• I asked him not to do that or to contact me in any way ever again

• As I thought this mght seem harsh to some people I preemptivetly posted an explanation on my talk page. In retrospect it may have been better to wait until somebody actually asked me, but there it is.

• Reguyla pinged me again so that I could see more ranting and accusations of bad faith he was posting to his talk page

• I replied there and again asked him not to ping me again

• I also indicated in the unfolding discussion on my talk page that I would not be commenting further there

• At this point I considered my involvement in the matter ended, but when I logged in just now I found that Reguyla had pinged me two more times since I bowed out

• TLDR version I think the community made a mistake here, but I've thought that before. I really am willing to completely end my involvement here right now, so long as it is a two-way street and I stop getting "nuisance pings" every time I log on. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Withdraw talkpage privillages and reset block/ban. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is generally considered standard courtesy and a rather serious instance of incivility if someone tells you to not edit their user talk page again and you continue to do so. I can see no reason not to believe the same would apply to pinging. That being said, the behavior does seem to be as disruptive as is possible for an editor whose edits are limited to his own talk page. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reguyla's response

• Note: The following was pasted from Reguyla's talk page at his request.

Since I cannot comment there, I am replying here:

1. I made my mistakes earlier this year and so did the Arbcom, whether they did, or did not personally send an email to my employer, several of the Arbs actively advocated that someone doxx me to my employer and someone sent them an email posing as a member of the Arbcom. I have already stated in multiple venues I do not believe it was the Arbcom, but it was done and the Arbcom has already admit they advocated for it to happen. They also violated multiple policies and guidelines for this site which just angered me more and more that they were allowed to do that.
2. Secondly, I am tired of the whole secret evidence of a personal nature argument. Its bullshit, plain and simple. They can't prove anything anymore than I can and saying its secret just gives them the ability to say anything they want because no one can prove it false.
3. Beeblebrox did ask me not to ping them, but then they decided it was ok to create a personal attack section on their talk page directed at me and then thought it was ok to come here to my talk page and insult me with personal attacks some more. And they are apparently allowed to do so since they are Admin/Arbs, so ok no one cares. The comments there and here had nothing to do with preempting anything, it was simply an admin/arb commenting because they knew they could get away with it.
4. Today Beeblebrox left another comment about pinging them. I have not pinged them, I did link their name in a discussion, but I was not aware that this would act as a ping and told them I would not link their name in the future.
5. I don't personally care if Beeblebrox thinks the community is making a mistake. The Arbcom has a history of making mistakes in their decisions, but no one holds them accountable because they can't. The Arbcom is above reproach. I am here to build an encyclopedia and contribute to the project. I am doing that and I was doing that before I was banned. I have more edits, more featured content and more articles created than Beeblebrox or any other member of Arbcom. But I a just an editor and therefore in their eyes, I am not here to build an encyclopedia.
6. Its also childish of Beeblebrox and others in this project to come here and tell me I cannot interact with them and then make a long rant at ANI that I cannot even comment on. I'm trapped on my talk page trying to contribute to the project. Reguyla (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see at ANI no one really cares that I am trying to contribute, they are just looking for excuses to block me and its mostly the same people who voted to keep my ban in place. Anyone notice that? Of course it helps that I cannot even comment at ANI to defend myself, that is a critical part of the strategy. I am convinced if someone went to ANI and said I killed someone on Wiki they would believe it without even looking into it. Truly sad that people on ANI can just say anything that they want and I cannot even respond. Sad, petty, childish and unfortunately typical for some people on this site. Here is a thought. How about just unblocking my account so I can contribute to the project and then none of this will even be an issue. Of course that's not an option because admins can only extend blocks to editors not unblock. Anyone want to do the right thing and leave a comment at ANI that I responded here in my own defense? Or is that too much for an editor trying to improve the project to ask? Sorry if I sound a little annoyed that I am being insulted and lied about when all I am trying to do is contribute to the project and I cannot even respond. Reguyla (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• So long as we're adding his responses here (which refutes his claim that he cannot participate) I'd like topoint out that his reaction to being asked, for the third time, to stop pinging me was to ping me again [211]. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Which I think just about anyone would consider unacceptable. It is hard not getting the impression that this editor seems to be believe WP:NOTAFORUM doesn't apply to him. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Apologies for editing a closed discussion, but I just want to add that I have no objection to the course of action that's been taken here. I did give Reguyla some informal advice a week or so ago advising him not to use his talk page to get involved in Wikipolitics, as I could see the direction this was going in: tendentious topics and then an angry outburst that would end up with him getting re-blocked. It's regrettable he didn't take that advice.
  • My particular rationale for reinstating his talk page access after the ban discussion was that a) it was helpful to extend an olive branch given the tone of the discussion and the undertakings we'd received and b) Kumioko/Reguyla had expressed particular frustration about being unable to post at all.
  • I agree the block/ban distinction here is unhelpful semantics. The Land (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Biblical related POV pushing

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

appears to be pushing his own translations of the Scriptures and disparaging a different one as plagiarism, for example at HalleluYah Scriptures. I have no experience in the topic area, but perhaps someone else could look more into what he is doing. KonveyorBelt 21:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely as he's here to build an encyclopedia, but not here to build the same one as us. Secret ^account 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted some pages this user made that were attack pages, and a few comments per BLP. However I do not know enough to vet their other article contributions. More eyes may be helpful. Chillum 21:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

David Beals again

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

For those who aren't aware User:David Beals is community banned, and his ISP was supposed to be contacted.

I just went to his last known IP. I know CU works by checking an accounts IP address, and regardless of policy, we should use that information to report him to his ISP. When I went to Wikipedia:Abuse response, it said that the report would be rejected if the IP wasn't currently blocked, and the IP isn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ignore all this, it's just someone harassing me. Bussfiu (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23. Mike V • Talk

I'm writing to AT&T right now, can someone use CU to give me his latest IP address? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• The user also harassed me on Wikia, e.g. by creating the wiki mike-rosoft.wikia.com with attack content, and creating impersonator accounts. See User talk:166.171.56.154. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've already emailed AT&T ( abuse@att.net ), but I do recommend that you also email them about Beals, since he violated the "Threatening Material or Content" and "impersonating others" portions of their acceptable use policy, and the more people who email them, the more likely they are to listen. I listed the last several IPs he's been found under, linked the SPI page and the community ban discussion, and some examples posts of his, and tried to argue that he violated the "interferes with the use or enjoyment of services received by others" portion of the AUP. If anyone else gets the idea to email them about it, we need to let them know at least that much.

They may well discontinue his service if you let them know that he impersonated and harassed you, and they're more likely to listen of more people speak up. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since Beals came back under another IP, I emailed AT&T about that fresh IP, and while mentioning the above information (such as his impersonation of User:Mike Rosoft). While I by no means encourage a spam campaign, I still encourage anyone who can write a compelling letter (especially admins) to let AT&T know about Beals's inappropriate activity. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues

• Will someone close this and all subsections please. An arbcom case appears likely so sniping here is not needed.

  (and remove my comment) Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ruylong has offered an apology to Auerbachkeller, so there's nothing more to do here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Not accepted. [212]

Ryulong made a problematic BLP edit referencing me as chronicled on the Gamergate:Talk page. When I politely requested that he not cite me in the future due to this incident, he accused me in multiple places on WP of threatening him: On my own talk page and on the Gamergate talk page He is now telling Drmies to revoke my confirmed status and to tell me to stay away from him (Ryulong). Ryulong's behavior appears to be a WP:CONDUCT violation on the grounds of civility at the very least. I hope this issue will be addressed. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit is only being construed as BLP because Mr. Auerbach was not pleased with how a counterpoint to his piece was presented in the article and The Devil's Advocate explicitly listed me as the offending party who originally wrote the piece. This resulted in Mr. Auerbach leaving me a message to the effect that he wishes to censor me from ever discussing him again and I refused. Mr. Auerbach has been coached by TDA as well as ChrisGualtieri, both of whom have prior content and personal disputes on this project, to punish me for an action whic weeks ago was seen as benign. This is a frivolous request, as is Mr. Auerbach's statement at the ongoing Gamergate arbitration request, as I should have never been singled out by TDA as I have and Chris should not have gone out of his way to sully my name on this project. This should be thrown out and instead TDA and ChrisGualtieri censured for using an off-wiki dispute to urge Mr. Auerbach into doing their dirty work.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This account is also incorrect with regard to me. As it is undocumented I will not refute it in detail, other than to say that accusations of "censoring" and of being "coached" are serious matters. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that this should probably be moved to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. (not commenting otherwise here, either way). --MASEM (t) 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Everybody stop confusing this man because he has already been told to post something at arbitration by Drmies and then here by Strongjam. Let's just leave this here and let the community at large see it than let it stagnate in a page no one has used other than to get each other banned from the Gamergate pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have just pointed him to WP:EA to get better advice on how to deal with the dispute and left it at that. — Strongjam (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. User:Ryulong, I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote one thing about his writings in the whole of the Gamergate article and that is not even to say that there are plenty of other editors who had directly cited him that he is not complaining about. I have been unfairly singled out by The Devil's Advocate because I am not a fucking professional writer and I wrote a shit two or three sentences about someone else being critical of one of Mr. Auerbach's articles and he linked to that pisspoor attempt at writing from weeks ago as if I'm to blame for the whole of the article's content. Just like a quote unquote journalist did to me and Tarc on some pro Gamergate news blog that everyone is lapping up. And then Tarc starts arguing with Mr. Auerbach on Twitter, Jimbo yells at Tarc, and then Mr. Auerbach comes onto Wikipedia fully believing someone that I have an agenda against him when I'm just being painted all over the Internet as the big enemy on the Gamergate Wikipedia article. No one can edit the Gamergate page for another week so what does it matter anyway? I should not have to deal with people like Russavia evading his ban on Jimbo's talk page and others who have a personal dispute with me goading someone into getting me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

All of that sucks. There's no denying that. But I feel that your anger about all of that might be clouding your judgment. Leave others to interact with User:Auerbachkeller. If you feel like he or others are acting inappropriately, post on the GG sanctions page and let uninvolved parties handle it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I will just add that Ryulong's account of my actions & motivations & influences here, in addition to being undocumented, is incorrect. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You came here and when you made your request several editors who have had personal grudges with me on this site came to your aid immediately. I am being character assassinated all over the internet by a vicious fringe movement and your misinterpretation of my intent three weeks ago is not helping you or I.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disengage voluntarily, or it will be enforced. Nick (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are alleging that Auerbachkeller has something to do with this offsite harassment, then there's no reason you can't drop this matter voluntarily and let other editors engage with Auerbachkeller. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy is fully protected for another week and all I am doing now is responding to Mr. Auerbach. What has to be disengaged from? I am saying that Mr. Auerbach is being influenced by onsite members who have prior disputes with me as well as offsite harassment. I am not alleging that he is involved with the offsite harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You've made that point. Now it is time for you to disengage, let matters cool off, and let others handle it. I understand tempers are high on this article, but if you are unwilling to moderate or disengage, I am considering imposing an WP:IBAN. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm considering blocking him for all of these unsubstantiated claims made in relation to Auerbachkeller. Ryulong if you would like to present evidence to confirm and back up your claims, of course, that would change the situation, but you know we do not let people make allegations without providing evidence. You are no exception. Nick (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've presented minimal diffs at Gamaliel's user talk that I had intended to post here ([213]), modified all of the statements I had initially made that Mr. Auerbach found questionable ([214], [215]), and left him an apology on his user talk for my actions over the past 12 hours ([216]).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

At Drmies advice I am staying off of Ryulong's Talk page. He is not, however, staying off of mine. I will nonetheless not engage with him directly to the best of my ability from this point on. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Another fine mess. ANI being what it is, it's probably not the best place for this since as a single "incident" it probably does not warrant much admin action. Then again, it is entirely possible that an admin (in this particular case I certainly don't consider myself uninvolved; see the article talk page for my involvement with the Auerbach article) decides to act, citing the general sanctions. Now that we're here anyway, let me add that I think that Ryulong's behavior in this particular case is problematic--not that edit in the article, but the behavior afterward: the "threatening" comment. I wouldn't sanction him for this alone, but I have a feeling that if I take in the totality of Ryulong's actions and comments on the talk page I would feel differently--I have a feeling that if I take that in I will be inclined to think that Ryulong should take a break from the article, that while he has done good work he may perhaps be too enthusiastic in an already overheated situation. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has also made a somewhat dubious appeal to Jimbo Wales where he calls me a patsy. It shouldn't need to be said but I am acting on no one's behalf but my own and with no intent but to protect my reputation. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Ryulong: why does your name keep popping up here? I see there is already a discussion involving you above, just saying but when your name is being brought here multiple times this is something that should be looked into. My advice would for you to disengage per the admin or find a way somehow to avoid you being dragged here again and again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  There's only a thread above because I reported that guy first and he's very verbose and blunt about what he says. In this case, I may have overreacted to Mr. Auerbach's initial message but when I am subject to so much onsite and offsite harassment over this my current state is to be expected.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  Maybe you should take a wikibreak, idk I just have noticed your name a-lot in here it seems is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  So because other people are indiscriminately angry at me all the time and I'm never censured for it that's a problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong now says I "edited Wikipedia early this morning and this afternoon to get me banned at the behest of all of these other editors." I have *never* advocated for his banning nor for any particular sanction at all, nor am I acting "at the behest" of anyone. That statement is simply not true. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Can one impose an interaction ban on these two under the aegis of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate? Because I am sorely tempted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

  This was posted by Mr. Auerbach before I further modified my statement and left him a personal apology.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  @Lankiveil Yes: "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." NE Ent 00:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I also want to point out the concurrent discussion on Jimbo's talkpage: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 177#David Auerbach. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This matter was concluded with Ryulong's apology and so there's nothing more to do here. Auerbachkeller is within his rights not to accept the apology but there is nothing actionable at this point besides hurt feelings. My closure of this section was undone by an involved editor seeking to stir up more drama. It should be closed again unless there is something productive to be done here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization but you are entitled to your opinion. I believe you are more involved than I to close it and probably should wait for an uninvolved admin. Consensus is currently against the topic ban while at the same time there is a call for more DS being applied. --DHeyward (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

May I ask whether Gamaliel's suggestion to Ryulong that "it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on" has been accepted? (It was, after all, my initial request.) I can't see that it was ever followed up on. Auerbachkeller (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose Topic ban

• Topic Ban Ryulong from gamergate articles (30 day?, 90 day?, indef?). It appears that his work on that topic area always ends up here. Auerbachkeller would appear to be COI at that article anyway. Ryulong has an issue with Auerbachkeller today, but earlier it was a different editor, tomorrow it will be someone else until the topic ban is eventually placed. Let's cut the drama cord now. There has been repeated calls for more DS and this is a good time to police it. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't believe the apology was accepted as being too little, too late[217]. Topic ban is a remedy, though, so discussion about the incident can be closed. We can discuss the remedy here or GG DS page. I propose here for eyeballs. How many times are we going to ignore topic induced incivility and disruption? --DHeyward (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Ryulong always ends up here because there is an inexhaustible supply of throw-away accounts promoting nonsense and making clueless commentary on several gamergate articles. Ryulong may well have cracked under the strain and behaved poorly in this instance (he is also being attacked offwiki), however it seems likely (21:35, 15 November 2014 and 21:37, 15 November 2014) that Ryulong has taken the advice that has strongly been offered to drop the matter raised in this report. There is a strong enforcement system so an ANI-imposed sanction is not needed. Furthermore, a topic ban would be counter productive as knocking out one of the small number of editors who are defending the encyclopedia would be most unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Johnuniq. Also DHeyward, if you are going to re-open this thread because Auerbachkeller didn't accept Ryulong's apology, I think you should try to find another reason. All the non-acceptance showed is that David seems to be too upset or too petty to accept a sincere apology. Dave Dial (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Whoa: that an apology was offered doesn't mean all harm is undone. One should not topic ban Ryulong for this one single incident, but by the same token we shouldn't not topic ban him in relation to this one single incident. Auerbach's not accepting Ryulong's apology does not negate Ryulong's earlier behavior--and let's remember that, if it hadn't been for some admin editing through protection while seeking consensus on the talk page, that stuff would still be in the article. In other words, berouw komt altijd na de zonde ("regret always follows the sin"?), but the real question here is about the actions (plural) on Ryulong's part that led to all these events: that is what we are asked to judge if a topic ban is to be granted. It's there we can differ. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not base my oppose on the apology, nor it's acceptance. So I don't understand your comment. I do agree that the inability of Ryulong to acknowledge mistakes can be problematic, I do not think that rises to a topic ban in an area that needs editors at the moment. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It was closed 5 minutes after my proposal and it doesn't appear over if one side is continuing on. I can give other reasons related to arbcom pending case but I'd rather not devolve to that level as the close was in good faith. The reopening is in good faith as well. Note that Jimbo as already called for Tarc to not edit for a similar reason [218]. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, but I still think it should be closed, and my oppose is per Johnuniq and other factors having nothing to do with David. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• He asked for a retraction. I gave a retraction. He asked for an apology. I gave an apology. Just because he does no want to accept that apology shows more of his behavior than anything I could ever do. This is ridiculous. I should not be banned for anything concerning David Auerbach.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I apologize if my inability to accept Ryulong's apology makes me appear "upset" or "petty." Ryulong's immediately preceding comment, however, does not strike me as the words of a genuinely repentant editor, and consequently I am still unable to accept the apology, and I believe its sincerity should be up for debate rather than accepted as a given. Apologies in advance if this response is unwelcome on this page. Auerbachkeller (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auerbachkeller (talk • contribs) 08:15pm EST
  • No need to apologise to me, I can understand someone being upset during these interactions. But I encourage you to find out more about Wikipedia and the policies, plus the POV driven masses sent from 8chan concerning the article in question. If not, that's fine too, just a suggestion. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry for forgetting to sign the last comment. I am indeed a neophyte but I had little choice but to pick up policies as quickly as possible when I felt that I was being seriously misrepresented and had little recourse (I certainly couldn't edit the article myself). But as I implied, my inability to accept the apology is not because I'm upset, but because I cannot convince myself of its sincerity. I accepted Tarc's apology for his attacks on me because it did indeed seem sincere. I did not get that sense from reading Ryulong's apology, and his immediate reversion to criticizing me after my polite refusal has only reinforced me in that belief. I remain concerned about Ryulong's future edits as far as they may affect me. I am troubled by Ryulong's statement that "So because other people are indiscriminately angry at me all the time and I'm never censured for it that's a problem?" You are, of course, free to disagree with any of these points. Auerbachkeller (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I gave you a sincere apology and told you the truth about everything that has been affecting me over the past two months after you asked for an apology and you say "sorry no dice". I should be expected to be appalled by your actions here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • If so much has been happening to you there's all the more reason for you to just stay away. I don't understand in the first place why someone would be a Wikipedia editor and a Twitterer at the same time. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't use Twitter other than to follow some Japanese video game news feeds. I just get hate there because I bothered to respond. I don't go inviting this shit to me on my social media. It targetted me directly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about the occasional forgotten signature and other bureaucratic stuff. Wikipedia is a pretty loose kind of place where people are not required to offer an apology—our purpose is to build the encyclopedia and any disruption that interferes with that process is stopped (eventually!). People are not required to say they were wrong or otherwise humble themselves because it doesn't contribute much in the long run—what counts is how frequently poor behavior is repeated. The community just wants unhelpful behavior to stop. Ryulong was needlessly aggressive in his responses to you, but you might understand his poor approach if you had experienced the silliness that has been continuous ever since people started trying to use Wikipedia to excuse the harassment described in Gamergate, and to pretend that the article would exist if it really were about the concerns of gamers regarding the ethics of journalists. Ryulong should definitely disengage and not make any further commentary on this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • A gamergate is a type of sexually viable ant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Yes, what Johnuniq said. Also, I wasn't talking about your missed sig, I'm more than happy to sign it for you and let you know how to do it yourself(even though you obviously know and are adapting quickly). I was referring to such Wiki policies as citing sources and neutral point of view. A couple of basic pillars of Wikipedia. If anything, it will make it easier for you to understand some things that go on here when referring to Wikipedia in your articles. But again, just a suggestion. Dave Dial (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban on User:Ryulong from Gamergate, because Ryulong is usually right, and in general because the community cannot deal effectively with editors who polarize the community, and Ryulong, right or wrong, is a polarizing editor on Gamergate and some other issues. This thread, as a request for a topic ban, is a waste of electrons. However, a very strong Warning is in order that Ryulong appears to be too angry to be dealing effectively with Gamergate, and if he doesn't calm down, he may need to be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an involved editor stirring up more drama. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I respect your oppose. Your aspersions are without merit, however. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I retain confidence in Ryulong. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  The Devil's Advocate, none of those have anything to do with David Auerbach's writing and everything I wrote is supported by reliable sources. Stop cherrypicking things and presenting them out of context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  No, what you wrote in the first two diffs is not supported by the RSes cited. You wrote that Kluwe did not receive harassment despite making inflammatory remarks. The corresponding RSes state that Kluwe made inflammatory remarks, but do not deny Kluwe receiving harassment - they don't talk about it at all. I checked. All four of them. The closest is the Time piece citing Kluwe's claim not to have been doxxed, which is a weaker claim than "wasn't harassed at all". For all we know, doxxing of Kluwe was attempted and unsuccessful. The CNN piece also claims that Wheaton and Kluwe weren't doxxed, but relies on uncited Twitter hearsay for this claim.

  For that matter, as far as I can tell, the RSes in question don't even support the assertion that Day, Wheaton and Kluwe are "all gamers". The position that Kluwe is a "gamer", in particular, seems at odds with the anti-gamer remarks he made that are the point of this discussion in the first place. Keep in mind here that we are specifically referring to video games here; fans of tabletop board games (which certainly do include Day and Wheaton) aren't normally labelled thus.

  The Vice opinion piece is obviously biased, comes from a source that should not be considered reliable, and takes a POV on the question of "fair use" which was not balanced in any way, and misrepresents Nazer's viewpoint per his own Twitter (while also glossing over what seems to me like a joke at Vice's expense). Further, the claim that archive.today "strips advertisements from the archived web page" is trivially demonstrated to be a lie. I'm sure you're about to point to WP:VNT - let me quickly rebut that while it may not be required that something be proven true to be included, it is not reasonable to include, in Wikipedia's voice, something which is proven to be false.

  In the next edit, you removed a claim that had three proper sources, because you felt that it was "not a major point of contention" in two of them (an absurd objection in an article with over a hundred citations, most of which are used for a single-sentence observation out of perhaps thousands of words) and that the third - Reason.com - is not reliable. WP's own article on Reason notes in the lede that "The magazine has a circulation of around 70,000[2] and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune.[3][4]", and has no Controversy section, so I simply can't fathom your objection here.

  The "Dashgate" bit is absurd because it's sourced by a relative no-name "death and taxes magazine" that is representing an offer of charitable donation, clearly presented as a rhetorical tactic (the expectation being that the offer would be declined, so as to confirm someone else's viewpoint) as a "bribe". This is ignorant of the context and deliberately spun to create an impression of hypocrisy WRT ethical standards where none exists. It also draws a connection between two Twitter conversations that appear to be completely unrelated if you actually follow the links. It also ignores the context in the second conversation whereby Dash (who was represented as "having literally nothing to do with the situation whatsoever") claimed without evidence that Cernovich "supports bullying women out of gaming" and Cernovich replied by noting the matching donation he had already made to an anti-bullying charity. Including this bit is thus very, very clearly pushing a POV.

  The bit from Fast Company is, quite simply, not notable. Why should anyone care about the colour scheme of Vivian James' sweater?

  74.12.93.242 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  [226] [227] [228] [229].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  Still all entirely unrelated to Auerbach. What are you trying to prove exactly, TDA? If anything, I can show that you are clearly doing all of this because it's pro/anti rather than any actual issues with the article. [230]. Heck, you completely go off the wall here [231]. And if we're pulling unrelated diffs out of our collective hats, I can show that you were intentionally toeing the line of BLP in this comment you left on the Brianna Wu article two weeks ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  [232] [233] [234] [235] [236].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  TDA, why are you posting all these diffs? Everything I added in these is supported by reliable sources. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's evidence I should be topic banned. This is gettin ridiculous. Can someone close all this off now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  [237] [238] [239] [240] [241].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  All TDA is doing here is picking out every edit I've made to the article that he disagrees with rather than edits that have done anything wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Presenting naked diffs without discussion is not a viable approach to resolving disputes. aprock (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Many of these diffs speak for themselves.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A topic ban isn't warranted in my opinion because Ryulong's edits have been balancing in the article, and ANI is a ridiculous platform to vote (indeed, vote) on topic bans. How about admins actually enforce the WP:GS/GG sanction? Clearly Ryulong's incivil behauvior has violated the "expected standards of conduct" mentioned in the sanctions, even if they do not warrant a topic ban. --Pudeo' 06:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq. MarnetteD|Talk 16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above - 9 times outta 10 Ryulong's only brought here by newly created accounts whom have nothing better to do than cause drama. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: 8 out of 9 times Ryulong seeks the 1 edit accounts out, because they make it their business to be in SPI. If you were getting a 10% valid complaint return, providing ten times as many irrelevant rubbish may be a good way of drowning yourself out of scrutiny. If you got a 10% complaint rate on eBay, they'd ban you from the site. ~ R.T.G 19:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RTG is making statements that he does not know anything about still. Why hasn't he been interaction banned from me yet?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and Close Oppose and Boomerang There appears to be a solid consensus not to impose a topic ban here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per below I have amended my opinion as Auerbachkeller is making this disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for intruding once again, but since Dave Dial forgot this suggestion of Gamaliel's, I wanted to repost it here so it doesn't get lost:

This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. User:Ryulong, I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has continued to discuss the conflict today on Jimbo Wales' page, where he now claims I started the conflict and repeats a false claim that I only know his name via The Devil's Advocate. In truth, I learned Ryulong's name by searching diffs via Wikiblame on the edit in question. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am allowed to talk to Jimbo about this. I have been singled out unfairly and despite what you think I have no issue with you. I'm sorry you felt that my writing was incorrect but that's not something that requires a ban or voluntary anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is now doing a Reddit AMA in which he is giving false accounts of what transpired between myself, him, Jimbo Wales, and others. Yes, I realize this is off-WP, but in my opinion it bears rather strongly on the matter at hand. Auerbachkeller (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and WP:BOOMERANG since Auerbachkeller is unwilling to put down the stick, the only sensable solution is to strongly warn Auer that the next time they try to bring this specific complaint they will be dealt with less gentleness. Auer's importing off offsite complaints in addition to shoveling any manure on Ryulong demonstrates the prime behavior of this "movement" to burn down established names in favor of their jettionsable pseudonyms. Hasteur (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose and Boomerang: the proposal was made in bad faith in order to promote one side of a content dispute. This should have been nipped in the bud, but as it has gone on this long, best to sanction the proposer with a WikiTrout. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and trouterang: mostly I just wanted to say "trouterang", but seriously I think I've seen editors come from the Gamergate area to propose topic bans for Ruylong three separate times since last Thursday (I'll find diffs if you want) and none have had much of any basis in policy or snowball's chance in hell of being accepted. Proposing the same thing over and over again is disruptive, and there's clearly no appetite for using admin tools to throw gas on this fire attempt to solve this dispute. It looks like it's already being discussed at Arbcom. Ivanvector (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Only on the basis that this specific thread is not about the topic but about user interactions. Retartist (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang This is ridiculous Loganmac (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Ryulong appears a great deal at ANI and his interactions with people often leave a lot to be desired. However, on the flipside of the coin, the fact that he hasn't lost his mind after all the crap the internet has thrown at him is a credit to his resilience and commitment to the project. It's a very rare day indeed when Ryulong has been hauled out for poor content injection. People will invariably disagree about what content he may put in but I highly doubt that, if we all stood back a bit, the quality of his content could be seriously challenged. This is not to say that a prolific content contributor should get a free card, but context is everything. Blackmane (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now what?

I'll be honest with everyone here. I have no idea what to do at this point. I thought we were close to having this issue resolved with Ryulong's apology. He deserves kudos for doing that regardless of whether or not it was accepted, and I think Auerbachkeller is perfectly within his rights not to accept it, but that should have been the end of it. But instead of the apology ending this issue, other parties attempted to use this dispute to topic ban Ryulong. In my opinion, that was an inappropriate attempt to hijack the issue with something that should have been handled separately and inflamed an issue that seemed to be nearing resolution. It's pretty clear Ryulong is not going to be topic banned, and now the two main parties are still sniping at complaining about each other and everyone is still annoyed. Facepalm. Gamaliel (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me where I have been sniping at Ryulong? I have had no contact with him since yesterday. Auerbachkeller (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You just posted above complaining about him. I will change my phrasing, I really don't care. The essential point is that you are both unhappy and I think third parties are trying to fan the flames here. Gamaliel (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am unhappy that Ryulong is continuing to make false statements about me on and off WP after his supposed apology. Yes. Auerbachkeller (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's pretty clear Ryulong is not going to be topic banned." That's the problem: to a basically outside observer, he's the cause of a lot of the problems in the article, and it would be much better off if he were. Unfortunately, the wagons appear to have been circled around him and he won't be, so yeah, now what? If we can't get consensus to topic ban a disruptive editor from an article, what's left? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement. It was inappropriate for editors to hijack a sensitive situation to attempt to impose a topic ban, but concerned editors can request enforcement of general sanctions at any time. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why would we bother? As expected, the sanctions appear to be only for those perceived to be on one side of the debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this. I'll use the sanctions if somebody gives me a reason to. But all I see here are a complaint that has been resolved with an apology and partisans trying to get the other side and only the other side banned. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• The reasons have been detailed for some time. Why they haven't been used, I don't know. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Given the contentious nature of the topic, anyone who edits it heavily is going to attract significant blowback; it's unrealistic to expect any resolution to enjoy universal acceptance under those circumstances. But I think it's clear that there's a broad consensus here that Ryulong has acted appropriately overall -- like I mentioned on the article's talk page, I think the root of this particular issue stemmed not from anything Ryulong did but from another editor who accidentally changed the meaning of Ryulong's paraphrase while blindly applying WP:SAY, which accidentally changed its meaning from "Auerbach's article implied this" (which was a reasonable paraphrase of what the article being referenced was saying about him, even if Auerbach clearly disagrees with that article) to "Auerbach literally said this" (which obviously isn't.) Overall, though, this article needs more attention from users who understand our policies; I don't see how it would benefit from driving Ryulong away from it. Rather, if people are concerned, then what the article really needs is more attention from additional experienced editors so Ryulong isn't taking all the heat over editing it himself and so he doesn't become a flashpoint for everyone who has a concern with how it's currently written. --Aquillion (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think he's acted appropriately at all. Nor do I think his paraphrasing (or your "implied" version) was reasonable. This topic is under general sanctions. There have been a number of topic bans. Jimbo has asked Ryulong multiple times not to edit the article. Policies are enforced by admins using general sanctions and the drama keeps going because no one will step up and topic ban them and use DS to calm the waters. It doesn't have to be permanent but a handful of WP:OWN editors need to take a break (either on their own or by general sanctions). Two have been called out by Jimbo. A few are being attacked off-wiki and have been drawn in to the point where it's nearly WP:EXTERNALREL if not past that point. They need a break if only to stop the external BS that keeps being brought here. No article should be identified with individual editors and unfortunately, these articles are. This is not a hard decision and 30 or 60 day TBAN will go a long way to defocus the external eyes from specific editors. --DHeyward (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how this won't be interpreted as punishment for offsite harassment, and worse, encouraging offsite harassment because it gives them the results they want. Honestly, there's about six editors on either side that I think should be forced to take a break, but I don't know how to make that sort of sanction stick and how to do it without blowing the whole thing up. The relatively minor and clear cut sanctions that have been imposed so far, for much worse behavior and for blatant repeated BLP violations, have already been dragged before ArbCom by partisans claiming that they are "tyrannical behavior". Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Okay the "clear cut" and "much worse" parts can be debated, but "relatively minor" is just absurd. Are three month, one year, or indefinite topic bans considered "minor" these days?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right, that was extremely poor wording on my part and I have struck that phrase. I was trying to convey that the issues were not difficult to sort out for admins compared to others, not that the sanctions themselves were minor. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• As I understand it, his paraphrasing was discussed on the talk page, and nobody objected to it particularly at the time (indeed, based on the comment when he first added it, he was careful to get feedback from other people before putting it in.) It only attracted attention after Auerbach objected (responding to the version with Halfhat's accidental WP:SAY edits, not to the version Ryulong wrote.) Either way, disagreeing with the precise wording of someone's paraphrase wouldn't blow up to this extent if it weren't for the environment of constant offsite pressure you describe; none of the things people are accusing Ryulong of would even be comment-worthy in a normal situation. Saying that off-wiki attacks are a reason he should pull back is likewise missing the point -- none of the off-wiki attacks really have anything to do with Ryulong or any of the other editors they're targeting; the people doing the targeting literally just made a list of the most prolific editors that they disagreed with and went after them. If Ryulong stepped back, the harassment would move down the list to the next-most-prolific editor, and so on until the article was purged of everyone perceived as unfriendly to their views. Which leads me to the most important point: In an environment like this, where anyone who steps up to edit the article is likely to be subject to fairly vicious attacks from some quarter or another, we absolutely need people who are willing to step up to the plate regardless. Ryulong should, for the most part, be commended for enduring that kind of pressure, not criticized for being a target of offsite harassment; just a look over the talk page shows that they have constantly engaged in good-faith discussions with people who have many different views, and that the article has been improved as a result. We need more people willing to participate in that sort of fairly grueling discussion over contentious topics like this. The best solution, of course, to the situation is for the article to get more experienced editors keeping their eyes on it and chipping in, not to drive away the few people who have been willing to endure the harassment and anger surrounding it until now in an effort to edit constructively... but given how Ryulong has been treated for his work there, it's not hard to see why that isn't happening. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "none of the things people are accusing Ryulong of would even be comment-worthy in a normal situation." That's absurd. Why, just the other day I saw him get away with 15RR. There have been hundreds of citations of issues with his behaviour WRT the article by now. Your claims about "targeting" are also unsubstantiated and, in my view, meritless. Offsite discussion I've witnessed has centered on Ryulong, yes - but only because he's been noted as annoying huge numbers of people across a wide spectrum of articles and communities, documented all over the Internet, over the course of a solid 8 years. When I did my own research, for example, I found a claim that he once leveled a /16 IP ban. But as regards the Gamergate article, most discussion explicitly already names three or four other editors as problematic, and accuses them of WP:TAGTEAM either explicitly or in more community-specific phrasing. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My question: given that Ryulong is continuing to misrepresent me and unable to give a factually correct account of recent events, given that his behavior shows little improvement from before his "apology," and given that he is by his own admission a poor and unclear writer, how am I to think that he will represent me or my writings at all accurately in the future? Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't worry about this at all; if anyone misrepresents your writings on Wikipedia, someone else will correct them. It’s precisely the same situation as you would face if your book were reviewed in, say, TLS, by someone whom you think dislikes you and who, in any case, doesn't adore your book. As you doubtless know, attempting to address this directly is known as an Author’s Big Mistake. That's why people are urging you to drop the stick and back away. You've received more than you could reasonably have expected here; let it go. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would remove the post with the Reddit AMA link myself but don't know if that is allowed. Consider that entire post rescinded nonetheless. Auerbachkeller (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"If off wiki dealings are so inconsequential, I fail to see the fuss over 8chan or KotakuInAction" grumbled DSA510. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed a massive double standard there, as I noted in my statement to Arbcom. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A Background Note

Yesterday, I came across a thread (I believe at 8chan) that discussed the given name, city of residence, religion, and sexual orientation of the editor whose topic ban we were discussing above. I'm not sure this report presents significant information, or whether that discussion is already known. And I have no idea at all whether the assertions made there were accurate, facetious, or (for all I know) common knowledge in the community. I’m not even certain whether mentioning the existence of such discussions is appropriate or helpful. I made no particular note at the time, and only later realized that some editors here might wish to know this. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But it seems to me that this sort of thing ought to be taken into account. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Check your net history for any threads you viewed, and substitute the first number in the URL into this link http://8archive.moe/gg/thread/number/ I'd actually love to see evidence of this, rather than accusation. 67.188.142.154 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've got the thread. But of course, simply posting it here would be wrong, would it not? Especially at the prompting of an IP editor? If any admin would like to get in touch by phone, email, or on my user page, I'm right here in my office. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein:, how much bad behavior should we excuse because of off-site stress? At what point are we allowed to say enough is enough? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't doxx or out people. It shouldn't matter who an editor is IRL unless they are sock puppet or paid editor -- and even then, this isn't the place. email arbcom. It's time for an editor to take a step back if the profile of the editor or wikipedia is higher than the article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: let me get this straight. An outspoken editor is subjected to antisemitic and homophobic derision (and perhaps worse) off-wiki. Is that of no conceivable interest to ANI? An IP editor suggests I'm mistaken or lying; I take time to hunt down the urls and answer that I have them if anyone needs them. This is a reason to urge the person under attack to take a wikibreak? And what have I done wrong? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

I know at least one editor who has been doxxed for GamerGate on site. Now, would you be equally concerned on who it was if I didn't let up info about their flag of colors? I also find it concerning that you've not even mentioned it. (If you did se it) Tutelary (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. The actions of editors off-wiki are not relevant to the discussion, but the actions of non-editors are?

Also, since you mention 8chan and "antisemitic derision": that in itself is reason to suspect that it's just antisemitic trolls going on about antisemitism, rather than anyone seriously thinking they actually have any evidence about anyone's religious beliefs. That is, after all, part of the -chan "reputation" that's the entire reason anyone in the discussion cares about the -chans in the first place.

As for "This is a reason to urge the person under attack to take a wikibreak?" No, any such urging is obviously completely unrelated. I really don't understand how you managed to come up with that bit of logic to attribute to others. DHeyward's argument was in favour of stepping back because of the editor's "profile", not because of the effects of negative attention drawn by that profile. And nobody said you did anything wrong. 74.12.93.242 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Let me get this straight for you: I have no idea what you are talking about and quite frankly don't want to know. Outing/doxxing people on ANI or anywhere is not allowed. email ArbCom. That's not hard to understand why the Streisand effect is a bad thing. Also don't bring off-wiki drama here. It doesn't help. --DHeyward (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I'm happy to email details to anyone: please point me to the pertinent policy or email address or wherever such reports should go. Or call me at the office -- I'm easy to find. Thanks for your helpful advice about what I shouldn’t do here; it seemed to me (naive fellow that I am) that it might interest administrators to know what information the opponents of Ryulong are spreading off-wiki, as this might be helpful in understanding the context. But of course, if the context never matters, that’s my mistake. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: To send ArbCom sensitive information, see User:Arbitration Committee. Email is basically arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. --DHeyward (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Just to confirm: I did as you asked, received a form email indicating it was awaiting moderation, and have heard nothing since that time. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Kangaroo Courts

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.

---

Using meatpuppets, the 5+ editors and admins trying to push a POV successfully topic-banned me in the kangaroo court on the GamerGate General Sanctions page. Specifically, I was banned by involved meatpuppet Future Perfect at Sunrise, here [250]. There were previous attempts at forum shopping by a meatpuppet crony IP both here, and on the GS page. Other cronies have tried to get me banned or such, but failed before. However, this time involved crony admin Future Sunrise at Perfect swooped in to ban me for my mean words ;-;. After this, crony meatpuppet MarkBernstein has been slandering me across multiple pages. For this, I request full interaction bans between me, and MarkBernstein, TheRedPenofDoom, Ryulong, Gamaliel, RGlouchester, Tarc, TaraInDC, and NorthBySouthBarnof, even down to mentioning my username. Being doxxed for trying to push WP:NPOV is enough, but slandering me afterwards is throwing salt in those wounds and then spitting on me. I will not stand for it. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These are some serious accusations so provide evidence or retract them please. Chillum 21:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup. There seems to be a distinct lack of evidence for anything here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What the heck? Don't mention my name and then not even notify me of this thread. What's more, I have no idea what I've done to you. All I did was clerk the sanctions page to make sure everything was in order. RGloucester — ☎ 21:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dungeon, you should be warned that if you carry a stick from an AE case like that to ANI, it's likely to get turned in to a boomerang somewhere along the way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll collect the evidence. Just wait. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Propose site ban on DungeonSiegeAddict510 per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can wait and see if DungeonSiegeAddict510 manages to collect evidence? Unless there is another reason for a site ban, which would call for... evidence. Chillum 22:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that when an editor posts entirely-unsupported allegations against other editors on a public noticeboard, we are required to wait for that person to "collect evidence" before regarding the complaint as disruptive. It was my understanding that allegations should be supported by evidence at the time they are made. How long shall we wait and see for this thread to collect drama? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(5 x ec)Not very long. If evidence is not forthcoming quickly then DungeonSiegeAddict510 should strike the accusations. If neither happens then we should take action. Chillum 22:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Giving DungeonSiegeAddict510 the chance to provide evidence isn't going to do any immediate harm, and there isn't much scope for a 'drama' based on nothing of substance. We can all see that nothing has been provided so far, and accordingly have no reason as yet to take this seriously. If the evidence isn't forthcoming, we can of course act accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell nobody has followed, hounded, posted on the talk page of, or really done anything to DSA510 since his 90 day topic ban. Mentioning that someone has been banned, calling them out for WP:FORUMing/disruptively rehashing long settled issues, and repeating things they've said don't really fall under any definition of slander I've ever heard [251] Albeit it was in a WP:FORUMlike post itself, but that doesn't excuse DSA's constant inflammatory accusations, challenges and complaints. [252] [253] (before topic ban) [254] [255] [256] [257] (after topic ban). also CH Sommers and 8chan probably both fall under the topic ban umbrella ([258] [259]) This isn't freaking twitter or uncyclopedia. Can someone please just block this guy already? he is so obviously NOTHERE it's ridiculous. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record I think the accusations are preposterous and I highly doubt any real evidence will be presented that matches up with the view of DungeonSiegeAddict510. I do think action will need to be taken boomerang style. I only think we should wait for a little while to at least give a chance for evidence to be presented.

Given the silliness of the claims I don't think we need to wait very long. Chillum 22:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait

Alright, I lashed out. The minute i signed onto IRC someone dropped my dox again, and I needed someone to blame. Just ban me for a week. I need a break if I am going to keep getting doxxed. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So are you withdrawing all the claims you made above? And will you give your word that you will not repeat them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes and yes. I'm sorry... --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for Topic ban

Hi,

Would it be possible to get a topic ban on El Clásico, for Cid Campeador3 and Carlos Rojas77. Both editors are involved in ongoing edit warring on this subject. It has been subject to multiple locks through WP:RFPP and as soon as they expire they continue. The page revision history shows the extent of the problem.Amortias (T)(C) 22:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

After my brain caught up I've realised an article ban might be a better alternative. Amortias (T)(C) 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this the background on the issue? Looks to be that the moment semi-protection was removed, Cid started to reinsert this source, and the warring by Carlos is to remove it. Per the talk page, there's a debate on reliability between them on the subject. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, I think a topic ban is not warranted. Both editors violated WP:3RR but I want to see how they respond before doing a block just out of procedure. User:Cid Campeador3 is clearly the instigator and his revision wasn't just the source but a clear WP:OWN to get his version inserted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've lost count (but I'll check) that this is either the third or fourth time this has descended into edit warring between the two named users. The pag has been protected fully and semi protected but after each release of protection the same issue ensues. Amortias (T)(C) 23:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over the edit warring is never helpful

I would resent a topic ban on El Clasico for the basic reason I'm neutral on the subject and only seek that accurate material is used. I have sought consensus on this issue, Cid Campeador3 isn't interested in any consensus and ignores talk. Let me go through it for those who dont know the background. Cid Campeador3, a Madrid fan from Madrid, has used Dario Gol, and inserted its content into the highly controversial 11-1 game that Madrid "won" in 1943. Few issues needed addressing. First off I'm from the UK, have no affiliation to either team, speak zero Spanish (username not my real name obviously), so I have no idea about the reliablility, neutrality and content of the following; http://www.diariogol.com/es/notices/2014/10/de-franco-el-madrid-el-barca-y-otras-mentiras-de-tv3-45026.php Spanish newspapers are notoriously biased toward various teams. Secondly this is an English wikipedia so predominantly English speakers will use it. The Guardian, "Franco's régime got to work. First they ensured the atmosphere in the return leg at Real's Chamartin stadium would be super-oppressive. Then on the day of the match, to make sure Barça's players got the centralist message, Spain's director of state security visited their dressing room just before kick-off. Packing a loaded gun – though some Madridistas question the packed piece – he quietly reminded the visitors that "you are only playing because of the generosity of the regime that has forgiven you for your lack of patriotism". A singular inspirational team talk having been delivered, the following kickabout was only ever going to end one way. Real scored early, then made it two on the half-hour, whereupon Barça, fearing lethal consequences, properly capitulated; it was 8-0 to Madrid by half-time. The second half was a relative non-event, the game ending 11-1." The Independent "In the second leg of a cup tie attended by Franco, the home team beat Barcelona, whose rivalry with Real was already the central drama of Spanish football, 11-1. Barcelona had won the first leg at home 3-0, an achievement described by one Madrid newspaper as a "conspiracy against the state". Before the second game, the Barcelona players were visited in their dressing room by the Count of Mayalde, head of state security. He told them, "Do not forget that some of you are playing only because of the generosity of the regime in forgiving your lack of patriotism." Many years later, the Barcelona physiotherapist reported that he had never been able to banish the memory of that day. He recalled, "The night before the game we had to change our hotel and even then we didn't leave it all evening because we thought we would be lynched. Not far from where we were sitting during the game a man dressed in military uniform kept screaming, 'Kill these red Catalans – kill these Catalan dogs'." and non Spanish writers (Sid Lowe) are reliable, have no bias or slant toward any team, and meet WP:reliable source. The other issue is Cid Campeador being a Madrid fan will obviously have a Madrid slant, and has tried to whitewash what was a very controversial game for Madrid, as verified in the sources used. This is the edit from Cid Campeador3 which he added to the Real Madrid 11-1 Barcelona section. However, according to Spanish journalist and writer, Juan Carlos Pasamontes, the events were quite different: At the end of the first half, Barcelona players were angry with the hard-style of playing Real Madrid was using, and also with the aggressiveness of the home crowd. Those were the reasons which made Barcelona coach Juan José Nogués and all of his players to refuse to continue playing the match. Then, the Superior Chief of Police of Madrid appeared, identified himself, and told the coach: "You all go now out to the field. If you don't, we will take you all to the Police station". Josep Valle, Barcelona player during that season, denied in March 2003 that the Spanish security forces had obliged Barcelona to lose the match. Source; http://www.diariogol.com/es/notices/2014/10/de-franco-el-madrid-el-barca-y-otras-mentiras-de-tv3-45026.php Issues with this are; this implies that it was just the "hard style" of Madrid players and the agressive home crowd that led to Barcelona being 8-0 down at half time. Likely? A team that wins 3-0 in the first game, and is 8-0 down at half time in the next...just down to hard style and crowd.noise? Really? If this was indeed the case, and was therefore a legitimate game, why then is the game not celebrated in Madrid and why does it barely get a mention in the history of Real Madrid?...yet it does feature prominently in Barcelonas history. Doesn't add up. All the English reliable sources tell a different story...Barcelona won the first game, they jeered and whistled the Madrid players, and the Madrid newspaper Ya reported at the time that Barcelona fans had "whistled at the Madrid players with the clear intention of attacking the representatives of Spain"... General Franco (who was neither pro Real or Barca) took exception to this (Franco quelled all forms of public displays of emotion) and for the return game in Madrid his group got to work, which is when the infamous 11-1 occurred. Cid Campeador3 has ignored previous messages sent to him by other users on the issue of content disputes. He was told to request for comment on the source and material he continues to add into the article without gaining any consensus on talk. He hasn't asked for any assistance on the issue and ploughs on ahead. Not just that but his English is weak, uses bare URL (and the same one several times over). I dont care what happened at that game just that it is recorded accurately.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC) CarlosRojas77, you're being extremely cynical. I've ALREADY posted in "El Clásico" TALK page a LOT of times, explaining and proving the RELIABILITY of my source (Diariogol.com belongs to a registered sports media company called EDICIONES DIGITALES DEL DEPORTE SL). You said that your main reason for continuous deleting my valid information is that you "don't undersand Spanish". It's absolutely IRRELEVANT in this case your knowledge of Spanish, because the words will MEAN THE SAME, they WON'T change the moment you start learning Spanish. And how ridicolous that argument is in this case, when almost HALF of the references in the English article are from Spanish-Speaking websites and written works?!!? Nearly a year ago, when I changed the redaction of some paragraphs in "Historic divisions", who were inaccurate, you EDITWARRED me for weeks, and until the other users entered defending my redaction for its superior neutrality and accuracy, you kept on the confrontation. You saw there were people who supported my kind of redaction, and in that particular moment, you stepped back. You say you're neutral in both teams rivalry. I believe that's not the important subject in this argument, but in my personal opinion that's a lie for your part, because of the precedents in "El Clásico" with some users who shared my vision on the inaccuracy, and because of your contributions, mainly dedicated, as anybody can see, to past and present Barcelona players and themes. The cynicism you show in these responses here, telling that "I do not search consensus", worries me. I HAVE WRITTEN a thousand times the reason of this reference being reliable and important for the subject. In the talk page, in the descriptions of my edits, in your personal talk page, in admin talk page... If the main reason of you don't tolerating my contribution is that you believe I don't "translate" the message of my source "properly", I would gladly want to confirm it. That would mean you don't trust my honesty as a contributor. Please, I need to know if it is that. Cid Campeador3GollumTreasure 00:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Cleaned up comment LorChat 00:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Looking elsewhere, I note that the language as currently written there is also at the article for that year with pictures of the dictator and the like so I don't think anyone should be arguing neutral at the moment. There does exist a medium between the two and either you two want to work on it or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion about content and sources should have been taking place on Talk:El Clásico. I have been asked to participate in the discussion on my talk page. Full protection on the article would stop this edit warring, but then it would move to the talk page. I suppose we need more interested editors to participate in the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Claim that a user has been murdered?

OK, so I'm blocking a user tonight following a report to AIV and I came across this diff:

a claim that a user has been murdered.

It's probably just childish vandalism, however as far as I'm aware policy dictates that we cannot be the judge of this. I'm raising a report here but also going to email the emergency team just in case. --5 albert square (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted the vandalism too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that Ricky. I have received a reply from Patrick at Wikimedia to say that they're looking into it. Do you know if this would require further suppression from Oversighters?--5 albert square (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It would need oversighting yes. Lor^Chat 02:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost identical disruptive editing by 65.92.245.33 and Azertopius

IP user and registered user, only history in their edits is edit warring on multiple (Many identical) pages. Both have been asked to take their controversial edits to talk pages, with no avail. Multiple users reverting their edits on numerous pages. Not sure if IP is User who forgot to log in, but the edit summaries are almost the same, and are both hitting the same realm of articles. Removing French names from Ontario articles, for example, citing "official language status", which is not relevant. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved templates from section title to text, bad things happened in the cross-references. Users are 65.92.245.33 (talk · contribs) and Azertopius (talk · contribs) . Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see Azertopius blocked as they've not made any positive contributions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have said it before and in my last edit summary to the editor in question....07:01, November 20, 2014 . . Canada ‎ (restore = as has been explained many times --if your not willing to talk there is not much we can compromise on is there>). Not much we can do if the editor is not talking to us about the concerns raised. Edit wars simply dont help ..a block may get the point across. -- Moxy (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on List of Power Rangers Dino Charge episodes

Sockpuppetry nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can someone please check this page? There's been an edit war by someone trying to get it deleted. Anyone who tries to create this page gets accursed as being a " sockpuppet " of a blocked user. This has got to stop. The subject is legitamate and the next power rangers season will be call "Dino Charge" . Denny Saure (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC) The above comment was the third edit by Denny Saure (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC) The user posting this has been blocked and the page was speedy deleted but it was recently recreated by another user by the name of GregRanger on their third edit. Can someone look into this since it seems suspicious.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Please have a look at Boko haram rance (talk · contribs) “WarKosign” 21:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, Favonian already blocked them. “WarKosign” 21:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Runtshit, or one of his followers. Office hours should be over in Haifa by now, so we should expect this to quiet down the next few hours. Huldra (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And they're even over in Budapest. RolandR (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by a sockpuppet

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.

---

Irmovies was blocked indef a couple of weeks ago following a mass creation/addition of copyright material relating to Persian cinema. Now Mattewina is doing the same sort of edits. This article has a clear copyvio plot, along with several other articles. Their account was created on the 14th November and then 3 days and six edits later, they are creating brand-new articles on Iranian films. WP:DUCK is quacking like mad. Can someone take a look while I clear up the WP:COPYVIO issues? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Account was created yesterday, already is creating articles on Iranian cinema and has been flagged by CSB for plot summary copyvios. Looks like he made good on his threat to sockpuppet. MER-C 12:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And, as under his previous incarnation, creating numerous unreferenced articles and then removing the {{unreferenced}} tag without addressing the lack of references. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"NOTICE IF INCIVILITY" (sic) (BlueSalix filing complaint against BlueSalix, on behalf of HafizHanif)

Collapse invalid filing of "BlueSalix filing complaint against BlueSalix, on behalf of HafizHanif" per Andrevan. Also, you guys don't need one more venue to argue the merits of Boyd Bushman. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(The following post was left on my Talk page [260] with the alert that it was being raised in ANI. However, the reporting editor HafizHanif may have forgot to file the ANI report as I can't find it anywhere here. I'm filing it against me on his behalf so I don't have to keep checking back here indefinitely.) BlueSalix (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC) “ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User:BlueSalix, I think you may have breached some civility guidelines in the manner in which you discussed the deletion of the Boyd Bushman wiki entry. I think you may have contradicted yourself, may have instigated others and also projected your own hysterics / frantic dialogue while pointing to others to have become hysterical and frantic. You seem to desire a speedy deletion process to an entry which had been on wiki for seven years without reading through the comments and concerns of editors, regardless of their tenure or lack thereof. Here are some examples: "due to the increasingly hysterical/frantic tone being taken by the new editors, I think immediate closure is warranted to protect both the encyclopedia and our editors" The reading of the entire dialogue would reveal who was hysterical and frantic in their colorful use of words. You wrote "that "alien nutcase" Bushman is a different man who simply shared a similar name and used it as part of his UFO con" in speaking to a real scientist, with real credentials, a real likeness to the name and the name matching a likeness. You seem to be the only one who disputes this man's existence, and believe a recently opened account on LinkedIn to be the 'real' Boyd Bushman. An account with no connections, a fuzzy picture and no business references. I don't think you are serious but this you use as argument. You wrote "Bushman was not notable before this. He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin" I think you should care as to why the article was around for seven years and why it is under attack and scrutiny now. It passed guidelines with the same citations and independent sources for seven years. You wrote: "Our guidelines establish that notability is not achieved by a single event." The single event you may be speaking about is the many recent news articles mentioning Boyd's testimonial this past summer. However, he had been mentioned in a book years prior, two documentary and several other places. The argument regarding his scientific work is debatable only because it isn't cited elsewhere, but his almost 30 patents are not in disrepute. You wrote "If you can't find any reference to Boyd Bushman in any of these hundreds of thousands of places spanning hundreds of billions of pages of text, then he doesn't get in WP." I don't think you are the only person to choose what does qualify, but the Wikipedia guidelines. You mentioned certain news outlets besides the ones Boyd was featured in, but I don't think you get to choose which news articles to use if they are all legitimate. You wrote the following phrase several times after being asked not to use such language "he was a self-aggrandizing nutter." This also seems to fall under incivility. You wrote "The patents simply show he paid a $130 filing fee and establish absolutely nothing else." This is your opinion and not true. A filing fee is one thing, the process of citing sources, writing a claim and all the rest that goes into actually having a patent is more than a small filing fee. This seems to be another unfounded argument used to simply detract from constructive reasoning. None of the news outlets denied Boyd being who he and others said he was... they in fact wrote he was a scientist working for Lockheed Martin and the many patents are all assigned to Lockheed Martin. It is clear but you seem to desire to further instigate and argue against these facts. You wrote ""Significant coverage" and "reliable sources" are not two separate standards that have to be met, they are the same standard: significant coverage in reliable sources." This scientist was written about in over ten newspapers worldwide recently, albeit for an unusual story. These newspapers were not yellow papers like tabloids, but actual news outlets that write about daily news events... yet you seem to ignore this fact. This recent notoriety shouldn't shadow his standing the his place for seven years in wikipedia. You wrote "I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances." It seems you are quick to respond but not quick to read what others have to say. Here you seem to admit you ignore and quickly dismiss what the others are sharing with you. You wrote "I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted." You seem to exercise your freedom of speech while disregarding guidelines and considering others in conducting a serious debate. You wrote "This article could only serve as a magnet for UFO weirdos. It should be salted to prevent recreation" It seems you have a strong opinion about a niche interest, but this is no basis to support your arguments. You seem to have repeated this theme throughout your arguments / responses. You wrote "He had no career achievements" in regards to the scientist in question. This seems to be either a blatant lie or your method of convincing others be speaking down about someone's career achievements. You wrote "You suppose wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy" while you are counting votes to delete the entry. You wrote "You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk" This is one of the main sources written by a journalist who also made a documentary which was broadcasted worldwide. Why the need to call this man's work 'bunk' and yet fail to acknowledge it as RS? You wrote "still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe" in speaking about someone. This is uncalled for and obvious incivility. You wrote "You can't slander a dead person under U.S. libel law, which is the jurisdiction that presumably applies to Boyd-O since that's supposedly the dirt in which he's buried (along with his B.A. from BYU [his highest educational credential]). And "slander" is a legal term; it has no colloquial use. Ergo, I have not slandered anyone." It seems here again you were fell into incivility. It seems your tasteless and uncivilized remarks about someone that contributed to U.S. defense systems, the several companies he worked for. The man had a family which most likely is reading along the discussion about their dearly departed relative. You may express a bit more concern to the public reader. I don't find any bit of consideration for the world audience. This brings a bad reputation onto Wikipedia and the many editors who do their best to make viable contributions and not be insulting. You seem to follow the letter of the law without having consideration for the spirit through which you speak and defend your manners and words. --HafizHanif (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC) ” Background: This report concerns, I believe, a deletion review discussion occurring here, regarding Boyd Bushman, whose article was removed from WP. The deceased Boyd Bushman claims a vast conspiracy by Martians to infiltrate the U.S. government and build a death ray to enslave mankind before launching a space invasion is underway. Reporting editor has passionately called for this to be reinstated to WP and I have taken the opposite side in this edit discussion. Responding to Allegations: I deny that I have breached WP:CIVIL. The first string of allegations declares I'm uncivil for saying "Our guidelines establish that notability is not achieved by a single event" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy" etc. I do not believe these attempts at policy guidance to a new editor attempting to insert highly unconventional content to WP constitutes a CIVIL violation. The second string of allegations concerns descriptions I have made about a deceased non-WP editor. Referring to a deceased non-WP editor (Boyd Bushman), in a talk page discussion, as a "self-aggrandizing nutter" is a simple statement of fact. TTBOMK CIVIL only applies to WP editors, not deceased persons who have never been WP editors. As per WP:BOOMERANG, I would like to point out reporting editor has referred to myself and two other editors as "slanderous" "bozo"(s) [261] [262]. He has also made a variety of thinly veiled WP:LAWSUIT threats declaring the Talk page discussion is violating libel laws. BlueSalix (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Filing an AN/I on yourself is certainly unorthodox, as is invoking CIVILITY on behalf the deceased. He may have a point that calling the dead guy a nutter isn't very nice, but it's not against policy. It's hard for a BOOMERANG to come back if the guy forgets to even file the thing, isn't it? Anyway, you seem to be fine, if you have any more trouble with this use please get in touch. For now just point him to our policies calmly as you are. Andrevan@ 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Andrevan. BlueSalix (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC) responding to respondent's response Firstly, the "background" written by BlueSalix is categorically false and misleading. The scientist in question didn't make such bogus claims of "Martians" nor "death ray" nor :"government infiltration" nor "enslave mankind" nor "space invasion." These are all false and instigating statements made by BlueSalix here and now. Please do a "control F" at the :entry in question, talk page and deletion discussion and you will find no such foolishness. These seem to BlueSalix's attempt to draw attention away from his INCIVILITY and is yet :another example, thus why I have requested a review. --HafizHanif (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I initially posted the notice on this person's talk page as policy asked. I was hoping for a decent response to discuss the matter. But now reading blatant lies is quite :astounding. Please review what I have highlighted, the 'nutter' comment is the least of the issues. -- HafizHanif (talk) 07:17, 24 :November 2014 (UTC) HafizHanif, you're correct and I'm sorry; according to the tabloids and YouTube videos you want inserted into WP (see comment - [[263]] and the reference it cites [[264]], Boyd Bushman was talking about the "Pleiadian" space aliens secretly infiltrating the U.S. government, not Martians. I apologize I mixed up my make-believe alien species. I think the core point remains valid, though: calling a deceased non-WP editor who claimed "Pleiadian" space aliens were trying to infiltrate the U.S. goverment a nutcase is objectively factual and not a violation of WP:CIVIL. BlueSalix (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose account promoting a mthod

The user User:OrangeLeanVoice is heavily promoting a single method: OpenKanban on the Kanban (development) page. There are several revisions where the user has been adding the same content all the time ro the page, completely ignoring to try solve the issue: that it clearly looks like an advert. I suspect this is a single purpose account to try promote it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=634692008&oldid=633775865

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627556168&oldid=627552623

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627422758&oldid=627291071

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=626920643&oldid=626920543

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=609849797&oldid=609849712

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=609817308&oldid=609741321

There have been several undos by other editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627423765&oldid=627422758

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=622798661&oldid=622798194

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=614341636&oldid=614339834

In one of the diffs the user has claimed to try improve it ro be more neutral, but no results a has been shown at all. Thwre has been some talk with another editor before here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Open_Kanban_Mention

Sorry if this is messed up but I am on mobile

95.199.24.159 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an promotional WP:SPA to me. No edits outside the topic, all edits are about how Open Kanban "innovates". Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_%28development%29&diff=634981836&oldid=634901467

Undone with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanban_%28development%29&diff=635000000&oldid=634982645

95.199.24.159 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an opensource fanboy. Open Kanban is Kanban and would seem to have a place in an article on the development of Kanban since they are after all developing Kanban. Just get with them and work on making the material (as they say) informational and not (as you say) promotional.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of incivility and demand for honest and cited rebuttal

No, stop it now. Name-calling anyone (whether dead or alive) doesn't strength any argument, is possibly uncivil but no one is getting blocked over it right now as long as people stick to the deletion review discussion and leave us to deal with our regularly scheduled drama here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User:BlueSalix, I think you breached civility guidelines in discussing the deletion of the Boyd Bushman wiki entry. Here are some examples of what you wrote: "You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk" "still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe" "that alien nutcase" "He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin." "he was a self-aggrandizing nutter." this was written repeatedly after being asked to be more civil by others. "I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances." "'I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted" "'He had no career achievements" this is a blatant lie. I didn't include the instances BlueSalix contradicted themselves. I didn't include the way BlueSalix pushed new editors around by posting several things for them to read while ridiculing the subject matter,, seemingly attempting to infer them to be ridiculous for their efforts in keeping this particular scientist's entry. Since Wikipedia is a public forum and this discussion is open to the public, I think BlueSalix was inconsiderate of the possibility that family members of the deceased could be reading such cold and heartless comments about their relative. He does not know if one of the editors is in fact a family member of Boyd Bushman. There is more vitriol at the page in question, this is merely a preview. Thank you for your help administrators! --HafizHanif (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC) In the ANI you filed against me yesterday, Andrevan explained to you that one cannot invoke WP:CIVILITY on behalf of deceased persons. I notice, in today's ANI, you've edited your original filing to draw specific quotes of mine wildly out-of-context and create the appearance of scandal. I wish you the very best of luck in this project of yours. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. BlueSalix (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC) How about sticking to sourced information? That might be of service. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to have brought this here, even though BlueSalix's language was unnecessarily over-the-top. However, I disagree with BlueSalix and Andrevan that WP:BLP does not apply to the subject of the article. See WP:BDP, which says that the policy applies to recently deceased people, and according to the article, Bushman died in August of this year, which is a little over three months ago, well within the shortest "indeterminate" period mentioned in the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I said, in the identical ANI filed against me yesterday, that referring to an individual who alleged shape-shifting "Pleiadian" space aliens from Planet X were infiltrating the U.S. government as a "nutter" in a deletion review discussion is both reasonable and a statement of fact. I stand by that. All other "quotes" by me posted by the editor are taken so wildly out of context that, in the absence of any diffs, I am making a conscious choice not to respond to them. BlueSalix (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) (ec) We aren't talking about BLP/BDP but CIVILITY. The comments were all made addressing the subject but not in the article body itself. Hafiz is saying that BlueSalix is being incivil by saying the subject of the article was nuts because he was into UFOs. I don't think that is really incivil, since BlueSalix is discussing the content and not the contributor. The article was deleted and the subject is a deletion review. Andrevan@ 20:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Also, I would like to explain my use of the term "Martian butt probe" to describe the method of Boyd Bushman's alleged "assassination." This is colloquial phrasing rather than the more nuanced terminology of "Pleiadian interceptor harness" which is used among the UFO-supporters who have recently descended on WP (some editors unfamiliar with this [ahem] interesting sub-culture may see "Pleiadian interceptor harness" and think it sounds more reputable and less silly than it actually is - it's important we call a horse a horse). According to the shared mythos of the UFO conspiracy sub-culture, the interceptor harness is used by Pleiadians to insert into a human's rectum to extract DNA for a mass cross-breeding program whose objective is global conquest. Ergo, "butt probe" is an accurate and reasonable "common name" term. I used "Martian" in lieu of "Pleiadian" as I didn't think it really mattered what make-believe space aliens we were referencing; I naturally apologize to HafizHanif, Bbb23, etc., if they were offended by this and promise not to refer to Pleiadians as Martians in the future. BlueSalix (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) This is great comedy :) Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) This is a content war over a deletion review. The editor filing this and the previous report insists that the subject of the article is notable, and demands that all other editors must prove them wrong or else they cry incivility. That's not how it works, and they need to stop asking the other parent. Nothing worth admin attention is going to come out of this; I suggest closing immediately. Ivanvector (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#"NOTICE IF INCIVILITY" (sic) (BlueSalix filing complaint against BlueSalix, on behalf of HafizHanif) Seems like the ANI yesterday kind of said, "There's nothing to see here, move on." Don't really see anything here that's changed that? @HafizHanif: Do you wish to see someone get banned? I'm sure an admin can oblige.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC) My Point Legacypac, [[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-], BlueSalix, Bbb23, Ricky81682, Andrevan, Ivanvector I appreciate the input, opinions and points made by everyone. Thank you. I keep reading lies made up by BlueSalix about what is being argued in the page in question but if one doesn't see for themselves they may simply believe one man's opinion over another. The point I was making was bringing attention to the use of terms used by this person and how it doesn't help in debating the issue. It isn't matter whether people believe or disbelieve ufos or anything else. That is not what I was arguing on the debate page and not the reason I came here with this notice. I am not here ( or at the deletion page ) to battle over including any mention of ufos in Boyd's entry. If one were to read the debate, several people have been asking for the notable segments of the man's career to be placed in the entry. Quite simple. He had an entry for seven years up until BlueSalix and others descended on his entry. This BlueSalix person uses ad-hoc and ad hominem arguments which detract and lead others to judge the merits of a scientist's career according to what he said in a youtube video prior to dying. This is bogus, unfair and is a failure to the whole point of Wikipedia. The continued barrage of adolescent meanderings were from the person notified of his uncivilized manner of discussion. And now more people having a laugh, and that's fine, but some of you happen to be ignoring the issue: someone's low-character patronizing of others, whether living or dead. One contributor adding to Wiki in good faith shouldn't have to battle with another who goes about their 'work' in this manner... makes one think twice about contributing any longer because this type of stuff leaves a bad taste and doesn't contribute to what we are all supposed to be doing here: contributing facts. Good day to all of you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)

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.

---

(Restoring this from auto-archive. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)) This user has been here since April 13, 2014 and has already racked up quite a few warnings (see User talk:Djcheburashka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)). As of recent, they've been generally disruptive. Actions include:

• Bad faith AfDs on Feminist school of criminology and Dark figure of crime. (See this, and this)
• Removal of comments from AfDs ([265], [266])
• Template regulars or sending them nasty messages when they revert their edits (e.g., [267], [268], [269])
• Assuming bad faith and accusing editors ([270], [271])
• Edit war on Dasha Zhukova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Roscelese's own talk page User talk:Roscelese (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hounding/following Roscelese ([272], [273], [274], started section on Talk:War on Women soon after Roscelese edited) User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault (see this edit, edit, this edit, this edit, this whole NPOVN mess, edits on False accusation of rape, edits on David Lisak) as well as financial crimes (e.g., this BLP proposal, edits on Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin). I won't say they haven't made constructive edits, but their recent actions have garnered the attention of a number of editors. But the editor history on their talk page speaks volumes. I would at the very least suggest an IBAN with Roscelese and a TBAN on all things sexual crime related (as that's where the most disruptive behavior has occurred). But honestly I get a big WP:NOTHERE feeling and think a site ban might be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have a desire to drag uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese[275]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Some more reading, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#User:Djcheburashka, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Page protection... and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Harassment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support siteban. The disruption in areas related to women is self-evident, but the user's behavior at Dark figure of crime is also illustrative, and additionally, his harassment of various users (including stalking and canvassing) is something that there's no reason to think will not happen again in other topic areas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support siteban. I too thought an iBan would be enough, but I no longer think so. Only a community imposed siteban will do. They lack the ability to see that their behavior is the problem. They lack "behavioral competence". Their behavior is very much like the blocked User:Worldedixor. They could be twins. A huge timesink, with denial and lots of blaming of others. This comment of mine, while written to Worldedixor, applies here too. I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor. The inability to process and accept advice creates huge problems. Both of them need to be sitebanned. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Response This is a bad-faith request by a pair of editors who engage in improper tag-team editing with a third, User:Roscelese. After I found serious sourcing problems with a page and tried to discuss them on the talk page, and R refused to do so or allow editing, I started a POV discussion (properly). R then reverted the POV page repeatedly, causing me to ask for protection and administrator intervention. In fact, it was me who requested the protection on those pages so the "edit war" would stop and the dispute resolution process could proceed. The retaliation for that is what brought us here.

There are a lot of accusations here, which should be addressed, and I apologize in advance that because of the shotgun approach above I need a bit of length to respond:

I do not have a "bone to pick" regarding sexual assault. It is true that after a decade practicing law, when I see someone say that the false-reporting rate for 'any' crime is 6%, it makes me laugh my coffee out my nose. We're discussing this about sexual assault only because that crime has political implications, and wherever there's politics there are extremist academic claims alongside the mainstream discussion. (To preempt the inevitable misogyny allegations: My view is that rape is probably underreported more than most other crimes, but also probably falsely reported more than most other crimes. One reason is that rape laws are very complex, and people often believe they've been raped when, under the law of the jurisdiction, they have not.) Anyway, when I saw stuff on the page that didn't make sense to me, my response was to go into detail, read the sources, and try to improve the page. I thought my edits and proposals should have been relatively uncontroversial since they were quite moderate -- expanding the discussion of sources, putting things in chronological order. The vehemence and nastiness that followed is part of why I suspect bad faith -- something I did not raise until the nastiness had gone on for an extended period of time and involved multiple personal attacks.

EvergreenFir became involved then. She and R use tag-team editing that page and a number of other pages.

There was no edit war on Dasha Zhukova. I and others revised the page over a period of time after opening discussion on the talk page and soliciting comment. The page has had a not-very-often vandalism issue where periodically someone will drive-by and without comment try to revert the page to the preceding form. A few nights ago an editor (one not otherwise involved here), claiming to be fixing honorifics, brought the page to the preceding form. (I find behavior like that to be curious, but that's a topic for another day.) I reverted the changes and asked the user to open discussion on the talk page and seek consensus if he wanted to change the article. That's when Calton, who had no prior involvement with the page but had made a series of nasty comments on the discussions about the Rosceles issue, showed up to unrevert my revert. That's straightforward disruptive editing, and I left the template along with an explanation of the page's history. I invited Calton, if he cares about the page, to raise the issue on the article talk page. He declined. I also invited him to explain to me why he felt my disruption template was improper, and offered to self-revert if he had a good explanation. He declined again.

Regarding whether I have a "bone to pick" with financial crimes - well, I suppose that is true in a sense, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject of financial frauds. My edits to these pages Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin, were generally adopted, usually after raising the issues for consensus and discussion on the talk pages. Early on I wasn't as good about that, but I've gotten better. I've also made a proposal regarding WP:BLP and convicted felony fraudsters, because I think there are special issues that arise in fact-checking fraudster biography claims. Many of my other edits on these pages involved removing pointless cutesy biographical detail sourced only to the subjects' memoirs.

The actual edits that this is about concern pages where sources have been misrepresented in favor of a study by David Lisak. Lisak, during his now-over career as an academic researcher, published studies claiming, among other things, that 16% of men are confessed rapists, 9% of the men on college campuses are "serial rapists," and 8% are child molesters. The edit to David Lisak that they object to, is that for the lede I want to use Lisak's own description of his occupation from his website of his occupation. Described on this site as a "leading researcher" in his field and expert who helps prosecutors, in fact Liskan has no affiliation with any research institution -- he was rejected by the academy and the courts a decade or so ago. He is now a consultant who gives speeches on sexual assault. A political sector continues to promote his work, and they're large enough for it to not be WP:FRINGE (barely), and that's fine. I don't think it should be marginalized. But neither should Lisak be lionized, nor should the wiki declare that any disagreement with him has been "discredited," as though opposing work, which is the majority of the field, were the intellectual equivalent of holocaust deniers. I think the pages should simply relate the facts, saying what the studies say, what Lisak actually did, and what he actually does. They don't need to take a side.

I understand that B, E and R disagree with me about Lisak's views. This does not make my participation "disruptive" -- it means issues should be resolved through the talk pages, and if necessary the POV dispute and other dispute resolution mechanisms. I have tried to do that. This is the retaliation.

Regarding Brangifer: He claims to be a neutral, said any pages where he and R both edited must be incidental and he doesn't know about it, etc. But, see here: Talk:War_on_Women. The substantive issue with that page concerns one half of a single sentence. Another editor tried to take it out as unsourced and wrong. R objected, and bullied him off. I took a look at the sources and realized he was right. I therefore opened a talk page discussion on the subject. (To preempt the bias accusation, my view is that what Republicans were doing on womens' rights issues, which they never really stopped, are bad enough to speak for themselves, but are exaggerated and distorted in the page.) There is a pattern here: editor find a problem with a page and attempt to help. The response (most vehemently from R, usually with support from B or E or both, sometimes others) is a refusal to discuss substantive issues and torrent of accusations of bias and incompetence, threats, disruption templates, etc. Going through some of these, I realized that in some cases, I agreed with the editors who had been bullied-off (in most cases I did not). I therefore have started to re-raise those issues. An interaction or site ban would, of course, allow them to (falsely) maintain that there's a consensus in favor of their version of the pages, again without having to address the issues that led multiple editors to object. Similarly, an interaction ban, where the other editor has touched a slew of pages on topics in connection with their own agenda, would simply prevent someone they disagree with from joining the discussion, allowing the continued claim of a consensus that doesn't really exist.

If you think I may have been harassive or abusive, I refer you to the comments that Brangifer and Calton have been leaving on my talk page. Nasty, personal, aggressive, pointless --- and neither of them has said a thing about the underlying issues that led to this, which have to do with improper sourcing, POV issues, and a refusal to participate in either the consensus-building or POV dispute resolution process.

Regarding templates, I stand by every template I applied. Regarding templates for "regulars" -- is that a joke? Even if it mattered whether the person was a "regular," the templates were proper. R has received similar warnings and block threats from numerous editors and several admins for what has been a multi-year career of abusive behavior, bullying, improperly using templates herself to bully and harass other users, violating blocks, and so forth. Mine were comparatively mild. Calton, I haven't checked whether he has, but I'd be shocked if he hasn't considering his self-proclaimed role as Batman-of-the-wiki.

Regarding the afd for two pages: I realize now that I made technical errors when I nominated those pages and in response to a vote from R that I'd misinterpreted as another improper reversion attempt. Those were my mistakes, and I take responsibility for them, but they were technical in nature, not bad faith. There was a substantive error in one of the requests, though. Because of that and all of the static, I have not re-nominated either page. I do intend to return to them once the rest of this has calmed down and they can be discussed (unless they are improved in the meantime) without all the strum und drang. Both pages have serious writing and lack-of-source problems for years that no-one's bothered to fix. Why did R get involved in this so quickly? Either because she was tracking what I was doing, or because of tag-teaming with evergreenfir; the pages seem to be linked to her forthcoming PhD dissertation.

Regarding this 'I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor.' from B, I thought we didn't have a hierarchy on wikipedia? We have editors, we have administrators, and we have ArbCom, but that's really it. Editors' work is supposed to be evaluated based on the quality of the work, not the tenure of the editor. Doesn't B's comment really say it all?

Regarding "hounding" and bringing in others, I have gone through many of R's edits after seeing how she dealt with mine and problems on a few other pages. Most of the edits I looked at seem to be perfectly good. Some of them, on women's rights issues in particular, seem to have real issues. R has had run-ins with a number of people on those issues over the years. Each time, there's a core group (e.g., E, R, sometimes B) who seem to track each other and show up quickly so they can declare consensus. WP:CIRCUS. Editors are not just disagreed with, they're driven off with threats, disruption templates, and accusations. If those editors' views were cumulated, 'they' would be the consensus. It's also true that, where R received certain block warnings from administrators, where those warnings involved conduct similar to what I saw here, I reached out to the admins to ask them to get involved.

I think that covers it. If there are additional accusations I may pop back in to respond, and if anyone reading this wants sources or links to examples, please let me know.

Best, Djcheburashka (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read - When you reply to a post with an absurdly long reply containing personal attacks, remember that you might be throwing a returning boomerang. What the subject has proved with this reply is that he is a combative editor. I don't have an opinion on the original merits yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Your comment says a lot about you, too, actually. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I have been watching this editor since they first started editing. I have also been watching subsequent events with some dismay. The only reason I haven't taken administrative action is because I am WP:INVOLVED, having gotten into a content dispute with the editor on two articles from the get-go. I noted early, though, the obvious aggression and distortion of facts. I also believed the editor was on a crusade, although, frankly, I wasn' sure what it was. Others may have a better handle on that based on his more recent substantive edits. In the beginning, he had a problem with an Alabama regulator, Joseph Borg (regulator). Because Borg was mentioned in the Jordan Belfort article, he attacked both articles because he believed too much credit was being given to Borg. As a consequence we had a lovely exchange on the Belfort Talk page here. One of Dj's more choice comments was "I'm taking this out. If I see it inserted here again, I'll give the journalists who cover him a nice complete dossier on the Alabama politician's apparently 5-year-long history of making false claims about the case. Try me." His subsequent behavior has been just if not more intemperate. That said, I wouldn't move directly to a site ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. The diffs above paint a picture of someone who has the rather impressive ability to repeatedly deny the obvious and extensively argue indefensible positions. If this isn't trolling, then it's essentially indistinguishable. Editors should not have to waste time arguing with someone who insists that a sourced article has no citations. The characterization of removing multiple valid votes at AfD as a "technical error" is equally perplexing. I wanted to wait until Djcheburashka had a chance to reply, but apparently, the editor in question still sees nothing wrong with these actions. A topic ban or interaction ban could work, I suppose, but the problematic behavior would probably just continue in other areas. An indef siteban seems a bit over-the-top with no evidence of blatant trolling or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know who all was responsible for Dasha Zhukova, but I removed three four completely unacceptable sections from that article. BLPlease, people. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• It looks to me like one of the sections you removed was also removed by Dj.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually all of them -- I hadn't noticed, but Calton had re-re-reverted it again. The edits by DRmies put it in approximately a similar position to what I and others had done -- actually he took out a bunch of stuff that I had wanted to take out, but I didn't want to go further than we had without more involvement from others. So I'm happy to see the edits. Djcheburashka (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate. You removed one piece recently and did some other editing much earlier. Drmies removed considerably more. Regardless, this does not change my recommendation that you be indefinitely blocked. As someone said somewhere above, not all your edits have been destructive. However, many have, and equally important, your attitude is not suitable for collaborating on this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that Djetc. removed one of the things which were later restored and then removed by me. I went to that article to see what was up with this editor and saw that the blind were leading the blind, at least there. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault", EvergreenFir, you identify with the feminist school of criminology on your user page and that school has very distinct views about false rape accusations in comparision with some other criminologists (Djcheburashka apparently was pushing for another POV). Are you honestly concerned about the user conduct, not ideological differences? It would be bad if it seemed like ideological sniping. To be honest, all the "violations" here are mild except for the two AfDs. Templating regulars or hounding Roscelese to vote keep just like she did on Palestinian stone-throwing are not a reason for indef block. --Pudeo' 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pudeo: he edits on those pages are what brought this user to my attention a few days ago. After the bad faith AfDs, they've moved on to other areas... kinda. I don't mind people with other POVs discussing a page's content. But I think I've shown in the edit diffs that this was much more than that (edit warring, hounding someone related to that page and feminist topics in general, bad faith AfDs, etc.) While I understand your concern, I am perfectly capable of getting along with people that don't share my views (just ask Two kinds of pork). This user is not just someone who disagrees with me. They are disruptive to the point of being WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept your clarification and believe it. Although I still think those offences are rather mild given the editor apparently does not have any previous sanction log. If the editor does not engage anymore in what can be seen as hounding or POINTy behaviour, I think indef block is too harsh. --Pudeo' 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban - the evidence provided is weak. A lot of it is legitimate consensus-seeking discussion in a contentious topic area, which is very difficult, but in which the user has mostly kept civil even when other editors haven't. Indeed, Calton and BullRangifer made inappropriately angry, aggressive posts on Djcheburashka's talk (e.g. [276], [277], [278]) and the user did not respond in kind. Their comments, while much too long, show an understanding of neutrality and verifiability policies we don't normally see from newbies. I share some concern that the user is here to right great wrongs - I accept that the user did not understand how to complete the AfD process but a more serious issue is that they felt those articles should be deleted in the first place. I am similarly concerned that they may be wikilawyering our policies to push an agenda, but they have edited in several disparate topic areas and it's not clear what that agenda would be, and we are required to assume good faith unless there is strong evidence otherwise. For the procedural issues they have apologized, repeatedly. They and the other editors involved should be warned to actually discuss their issues politely rather than disruptively and repeatedly templating each other and calling each other names, and Brangifer should be cluebatted for claiming a privilege of authority based on their edit count. Ivanvector (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban based on the fact that this user only has an edit count within the hundreds, and Wikipedia in itself is a rather convoluted and complicated mess of policies. The afd thing is unambiguous that he removed people's comments, but when you are a new person to the topic area of afd, you're probably unsure of how things worked. I believe that he used WP:IAR approach to justify deleting the comments--as he mentioned, he was trying to evade the keeping of a problem page with overt problems. I can absolutely see why he would have that POV. I also believe that in spite of the OP removing comments, the afds were closed out of practice as 'speedy keep' and assumed bad faith on the OP, when that wasn't warranted. The other 'templating the regulars' and supposedly combative edit summaries; I've seen more established editors talk to me in a much more combative way in open view, with no repercussions at all. I see no swearing, I see no outright anger, I see maybe a misunderstanding of what a 'disruptive' editor is and what a 'SPA' is. But I don't believe the evidence waivered deserves anything but maybe a mandated tutor on exactly which policies and guidelines to follow and whether he has a skewed outlook of them. Blocking somebody indefinitely because they didn't know all the wiki syntax and etiquette is kind of harsh, however maybe a 1 month topic ban (and then a block if it continues into other areas during that time) would be warranted. At this time, however, it doesn't seem so much to warrant an indefinite block--which is the last resort in any sort of conduct issues. This is attempting to shotgun a fly instead of using a fly swatter instead. Tutelary (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN with Roscelese I think there is a call for this but it would be in excess to indef them. They are a new user. Perhaps a warning could suffice and we could point out to them where they can recieve help such as the Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Adopt a user.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• The evidence of hounding provided here is extremely weak. However if Roscelese believes that an interaction ban will improve the situation, I will support it. Ivanvector (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I weigh the weak evidence against DJ with them trying to draw a user that doesn't like roscelese into this dispute. If this isn't canvassing itself it certainly seems to me to violate the spirit of the Canvassing rules. But yes I agree that would be a good idea to see what Roscelese views on this are.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't object to an IBAN if that's all we can get out of this discussion. But my first interaction with this user was a week ago and since then he's stalked me to various places in the encyclopedia, harassed me on my talk page, blanked my discussion comments, and canvassed other users against me. That's not evidence of a problem he has with me, that's a behavioral problem. Do you really think that that won't just happen to the next user who disagrees with him, and the next? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do object to an iban if the effect of it would be to confer ownership over the pages at issue, which I think is what is being sought. I have not "stalked" or "harassed" Roscelese; in fact, I think the record of our talk page diffs shows the opposite. All of this arose when R refused to abide by the consensus or POV dispute process, then (with evergreenfir) commenced an edit war over it, and so on, which are issues R has had in the past. A lot. EvergreenFir participated with her in that initial edit war. WP:INVOLVED I followed dispute resolution and consensus procedures and sought community and admin assistance when I saw the edit war brewing, and tried to freeze things so that the process could proceed. The POV dispute resolution process should have been, and still should be, allowed to play-out without interference, harassment, retaliation, canvassing, tag-teaming, abusive template-adding, bullying, threatening, retaliation, or disruption. That's it! Djcheburashka (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The power not to interfere, harass, retaliate, canvass, tag-team, abusively template, bully, threaten, retaliate (more), or disrupt, was always inside you. We all would have loved if discussions could have proceeded and consensus could have been built without any of this, but it was your own choice to behave poorly that prevented that. I recommend that you recognize what you've done, decide not to do it again, and possibly even apologize. (Although I'll note for the benefit of other readers that Dj evidently considers his own opinion, opposed by 4+ other users, a "consensus.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I tried to discuss these matters with you reasonably on your talk page, on mine, and on the POV dispute page. You reverted, deleted or ignored at least 5 of my attempts before this became an "edit war." Can you point to any diff, anywhere, where you attempted to engage me in any conversation or discussion about this, or responded to anything I said other than to declare whatever matter closed and threaten me?  :: By the way -- if you now agree that there is no consensus regarding the original pages (even if you're miscounting), then we're done here. Because you're then admitting that the POV template should be on the pages in question; that your conduct regarding the "edit war," the POV dispute, the "warning templates" left on my page, and so on, on your part and EvergreenFir's, were all violations; and that the conduct you claim was harassive on my part (i.e., complaining that the repeated reverts and threats were disruptive) was actually proper.

This ban proposal will be over soon, and we will then move forward. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the extreme projection in this comment is useful to note. If any constructive users are interested in talking to me about this issue, I'm reachable, but I don't see a point in continuing to coddle this person when he continues to deny and defend his misbehavior and show every intent to continue it. Hit me up if you need me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED does not apply. Evergreenfir is not acting as an admin here but as an editor, further is evergreenfir an admin? If the record shows the opposite surely you can show how the record shows the opposite. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ::@Serialjoepsycho: Not admin, just reviewer. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You are reviewer of course of wikipedia per WP:RVW, but right now and during this dispute where you have taken part have you acted in your capacity as a reviewer or have you acted in your capacity as an editor?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)  ::: I did not mean "involved" in a technical sense -- I just meant, she's involved in the underlying dispute. This did not, as she claims, "come to her attention" looking at pages. In fact, as I recall she fired several of the first edit-war salvos. Sorry if my use of the link was confusing as to my intent. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't mean involved by the in the wikipedia definition of the word involved that you linked to but you mean the general definition. Well that's great. The fact the they made edits or fired salvos or what ever doesn't disprove that they were looking at pages that they were looking at pages before they stumbled across your disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

She didn't "stumble across it" -- she was one of the people who started the edit war. She went into the background after Roscelese got very aggressive about it. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• OPPOSE for many of the same reasons stated by Tutelary. Experienced editors are supposed to be patient with new editors, but that certainly isn't evident in some of the comments I've been reading. I recommend mentoring. Atsme☯^Consult 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just point this out, Atsme is the user that Djcheburashka attempted to bring into this conflict[279].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to the editors participating in this discussion for the pointless comment made by Serialjoepsycho who has relentlessly been WP:Hounding me for nearly 8 months now. Following are the diffs showing the question asked by Djcheburashka on my Talk page regarding Roscelese's abuse of warning templates. [280] And my response to her question. [281] I suppose it's just coincidence that Serialjoepsycho supports the same POV as Roscelese, who - purely by coincidence, I'm sure - happens to be one of the certifiers in the RFC/U Serialjoepsycho initiated against me after a recent BLPN consensus determined the Islamophobia template on IPT was a BLP violation. It doesn't surprise me that he attempted to distract the focus of this discussion away from his own actions, but then, that's how he operates. At least he's consistent, right? I'm not here to pass judgement on who is right or wrong - I'm just recommending leniency toward the new editor, Djcheburashka, and suggested mentoring. Atsme☯^Consult 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is very logical. Djcheburashka canvasses Atsme and my responding to this fact for a second time here is me hounding atsme. I supposedly support Roscelese 'POV' here and yet Atsme is not actually going to be able to point out which POV of Roscelese I support. Now if you review the above you will see that I support one of multiple POV's that Evergreenfir has brought forth. The IBAN. Atsme is not here to pass judgement, She is here to help a user that has canvassed her to go against a user that she does not like because of among other things this user had opened an RFC/U against her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your hounding and false accusations have been duly noted, Serialjoepyscho. Atsme☯^Consult 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Atsme had left a warning on User:Roscelese's talk page. It seemed to involve some of the same stuff as I'd been concerned about, and it seemed more authoritative than most of the warnings -- I'm really still getting the hang of the way all this hierarchy and dispute resolution stuff works. Apart from the warning I saw, I had no knowledge at all of who Atsme is or any prior relationship or interaction with Roscelese, RFC/U (whatever that is) or anything else. Honestly, I really still don't.

That night, I made a series of requests to Roscelese to discuss and resolve things. I then tried to seek dispute resolution help when it became clear that she would not discuss the matter --- using the POV disputes page, and the page protection request page, etc. My post to Atsme -- which asked him/her if s/he would take a look at things, was part of my attempts to seek dispute resolution through the community process. Is that canvassing? I thought I was seeking community dispute resolution assistance. Pls compare my comment to Atsme with this: [[282]] Djcheburashka (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Djcheburashka, asking questions is not WP:Canvassing, however, the behavior exhibited by your accuser is typical of troll behavior, but more specifically of his very skewed interpretation of policy. Ignore his rhetoric, or he will continue until it consumes you. The post by Robert McClenon at (20:23, 11 November 2014) is excellent advice. Atsme☯^Consult 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right. Asking a question is not canvassing. For example if they asked you what color is the sky that wouldn't be canvassing. Asking a question to someone solicit their involvement in a dispute because that individual may specifically not like the editor in question is canvassing. Robert McClenon offers great advice, If you can notice it you should keep it in mind.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent examples of classic canvassing can be seen in your talk page discussion with Roscelese regarding this dispute, [283], and again in the recent past when you drug her into your obsessive attempts to get me topic banned because I corrected a BLP violation you ignored, [284], [285], and in the not so distant past when you contacted a banned user who supported your POV during a BLPN and a merge-delete discussion for IPT: [286], and again here regarding a pending edit war on another article: [287]. I consult you to stop making false accusations in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to get a new user blocked or banned for making inconsequential newbie mistakes. Your pattern of behavior is one I am quite familiar with as the target of your relentless hounding and recent attempts to get me blocked or topic banned because of your skewed interpretation of policy as you have demonstrated here. Atsme☯^Consult 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole unrelated argument is, I believe, showing exactly why it was wildly inappropriate for Dj to contact Atsme for support. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What that is a classic example of is you simply not knowing what the hell you talking about Atsme. But there are plenty examples of that. Contacting Roscelese to tell her that I wasn't going to ask any more questions to an evasive editor in the RFCU that she was involved in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II to about the discussion on the BLPN that you mentioned them multiple times in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II about an editwar they were involved in at to try to get them to discuss it on the talk page is not canvassing. Contacting Roscelese that a user is is trying to canvass you into their dispute is not canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, "wildly inappropriate" is the fact that Serialjoepsycho drug me into this ANI because he has been trolling my edits and talk page for the past 8 months, and has relentlessly posted disparaging comments about me almost everywhere I go, which equates into WP:Hounding. In the interim, I believe it is wrong to hang a canvasing tag on Djcheburashka because she is innocent, not to mention a new editor. Serialjoe clearly doesn't understand WP:Canvas or WP:Tag team if he doesn't think his call-to-arms-communication to you is acceptable behavior, as are his past canvassing activities which demonstrate WP:DONTGETIT. I suppose he doesn't see his current activities as WP:Hounding, either. Sad. I hope that, at the very least, you understand why the comment he made in his initial post is ludicrous by alleging that Dj was dragging uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese. It is a lie to suggest that I "specifically don't like Roscelese", when in fact (and evidence will prove) that it is the other way around. It is long past due the time to make peace, and stop edit warring. Atsme☯^Consult 18:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese I think your last comment demonstrates pretty clearly that you either haven't been reading what other people say, are assuming that we're lying, or just don't care. I think this entire ban request was bad faith from the start, and at this point the question is how to move forward.

Right now, if there was a vote on the POV discussion, it would be 4:2, which is no consensus anyway; 3 on the "4 side" are strongly affiliated with what some have called "radical feminism," and I will decline to try to name because any name will be deemed offensive by someone; and none of the four have identified any WP:RS in support of their position, or offered anything but a conclusory statement that "the literature" says something (which it plainly does not). Meanwhile, no-one has offered a defense of the current form of the David Lisak page in any respect.

User:CambridgeBayWeather suggested we take this back to the article talk pages. Are you willing to do that and to work with me in a constructive, non-warfare way to try and get the articles to simply note what is noteable, express the key points from the key sources, and not take a view on controversial matters or marginalize legitimate and widely-held views? If so, I am willing to put all the noise behind us and let's get back to work. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The question he had asked me,[288] it speaks for itself. I would consider Djcheburashka to be fairly new as he don't know how en.wiki works. It is better to give him a chance to be good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block While I was initially swayed by the arguments that this is a relatively new user, the continued disruption since this ANI was filed suggests this problem seems unlikely to resolve with time. Dj’s BLP activities are particularly alarming and are basically what convinced me a block seems reasonable here. To illustrate the BLP editing concerns regarding Dj, today Dj has been edit warring to remove the “Career” subheading from the Dasha Zhukova article [289] [290] with talk page explanation: “I removed the career subheading, since she doesn't have a "career." She's a socialite.” Earlier Dj deleted the New York Times reference which described Zhukava‘s career, while doing so he also changed the lead from: :Darya "Dasha" Alexandrovna Zhukova (Russian: Дарья Александровна Жукова; born 8 June 1981) is a Russian philanthropist, businesswoman, fashion designer and magazine editor. She is the editor-in-chief of bi-annual art and fashion magazine GARAGE.[1]

To: :Darya "Dasha" Alexandrovna Zhukova (Russian: Дарья Александровна Жукова; born 8 June 1981) is the girlfriend of billionaire Roman Abramovich.

Ms. Zhukova is affiliated with a number of organizations based on which she has been described as a "philanthropist, entrepreneur, fashion designer" and magazine editor. However, with the exception of a three-month period with one magazine, none of Ms. Zhukova's organizations appear to have any existence independent of her or Mr. Abramovich. :Dj added no reference for his edits criticizing the legitimacy of Zhukova’s career. [291]

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost amused... I've been trying to edit that page for some time, including with participation from other people on this thread. One of those people proposed to delete a bunch of stuff from the page that I have wanted to remove for a while, and I did so. BoboMeowCat then reverted the page without looking at or joining the talk page discussion. I reverted his edit and asked him to join the talk page discussion before editing the article.

One of the changes I had made was to remove the subheading for "Career," collapsing that content into the rest of the article, since after a series of edits there was very little left in the section and "Career" seems to have been a misnomer anyway. Neither the page nor any secondary source says that Zhukova has ever been employed in any profession or job at any time. Well, perhaps her brief three-issue stint as an editor of an arts magazine from which she was removed counts, but if so its a very short section.

BoboMeowCat's principal concern is that he does not want any mention of the incident in which a photograph of Zhukova sitting on a chair made to look like a mostly-naked, highly sexualized black woman, was published on MKL Jr's birthday. This led to something of a controversy, and twitter campaign, and articles in the Guardian and Independent UK, and Time, etc. With more than 8000 google hits it would be notable on its own. See http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/23/apology-for-black-woman-chair-photo/ BoboMeowCat, however, feels that its derogatory. My view is that whether it creates a negative impression of her or not, it happened, and it was notable -- in fact, I believe its the central thing for which Zhukova is known.

I added the "none of the organizations..." sentence after researching them and finding no indication of them anywhere except for on each others' bare websites and the wiki page. I wanted to just delete the references, but did not think deleting the organizations entirely would fly. But, that is what came out of the talk page, and so the sentence Bobo doesn't like has been taken out along with the material that it addressed.

Why is this here? Why is BoboMeowCat suddenly drive-by editing an article that doesn't intersect any subject matter in which s/he expressed any interest whatsoever in the past? Notably, shortly before s/he began to look at the Zhukova page, I took a position opposite BoboMeowCat in a POV dispute he raised, about which he apparently feels very, very, very strongly. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dj, this response in many ways actually illustrates the disruption that I've noticed to be part of your talk page style (here and elsewhere including the NPOV noticeboard discussion you referenced [292]). I notice you seem to repeatedly misrepresent occurrences. I'm not sure if by accident or what could be going on. Anyone interested in the occurrences of the Zhukova article should refer to [293] As is clear from talk:Dasha Zhukova, my principal concern has nothing to do with omitting info from the chair photo incident. I specifically said, "Huff Post is a RS, so this info might be able to be incorporated if we do so neutrally and cautiously". [294] I went on to actually add it. [295]. My principal concern involves your apparent attempts to turn this biography into an attack or smear piece. I was actually alerted to the Zhukova article via this ANI listing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious to me, and I think it will be pretty obvious to you if you look at the Zhukova talk page, that the subject of this BLP is known for more than those chairs. Whether you like her or not, whether you consider her a socialite or not, it cannot be denied that this person is notable, and for more than (and long before) sitting on a chair, and I am surprised that this was maintained for so long, and maybe still is. Saying that Bobo's only interest is keeping the chair out is simply not true: the chair is in. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions whatever against Djcheburashka. Dj has behaved just fine, for a newbie. He/she is arguing, reasonably, and occasionally boldly editing. It's what we do. Please don't hesitate to ping me if you get any more harassment like this, Dj. Carry on. (If a good case is made to support Dj's description of bullying on Talk:War on Women and other pages, I would support strong sanctions against those involved.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban. I would support a topic ban on Dasha Zhukova and an IBan with Roscelese. Seems like a fairly new editor who wasn't trying to cause harm. That said some of the comments as to why he was edit warring stuff on Dasha Zhukova's page and the responses to Roscelese are very inappropriate and should not continue. --Obsidi (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

At a minimum, a topic ban on Dasha Zhukova seems needed because Djcheburashka has made clear he has no intention to stop disruptively editing page. In fact, after myself and Drmies recently reverted his lack of consensus edits, Dj said on talk he'll just wait until we are no longer watching and "fix it" [296]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, though - a topic ban from Zhukova (or from rape, broadly construed) or an IBAN with me might help temporarily, but this is obviously a user behavior issue and we have no reason to suspect that things will be any different with regard to the next topic area or the next user that Dj takes a grudge against. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If he jumps into another topic with similar behavior then we will know at that time that a topic ban would be ineffective, but I am not willing to skip that step to see if it is just a localized problem, and one hopefully he will realize it is inappropriate and not continue the behavior. If all the bad behavior is localized we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't end with a topic ban, and that should be our default unless we have reason to believe otherwise. --Obsidi (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That's wrong. After drmies edited the page he and I began discussing changes. Bobo then jumped in, apparently in retaliation when I objected to his position in an NPOV dispute he'd raised concerning another page. Bobo then, interfered with the consensus, and repeatedly implemented the same against-consensus changes, while every time misrepresenting what he had done. After Bobo abandoned most of what he'd done (following several reverts for me as his changes were against consensus), DrMies shifted -- consensus having moved, I did not revert and have said I will hold-off and deal with the page at a later day.

That this is even here is an abuse of the process Djcheburashka (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Dasha Zhukova based on the diff cited by BoboMeowCat above. I won't support a full site ban or indefinite block at this point, but Djcheburashka, you really should stop edit warring and editing against consensus, no matter how strongly you believe your version is the right one. Nobody owns an article, so try to co-operate with fellow editors, even those who hold opposing points of view.
  I would suggest you step away from controversial articles for a while and help build an encyclopedia elsewhere, even if it means that the Wrong Version of some or other article will remain unchallenged for now. But if you find that unacceptable, keep making policy-based arguments on talk pages, keep attempting to build consensus, leave out the revert-warring and accept you won't get your way every time. Sideways713 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sideways713 -- I don't think I've seen your username before, so you may not be fully aware of what this is. Suffice it to say, I think Bobo is seriously misrepresenting what's taken place, what I've said, what I've done, and his own involvement. If you're genuinely interested in the issue, let me know on my talk page and I will provide you with diffs. Djcheburashka (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit I may not be fully aware of what this is, but both my advice to you and my not-vote above stand regardless of whether or not BoboMeowCat has misrepresented things. The diff cited - the one where you essentially say you will wait until BoboMeowCat and Drmies have turned their backs, and will then resume trying to push through your version - epitomizes the wrong way to resolve a content dispute. You're not supposed to exclude other editors from the editing process, but work together with them - and while consensus can change, BoboMeowCat and Drmies turning the other way and leaving you alone doesn't constitute a change of consensus. One gets the impression you want to push your version through, regardless of what other editors think; that's page ownership and against policy.
It doesn't help that your other recent contributions include page histories like this; unlike some here I feel you can be a constructive editor and contribute positively, but you'll really have to stop edit warring.
I'll be happy to strike my not-vote if you tell me I've misinterpreted the diff, that you understand what the problem would be if my reading were correct, and that "coming back in a few weeks to fix it" really means you will come back to the talk page a few weeks from now, start a new discussion from a fresh angle, invite BoboMeowCat and Drmies to take part in it, and don't intend to make any edits that were previously opposed until the new discussion's gained steam and it's clear that consensus has shifted to support your edits.
Remember that edit warring is always disruptive, even if you're right and the other editor(s) wrong. Avoid it. Sideways713 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sideways713 Actually, I think if you look at the timeline of the diffs and talk page, you'll see something of a different story -- it was me who opened the talk page discussion, and Bobo who ignored it, and repeatedly ignored consensus. Drmies changed his view about a small number of Bobo's proposals after most had been dropped and at that point I said "fine." I don't see any productive discussion on the talk page, and I don't think Bobo is there for any reason other than to retaliate because I didn't give him what he wanted on another page. I think the page right now has WP:RS, WP:V, and other issues. It's been a regular target of apparently WP:COI no-username vandals. Its misusing sources. And it leaves out several of the most important facets of the subject. Rather than continuing a battle which serves no purpose, with someone who seems interested in creating an edit war, I am taking a break from the page. I will return to it later, see what is there, and take appropriate action at that time. Whether that action is commencing a new discussion (which failed before, since Bobo chose to ignore it and impose his changes), or BRD, or what, will depend on the condition of the page at that time. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Restored from archive (edit break)

Another editor asked me to look deeper into this after #my comment above. Dj appears to have edited as an IP for a while, not signing their talk page posts, before creating this account, and continued not signing talk page posts for a bit. Some of this account's early edits were classic WP:OR [297] and other mistakes that no very experienced editor would have made but, then, their earliest edits were also peppered with very familiar language:
[298] Sixth edit (unsigned talk page comment) "Someone's PR campaign is not, of itself, notable..." Uses "notable" while failing to sign.
[299] Seventh edit: Uses "weasel words", "unsourced", "sourced to"
[300] Eighth edit. Uses "reverted" in the edit summary.
I've got house guests and can't really devote the necessary time to it, but I can understand others being leery of this behaviour. Still, the familiarity with our language and norms may have come from a prior dynamic IP career, and the arguing and boldness is fine with me. If we get into the realm of misrepresenting sources or problematical edit warring (I see a little edit warring on all sides - linked above) then I will change my mind, but for now I would just say, Dj, please generally allow yourself to be guided by WP:BRD, particularly regarding edits that throw a living person into a less favourable light. You're editing in very controversial areas and that requires (at least from newbies) an extra dose of politeness. Long term editors have had to deal with the most appalling POV-pushers and defamers over the years, and can sometimes be short on patience. Please try to be understanding and genuinely patient with them - they fill an extremely important and mostly thankless role here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's arguable but reasonable that they are a new user. If they happened to continue appearing at pages that Roscelese has edited this would not be ideal. If they continue to edit war that would not be ideal. This ANI serves as a warning here if nothing else. The Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Adopt a user were both mentioned above. There maybe other places like on wikipedia. If so please do mention them. These were set up to assist new editors with acclimating to wikipedia. @Djcheburashka: I encourage you to use them to your benefit.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved please close this thread already? Djcheburashka edits in controversial areas and it's natural that there's going to be some drama. It serves no purpose other than attracting more drama to have brought this back from the auto-archive (though I know it was done in good faith) as evidenced by the several other editors who have come back here to pile on based on things completely separate from the original complaint, which seems to have resolved itself. There's a lengthy thread on my talk page in which the user asked for help and was willing to adjust to how things work here and have a civil discussion about opposing views, and I see the same occurring on several other talk pages they're involved with. They are causing discussion which is not a bad thing; they are not doing it for the sole purpose of being disruptive and we could use to have more editors around who are willing to have a discussion in tough subject areas rather than being rigid and blunt with "outsiders" and edit warring all the time. This has been open for nearly two full weeks now with nothing actionable - let's move on. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

While it may be reasonable to close this at this point, it's worth noting that only one editor, -Serialjoepsycho-, has furthered the discussion since Anthonyhcole brought this out of archive and his comments seemed related to the original complaint. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yes this is stale and this should be closed. How ever I was the only editor that made a comment after it was pulled from the archive. I didn't pile on anything completely separate. My comments were related to the original discussion. I also offered rather good advice, that they seek assistance from something like the wp:teahouse that is set up to help new users. I'm not sure were they are causing discussion but they don't really seem willing to discuss much. It's not that there is nothing actionable but that this is stale and no one wants to talk about this anymore. [301] This threat to edit war on Dasha Zhukova is an actionable enough reason to topic ban them from there as requested above.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to name anyone or any post specifically as piling on, and the request that Anthony received seems to have come via email so I don't know who was the requester anyway, I'm just pointing out that it's been happening. I think the revert war threat is only actionable if they follow through - from what I see there has been slow progress in the discussion there. I agree with your observation that nobody wants to talk about this here any more. Ivanvector (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User is still reverting Roscelese - [302] and [303] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure request

As OP, I'm requesting an uninvolved admin close this discussion. I am shocked to return after being out of town to find this still open and apparently devolving into suggestions of bans for other users. The discussion is nearly 2 weeks old. It appears to be getting out of hand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:blueSalix seems unable to behave themselves in AfD.

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.

---

Resolved

 – Stop refactoring comments, no action needed at this time.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:BlueSalix , who seems to be on a bit of a tear of late, is attempting to smear me within an AfD conversation[304] [305] [306]. When called on this behavior they deny that it represents any kind of civility problem. Given their recent history [307] I would suggest someone have a bit of a word with them and/or take action. Artw (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think you should use this [308] as evidence?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And could you explain more about how their "Recent History" as you call it is relevent to your complaint?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you do a better job of that yourself. [309] Artw (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The volume of WP:CIVIL filings against me by UFO enthusiasts who have recently descended on Wikipedia to defend the honor of Boyd Bushman seems to have increased to such a cascade that I'm unable to keep up with all of them (such as this one closed by Andrevan among many others in the last day). I, therefore, defer from defending myself on this and the various others that are most certainly to follow. My fate is in the hands of Zog XXVI Galactic Overseer of the Pleiadian Starship Command. May I be smote with a Pleiadian Disruptor Harness if I have erred. BlueSalix (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I am not a "UFO enthusiast". I really don't think attempting to discredit me by painting me as one would be on even if I were. Can we topic ban this guy already? Artw (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What topic would you like me banned from, Artw? BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@BlueSalix: Please see File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement-en.svg and keep it well above the ad hominem line (see also WP:Discussion). You don't need to attack your opponent's behaviour to make your point. Doing so is uncivil. @Artw: If you feel you're being attacked, don't respond in kind. Everyone happy? Ivanvector (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing any misbehavior, looks like a standard AFD discussion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not mean to come across as ad hom, I meant to come across as dismissive. There's only so much time one person can devote to defending himself against a barrage of WP:CIVIL ANI charges loosely connected to the deletion review of the space alien conspiracy theorist Body Bushman (see the two previous CIVIL filings against me since yesterday) and my nomination of that article for AfD. You can appreciate if this apparent block shopping without end in sight by UFO enthusiasts determined to insert fringe theories and to kneecap anyone who stands in their way would be likely to make the subject of said campaign (me) a little testy. BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess this is as close to an apology as we are going to see, though I would point out that BlueSalix is not subject to a "campaign", he brought this entirely upon his head. I will be deleting the thread in question and hoping he does not repeat this behavior. Artw (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is most certainly not an apology and - while you are free to delete your own comments - you absolutely should not feel at liberty to modify or delete any of mine. BlueSalix (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the thread per WP:NOTAFORUM Artw (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to delete another editors input in an AfD, including my analysis of GNG and AUTHOR criteria [310]. BlueSalix (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't have the grounds to delete his comments. WP:TPO would be the guideline I do believe. Your unilateral removal is also simply bad form after you brought that here. Alot of what you removed seem very contextual to the conversation taking place in that AfD.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The conversation is actually a common one at afd's and talkpage. It's common if you have questions about the affiliation to ask because it helps determine conflicts of interest and motivations. That deals more with discussion of the topic not related to the encyclopedia. I've been through a few afd's of even my own article so I understand the frustration but remember it comes down to community consensus this one editor doesn't make the deletion decision. If the nominater doesn't agree forget them and work on convincing the other people. Please also see WP:REFACTOR. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

editor deleting my comments in an AfD

Issue: WP:TO Artw announced he intended to delete my comments in an open AfD. This included a pertinent and important comment regarding AUTHOR and GNG criteria that supported my opinion in the AfD. I proactively requested he not delete or edit my comments.[311] After receiving that notification, he then deleted my comments. [312] Context: This appears to be part of a mad-cap campaign by a group of UFO enthusiasts incensed by the recent deletion of Boyd Bushman (a man who recently made YouTube 'headlines' for announcing a conspiracy by "Pleiadian space aliens" to infiltrate the U.S. government) which I AfD'ed and which has been the subject of intense debate by User:FreeRangeFrog, User:LuckyLouie, User:Serialjoepsycho and others. Artw is the third UFO enthusiast to have filed an ANI against me in the last 12 hours; the previous two ANIs (seen above) were immediately shuttered by User:Ricky81682 and User:Andrevan. While it's usually fun holding the proverbial line in the sand of sanity on WP, this is one of the more extreme tactics I've seen employed by fringe theories editors. My analysis of AUTHOR and GNG was core to my AfD argument. WP will fall apart very, very, very fast once we get the green-light to start deleting each others arguments in Talk discussions. BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalux's claims that I am part of a conspiracy against him are ridiculous, as are his repeated smears against me. I saw deleting the off topic conversation containing those smears as a way of getting back to discussing Wikipedia policy in the AFD after he had issued what amounts to an apology, but apparently not. Artw (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record I know nothing of the Boyd Bushman debate other than BlueSalux showing it off in the AFD debate. Artw (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix, Artw is saying he's not a conspiracy theorist, so let's AGF here. Artw, you cannot delete others' AFD comments. BlueSalix, can you strike the parts where you were commenting on Artw specifically and then can we both chill. Andrevan@ 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

About Arthur Rubin (Admin)

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

---

Firstly, I would like to clarify that this is not a complaint, but a request for attention and help regarding some edits (reverts) by User:Arthur Rubin that in my opinion are questionable.

I came across Arthur today when I was looking at Special:PendingChanges. At the time, it seemed like an IP has restored an edit that Arthur reverted earlier. However, the problem was that I could not understand Arthur's revert, because the removed content was properly referenced and there wasn't any other explanation. The IP who restored the content seemed to be dissatisfied with Arthur, and wrote this in the edit summary: "WP:ADMINACCT WP:DE WP:WEASEL WP:INVOLVED Arb/Requests/Enforce.Archive142 wp:COI = Arthur Rubin Tea party movement Undid revision 635081712 by Arthur Rubin (talk)". Intrigued, I went to check Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142 and found that the IP was referring to Arthur having been blocked for a week last year for some reason.

I then went to look at Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin, where I saw that he has reverted many edits that are constructive in my opinion, mostly using rollback (no summary) and sometimes using "Block evasion" as a reason. (Examples:removing wikilink here, removing reference here, removing wikilink here, and removing sourced content here) However, I cannot understand who is evading the block and why the user was blocked, so I asked him about the reverts on his talk page here. He responded, saying that they were the "same blocked editor" and directed me to User:Arthur Rubin/IP list which according to him listed "some of the IPs matched".

Looking at the list, I still cannot understand. 1)Who was the original blocked user? 2)Why was he/she blocked? 3)Why were many constructive edits from these IPs reverted by Arthur, when Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks says that "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand"?

Furthermore, after searching for his username on Google, I found <youtube attack link removed> claiming that Arthur is an abusive admin. While I have no idea what the circumstances were at the time, it seemed like the maker of the video was dissatisfied enough to put in effort to make that video.(I did not intend to attack anyone)

I would like to ask for help with understanding the situation and perhaps a proper explanation as to why these IPs were blocked and why their mostly constructive edits were reverted.

Thank you, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 09:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a ridiculous conspiracy theory about Arthur Rubin, the Koch brothers and the Libertarian Party. Give it a rest already! JRSpriggs (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The maker of that video was blocked on Wikipedia before he made the video, and not by me. I think he was banned because of the video. There was talk at the Foundation of instituting a global ban, but, as far as I know, it didn't happen.

Someone needs to put together the history of the "Michigan Kid", but that someone is not me. He used to be based in the Kalamazoo public library, but that IP was blocked for 5 years because of a different abusive editor using the IP. This one wikilinks publication titles (arguably useful, but there is no consensus that it is ever a good idea), wikilinks random words (frequently violating WP:OVERLINK, WP:EGG, and the guideline about linking within quotations, which I can't find at the moment), adds global warming wherever climate change is mentioned (and vice versa), links and unlinks names according to whether a Wikipedia article exists (rather than whether a Wikipedia article should exist, per WP:REDLINK), adds inappropriate tags (often {{what}}, {{outdated}}, {{who}}), adds {{expand language}} tags without checking whether there is anything at the other article, adds {{ill}} tags whenever a redlink occurs and a plausible article in another language wiki can be found, adds raw links on talk pages without describing what might be useful from them (no longer in articles, for the most part, or in section headers, but still without context), adds text with references which are either not in the reference or not relevant to the article, accuses me of violating an Arbcom sanction which have been relaxed and usually on articles not related to the Tea Party movement, accuses the other editors who remove his edits of being a WP:TAGTEAM, and a few things I've forgotten. See User:Arthur Rubin#Global warming / climate change (from early 2011) and User:Arthur Rubin/IP list (from early 2012, maintained through most of 2012, but only sporadically thereafter), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Michigan kid (revisited) is the earliest noticeboard post I can easily find, although Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User: 97.87.29.188 and 99.119.128.88 and 99.181.138.168 and 99.181.139.210 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Page Protected) is a fairly early post. Perhaps NewsAndEventsGuy has kept a better log of the commentary, including block history and discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tony
A. If you don't use a modicum of patience during WP:Dispute resolution or in discussions at personal talk pages (see WP:TPG) other editors might question whether you're following WP:AGF. Specifically, I'm troubled by the chronology of your actions regarding Athur (AR) as seen here

• AR's talk 07:46, 24 November 2014 opened thread at AR's page
• AR's talk 08:10, 24 November 2014 asked a followup question at AR's page
• ANI board 09:36, 24 November 2014 Complained about AR at ANI in this filing (saying it is not a complaint) but without waiting for AR's answers to the reasonable 8:10am questions at AR's talk page.

I mean, give the other party a chance to inhale so they can reply, eh? If you assume AR had a good faith reason for his actions, why not wait for him to answer your questions posted at 8:10 before stirring up drama here at 9:36 (and without the benefit of his reply)?

B. You should be challenging myself and some others too, because we also revert the IP on sight. In my case, my personal politics are far from that of AR. This is an issue of combatting disruption and protecting community trust, not one of advancing a POV.
C. To your credit, when any ed runs across any entrenched problem for the first time it can be confusing.
D. That said, I'm weary of retyping the story for the benefit of every issue-newbie, so instead see User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive41#The_Michigan_Kid and subsections.
E. To anyone who wants to really understand this, be sure to follow the various links above, and the links in the archived thread I just posted.
F. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:97.87.29.188 and that ip's block log for some history and insight into the problem back in 2011. I have also blocked various related ips used for block evasion and undone the ip edits - does User:Tony Tan 98 intend to conduct a google search on my username and report any dirt here? Methinks wp:Boomerang may apply - or at least a good trouting. Vsmith (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As I composed my reply, I too mentioned BOOMERANG, but then edited it out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a bit more here at my away account before I cleared the page and redirect to my regular account talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anna.... I just get your version history.... I think you might have meant the top thread in this version NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, I meant to give the history link to show how it went. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Come on, guys, Tony made a pretty well-formed good faith request for clarification here. Can we please not resort to knee-jerk slapping every editor who posts here? This has a reputation as a drama board for a reason. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Tony's own evidence demonstrated very little good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's hard to see how linking to a YouTube rant against AR is necessary to a "well-formed good faith request for clarification." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blanked the attack link from Tony's post above, we don't need that here. Vsmith (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is there was no obvious malice from Tony's post, so maybe we don't need to harpoon everyone who posts here. Yeah he probably shouldn't have posted the Youtube link but it's not like he came here saying "look at this video!!!!!!! It proves Arthur Rubin is awful!!!!!! He needs to be banned!!!!!!11" and so maybe we can relax the bloodlust on this one. Arthur's right that someone should make up a "Michigan kid" LTA (I thought there was one? can't find it) but his IP list isn't all that informative to the uninitiated. Ivanvector (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

1 At a minimum, the timing of posting here (see my first comment) is evidence of poor judgment/discipline/patience and understanding of WP:DR and WP:TPG.

2 Until now, I did not know about or paid no attention to the WP:LTA project. There's much to be said for the advice in the nutshell bubble ("In the vast majority of cases, Deny Recognition and Revert block ignore are more suitable approaches."). On the other hand, at this point its hard to imagine how doing an LTA would create a bigger problem by giving recognition, and even if the process did create a spike in disruption, likely that effect would wear off but the LTA would continue to benefit the project the next time it needs to be referenced. Are there reasons to not do that?

3 (later) FOLLOWUP AR mentioned the idea in 2012 at that LTA talk, but got no reply

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The LTA I thought I saw was actually Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Music vandal from Greater Detroit, who may be the different IP blocked user who AR referred to above. Anyway it wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to turn AR's IP list into a proper LTA report. Arthur Rubin, would it be ok by you if we use that page and your summary above to draft an LTA case? (I've never done one, FTR) Ivanvector (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a different editor. If you wanna do LTA it's OK by me, but my opinion has no weight because I know nothing about the pros/cons of LTA. For more back story see User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I gave the impression of not following WP:AGF and other policies. To be honest, I never meant for this to be an attack on anyone in any way. However, I was confused because I saw edits by AR (such as 1, 2, 3, and 4) that I could not understand. When is it a WP:OVERLINK, and when is it just a useful link? What's wrong with an editor contributing in only one way? (Adding info about climate change, global warming, and adding links?) I did read up on the links mentioned above, and I want to ask, are these edits being reverted simply because they are suspected to be from a banned editor? At User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive41#The_Michigan_Kid, I see that AR himself has said that "I wasn't the one who initially blocked the IP, and the Kalamazoo Library IP was initially blocked because of clear vandalism by a person who is clearly not the person we are talking about." Since the same IP range is actually used by different editors, does the ban apply to him? Moreover, I have not found a straightforward answer to the questions raised by the IP at User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive41#RE:_User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak.23The_Michigan_Kid, and that is further confusing me. The question I have is: Why are constructive edits being reverted? Granted, I don't really know what happened it the past very well, but right now I see many edits being reverted without an actual reason beyond "Block Evasion", when the block wasn't even initially placed on the same person. Before I sign my post, I would like to reiterate that I do not mean to attack anyone, but this situation is really confusing. --Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 00:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude, it's the same person. I've been tracking it for almost 3 years. If you can vouch for the constructiveness of any given edit then adopt it as your own. Besides User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP which I already pointed out, see User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy/Archive_2#Michigan_global_warming_external_link_spamming_IP which I overlooked until now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I still don't understand. 1)"Block evasion": Where is the original block? Why was the block placed? If it's the same person, why did AR say it's a different one in the talk page archive I linked to above? 2)What's wrong with adding references that are external links to reputable sources, such as the New York Times? Even if that is all he does, is that harmful? 3) I can vouch for constructiveness for many of the edits, but I can't possibly track all the reverts. What I am worried about is why the reverts were there in the first place. I have given examples of a few such edits above, where I adopted a few edits as my own and there wasn't any more reversions afterwards, but why were constructive edits reverted without explanation simply because it came from a certain IP range? Was an automated script used to do that? Again, these are simply questions that I have, not an attack. Thanks, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 02:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

After several good editors have supported what Arthur Rubin is doing in the above, you want someone to spend another half an hour providing a further justification. The answer is WP:DENY. Making a fuss about a troll is guaranteed to provide the stimulation they need to continue degrading the encyclopedia for another year. The best trolls make lots of edits, some of which can be argued to be helpful. Nevertheless, the only way to deal with them is WP:RBI. There is no set of rules which specifies the ideal response to every situation—it takes experience, and there is plenty of experience in the thread above to support Arthur Rubin's work. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

e/c<

request close The OP has explicitly stated there is no action requested, and has not demonstrated knowledge of the substantive content in links I've already provided in reply to his questions. If that content were cited when asking a question I'd probably take the OP more seriously. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I apologize for the trouble caused by this thread. I certainly hope that no one is seriously offended. After all the replies above, I think I see what has happened. Yesterday when I saw all the reverts of constructive edits I became confused. I was probably misled by all the posts that the IP has made, both on wiki and off wiki. I am not going to make more "fuss" about this, but I think it is best if somehow the explanation for these reverts could be posted somewhere so that no more users become confused like I did. Thanks everyone for all the explanations and help above, although I did not enjoy being heavily criticized for asking questions here. I did not target Arthur Rubin; I simply saw his actions first. I have never interacted with him before, so I don't see why there would a motivation for me to target him. Of course, I could have been more careful posting the link to YouTube that I found, but I did not intend any harm and I do not think that WP:BOOMERANG applies here, because I am not at fault myself for this problem. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I have no problem with the archiving of this discussion, but I do not think you read my posts. I have read your links and even referenced them in my posts. Hence your "If that content were cited when asking a question I'd probably take the OP more seriously." is not a valid statement. Thanks, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 03:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

disruptive editing again/ Robert pedley

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 is the second time this person has disrupted my editing, the first time he insulted me[313] and had to apologize here at ANI. Today the individual in question has removed two more [314] btw this article indicates for US and west Africa and here [315] I am asking for a warning on this individual...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is disruptive here? What kind of Warning are you expecting? Do you expect us to tell them not to revert you?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

no however, he has not given good reason the first time, which is incident 72 on the first link and insulted me. And today he reverted without a true explanation since what I cited is for west Africa, he indicated it was for US.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

the warning would be along the lines of using logic when reverting with references, on a prior occasion it was demonstrated he did not use logic when he had to offend me, today he did not offend but has not shown a logical base for his reversions.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. ANI doesn't handle content disputes. You need to either go talk to them or open some form of dispute resolution. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Harassment report

Hi Wikipedians

I blocked a couple of IPs last week following this report to AIV. From what I can remember, the user making the report felt as if the registered editor and the IPs were harassing them.

I blocked the registered editors and the IPs at the time and I emailed Krimuk90 and told them if the editor started harassing them through email during the block then to raise a report to ANI for assistance. I have just checked my email for today and found that the user has emailed me instead saying that the IP address 117.197.144.152 has requested a reset of their Wikipedia password.

Krimuk90 is now asking if there's anything else we can do. I've checked WHOIS and that confirms that the IPs previously blocked would appear to be connected to 117.197.144.152. I'm going to suggest to Krimuk90 that they change their email and Wikipedia passwords just to be on the safe side, I'm also going to suggest that Krimuk90 considers changing the email address that they have connected to Wikipedia.

However, is there anything else anyone can suggest? Or any further action Wikipedia can take? --5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Albert for raising this ANI. The harassment has been ongoing even after the block, with this edit on my user page, after which the page was semi-protected. The user is also engaging in other disruptive edits on my talk page, such as this. With this user trying to access my account, I'm a little freaked out. I have already changed my password, but what I want to know if there is a permanent solution to this? Thanks. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Krimuk would you like your user and talk pages semi protected in the meantime?--5 albert square (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My user page has already been protected. Protecting my talk page would be a good idea too. Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done indefinitely protected, that should resolve it at least temporarily. In regards to the message you left on your talk page, that's ok. Just drop a line to WP:RFPP whenever you want your user pages unlocked :)--5 albert square (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

War in Donbass

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

---

Can I have some admin eyes on the page there appears to be some edit warring going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't. There isn't any edit-warring, only defence of the encyclopaedia's principles. Carry on, good fellows. RGloucester — ☎ 05:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who is right here all I have seen are reverts left and right going on, consensus can take time to achieve. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a saying about running to AN/I at every whim, Sir Knowledge of Kid. I fear that you may be taking an untenable position. It is sad, for you. RGloucester — ☎ 05:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, are you involved in this? No? Then quit being an obnoxious pest, running to AN/I to tattle-tale about some bullshit edit war that isn't actually happening. In the time it took you to write this up, we've actually managed to solve at least half the problem. Add to that the fact that you've had disagreements with some people here and one may, just may conclude, is that you're opportunistically block shopping in bad faith. Go away. Volunteer Marek  05:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow bad faith much? Any reason why you feel the need to cuss and swear just to get your point across? For the record no I am not asking anyone to be blocked I came here looking for a dispute resolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

AN/I isn't for content dispute resolution, which a regular like you should know by now. Regardless, a five minute dispute certainly doesn't warrant such utter tosh as this. RGloucester — ☎ 05:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific? It's not immediately obvious edit warring in the revision history.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Effy770

Effy770 (talk · contribs) is obviously an adherent of Chabad and specifically of the messianic division of that organization. So am I, truth be told. He edits only articles related closely to the Chabad movement. On Chabad messianism he did a major rewrite of the article, providing much information of a general nature. I reverted his edits and explained to him on the talkpage why I did so. He undid. This has been repeating itself for a few days now (without 3RR violations). Please somebody explain to this new editor 1. that he should take advice from more experienced editors 2. that he should not simply undo reverts because he thinks he is right, per WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate to bite the newcomers, but on the other hand I am really fed up with all these aggressive, reverting editors. This case is especially serious, since we are obviously dealing with somebody who is not familiar with the Wikipedia pillar of consensus, and has apparently not yet learned how to balance his own fanatic, religious points of view with an active position in modern society. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk page notice moved to main space 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.

---

An editor who has been harassing me and making what I believe to be personal attacks moved a warning to Talk:Pep Guardiola‎‎. I attempted to respond but the editor is being unreasonable and when I removed it, the editor restored it. Please intervene. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz Clear something up for me here. It seems like you are saying he copied something that you've said from his talk page to this articles talk page. Is that correct? Are you suggesting that some of the comments like those under the topic 'November 2014' that have your signature were not actually posted by you there?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Walter Görlitz posted a notice on my talk page. As he has done several times when I have left him messages about Pep Guardiola on his Talk Page, I moved the notice to Talk:Pep Guardiola because it bears on the nature of our disagreement about what should and should not be included in infoboxes. I'm not in the habit of having this sorts of discussion, so honestly I was following his lead, and because it documents matters related to our disagreement regarding the article. Ironically, the nature of our disagreement is, at least at the moment, that I believe User:Walter Görlitz has provided no thoughtful or serious response *individualized to this article,* despite my repeated requests that he do so, regarding deletions he has made. As I have indicated, his appeals to "consistency" and "precedence," if taken seriously, mean that no improvements can ever be made to any article. It may very well be the case that if User:Walter Görlitz were to explain the deletion of relevant and accurate data from infoboxes with reference to these notions (leaving aside whether there is in fact the consistency and precedence he alleges), we could at least have a discussion on the merits. We don't seem to be able to do that. I reached out to an admin who thanked me (I really don't know how that works) because I had reproached Walter for his penchant for the imperative mood when speaking to me, which feels like bullying, with a note on his Talk Page (promptly erased). It hasn't stopped him from doing so. I wrote on the admin's user page User talk:Killiondude about the nature of our disagreement. Because I suggested that Walter had a proprietary feeling for these infoboxes, Walter labelled me "vile." That seemed a bit strong, but I have pressed on with the notion that his deletions merit a discussion of the very article in question, the geographic needs of its infobox, and not other articles, and not the putative consistency which he says exists (but which ... really doesn't). We can't get to that discussion, because he wants to discuss everything else, including, for example, having this discussion here. He says this is gossip because he wasn't present, which doesn't make any sense to me. None of us were present, but Walter was of course notified about what I said, and responded, albeit not on the matters of consequence to the article, only with a warning I never speak about him again. I honestly wish Walter would put his considerable talents to use in having a meaningful discussion about Pep Guardiola, and about whether second-order geographic units should be included in that very article, without being labelled a Catalan nationalist (a nonsensical idea for a park ranger from Alaska with no Iberian background of any sort) or a malicious gossiper or a vile person. But he's apparently decided to do this instead. That's a shame.

I will say that all of us makes me think that Walter simply wants to strong-arm me in giving way to his deletions without any effort on his part in defending them with respect to this article, and with the specific geographic context of this article in mind, without relying on the easily belied idea that these matters have been taken care of already through rules mechanically applied. That doesn't seem fair to me, even if Walter has a reason with regard to this article that is sufficient for him to prevail. He should have to articulate something besides "because I say so" wrapped in very dense Wikipedian language. RangerRichard (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. RangerRichard Did you copy and paste his comments to another location? Did you do so in a way that makes it seem as if he was the one that posted it there? That what seems like what has happened.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No. I labeled the notice from Walter that he posted on my User Page, which I then placed on the Talk Page for Talk:Pep Guardiola under the subject heading "Recent Notice on my User Page." RangerRichard (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I should mention that the subject heading was initially right above the warning (as labelled "November 2014"), more or less as it appeared as well on User talk:Killiondude but as it was successively deleted, I added additional language indicating the materials below had been deleted. Twice. So there's greater distance between the "Recent Notice on My User Page" and the notice, which all the same still bears his signature. The only materials between the two items are my repeated counsel that he permit these discussions, which go far beyond his notice, to remain on the page to which they are extraordinary relevant (well, okay, relevant-- I don't know about extraordinary-- at the very least they document our disagreements).RangerRichard (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that my response to the notice as appears on Talk:Pep Guardiola also appeared on Walter's User Talk page initially, but he erased it from there. I thought it was important that there be a place where the noticed resided, and where my response resided, together, as these two items together are obviously relevant to our discussions on the article. So. That.RangerRichard (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

From 'Recent Notice on my User Page' to 'November 2014' all seems to be off topic. What I propose is that it be hatted. @RangerRichard: and @Walter Görlitz:, I also propose that you two discuss nothing more than content on Pep Guardiola. You do not discuss each other at all. I think this will end the issues between each of you> Do you have an issue with that material being hatted RangerRichard?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what hatted means, perhaps you could explain (really this is all very odd to me) but I am very eager to receive a substantive response supporting deletions here. That's my only issue, and the Talk Page is an endless recitation of that idea-- it's just me saying it over and over again.RangerRichard (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I removed (diff) the dubious material from Talk:Pep Guardiola. Disputes happen on hundreds of articles every day. Perhaps someone is right and other people are wrong, but nevertheless it is not satisfactory to use an article talk page in that manner. See WP:DR for the approved methods of handling disputes—those procedures do not include commentary about other users on an article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be picky-- okay, I guess I do-- but that deletion is somewhat longer than the "hatting" of "Recent Notice on my User Page" to "November 2014." so I'm a bit confused. That seem acceptable to the extent we were removing the notice to me (hey, I'm all for that) and my responses to its deletion.RangerRichard (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that's really the appropriate action. Read up on dispute resolution at WP:DR. Both of you discuss the content and not each other. ANI is for conduct issues not content disputes. The material removed was removed on the basis of conduct.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of repetition, but hey, I think we're passed that risk, our problem, from my perspective, is a process problem. Walter simply does not wish to engage substantively on merits for the deletions he's made with regard to this article in particular. He may be right, but simply feels that "consistency" and "precedence" obviate the need to for considering the article's geographic needs as far as its infobox goes in any serious way. Thus the continuation of our standoff. I've never been in a situation such as this, which is why I have asked others for help. I honestly don't know what to do when someone essentially says, I'm right, and I'm not talking to you on the merits of my deletions, and I'll divert your energy and time elsewhere so you'll eventually go away. That's where we are-- from my perspective. As I've noted before, I have never been in such a situation before. That is not a situation where I disagree, which is fine, but where the disagreement is never honestly and seriously discussed.RangerRichard (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I included the diff to make it clear exactly what I removed. Everything deleted was a comment about another user and should not be on an article talk page. Is this dispute about which of the following should be in the infobox at Pep Guardiola?

• Place of birth Santpedor, Spain
• Place of birth Santpedor, Catalonia, Spain

We shouldn't discuss content here, but the "Catalonia" does seem unusual—is it anything to do with Catalan independence? Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be about Catalonia independence but you do seem to have the gist about the infobox. But it does seem this can be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

‎WikiEditor2016

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.

---

Single purpose account ‎WikiEditor2016, whom I suspect of being a sock or meatpuppet of Chasbo123 continues to revert changes to The Fairly OddParents (season 9), Phineas and Ferb (season 4) in spite of an open RFC. Edits are being made in bad-faith, with a specific agenda in mind. User keeps removing notifications from their talk page and aren't interested in participating in the discussion, only reverting per their POV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking thru the history on The Fairly OddParents (season 9) history I can't see a solitary revert or edit by them. Nor can I see an RFC on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User may have meant Phineas and Ferb (season 4) which they have edited and does have an RFC. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, my sloppy mistake. Phineas and Ferb (season 4), yes. Fixed above. The problem began when the user showed up and started making changes like this one with the erroneous edit summary "Consensus to pair". There was no such consensus since the talk page discussion kept going in circles and I had to set up an RfC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

They have violated 3RR on Phineas and Ferb (season 4). Maybe an admin can give a temp block and perhaps the SPI will have concluded before they get back. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: BTW, there is no issue with them removing your warnings from their page, WP:REMOVED, they can do that. Removal also tends to show that they have in fact read those.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Of this I am aware. I mention it more to illustrate their lack of interest in discussion in favor of their POV. Oh and here's a link to the SPI report for ease of viewing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering if that is what you may have meant. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR evidence [316][317][318][319]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 with this edit: [320]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Sigmund Freud

Would an admin please take a look at recent editing at Sigmund Freud and its talkpage? I've been tempted to wield my tools, but since I set up the RfC, I'd prefer to get more eyes on it. Bishonen | talk 13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

I've closed the RfC, with an implicit warning that further edit-warring against consensus will be met with sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Fut. It's frankly a mystery to me how it dragged out so long. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

More eyes on User:EoRdE6

If any administrator can spare the time, I'd very much appreciate it if they could keep an eye on this blocked user. I blocked them, and there are now a ton of IPs popping up fast and furious disruptively editing this page and other pages. See, e.g., 2600:1004:B043:6CB3:0:11:208F:E501 (talk · contribs · count). I have increased the duration of the user's block twice for block evasion and threatened him with an indefinite block. However, I should have gone to bed about 30 minutes ago, and I can't keep doing this.

Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone watched, but after trying to sleep for a few hours and failing, I'm back up, a bit tired and frustrated but here, at least for a while. As far as I can tell, the block evasions finally ceased, at least for the moment. The user protested the duration increases imposed by me on his talk page, and I've addressed his points on the same page. He also says that he's "emailed an admin friend of mine who will look into it when he wakes up." That should be fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I received an email from EoRdE6 this morning. I granted him rollback rights a few days ago. I don't think I've had any interaction with him beyond that. I have attempted to clarify why he was originally blocked and the rationale behind the subsequent blocks. In his email, he claims the IPs were not him. I've reviewed the edits, and it seems quite obvious that it's block evasion, or someone he knows personally trying to aid him in getting unblocked. I've strongly encouraged him to refrain from editing outside his talk page. Blocking these IPs was certainly the right thing to do, but I'm not sure however about the increase of EoRdE6's block to the chosen duration. 31 days seems excessive. I think the one week was enough, but that's just my opinion. I trust Bbb23, I just wanted to offer my two cents. To be clear, I will not myself be responding to EoRdE6's still active unblock request. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I suspected it was you because I saw the rollback grant. The disruption by the multiple IPs was significant. Thus, in my view, it went beyond simple block evasion. Also, the initial block evasion was obviously the same person as everything at ANI was expressed in the first person. Perhaps it's because I'm a jaded SPI clerk, but I simply didn't believe that the other socks (all in the same range) were not him but "friends" of his. And as I stated, even if it were meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry, both are sanctionable. Thanks for expressing your view. His initial block request was declined. He's on his second. As usual, he has a persistent habit of distorting policy. I've never seen such wikilawyering so badly done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather see more addressing the behavior that lead to the block than debate over a discretionary length. I've closed the unblock request as such; it may be helpful to encourage him reflect on how he will change this approach than to spend more time subjectively pouring over discretionary guidelines looking for a "loophole". Kuru (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I find his distortions of policy to be troubling. When he was edit warring, he was specifying clearly unreliable sources to a BLP article he'd created. During the war, one of his edit summaries said, "just because a source isnt reliable doesn't mean it must be removed. please point me to a ruoe that says that" ([321]). I find that to be astounding in multiple ways.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Non administrator comment: For what it is worth, I can see a very valid argument that this editor is WP:NOTHERE. See this diff from an AfD: [322]. A user that can make that kind of inane comment (both the on topic and the off topic ones, actually) showing obvious lack of WP:CLUE regarding how Wikipedia works and then turn around a day or two later and rush in to AfC and sign up for that (since reverted thankfully) needs to have required mentoring prior to his return. How do you do that with any kind of limited block? Also, someone should check on the damage he may have done at AfC. He did promote several articles, but most are out of my areas of knowledge. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

His rollback right should be rescinded. Troublesome editors should not be given any tools which can ease their abuse of the project, and they should lose them when they start making trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

By all means rollback rights should be rescinded. Editor has some serious competency issues, not to mention his trying to game the system. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have revoked the permission. While there was not blatant misuse of rollback, I don't really approve of what he's done with STiki, and given these other circumstances at this point I have my doubts he can be trusted with the tool moving forward. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I considered the same action based on trust issues, you beat me to it. Chillum 19:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely bizarre behavior on US House Election Pages, 1789-1800

The US House Election pages from 1789-1800 seem to be a huge source of contention in recent weeks. User:GoldRingChip, who happens to be a administrator, has been wiping infoboxes from all of these pages, taking out the pictures of Speaker of the House candidates from all of these pages (and only these pages). When asked why he was going through with such a bold action without discussing it on the talk page, he said that he believed that the info box members referred to "House minority leaders", and he stated that this position was not created until the 1890s. I then stated that the pictures in the infobox referred to Speaker of the House. For confirmation, I asked him to refer to the 2012 and 2014 election pages, which did not include portraits of Eric Cantor, Republican House Leader, but John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House. He then proceeded to bizarrely accuse me of "name calling", which a single glance at his talk page would disprove. I have never called him anything offensive. He proceeded to change the argument, going back to talking about minority leaders, while I already pointed out minority leaders had nothing to do with the portraits. I am getting seriously exasperated of dealing with this individual, and I fear that an edit war is coming to a large number of pages. I have no idea why he doesn't just look at to 2012 and 2014 pages, which again do not state anything about "minority leaders". It is truly shameful for a moderator to act like this, on any page. The accusations of "name calling" are ridiculous. Themane2 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the infobox images are suppose to be those of the person who was elected Speaker & the challenger who wasn't. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the edits were made as an Admin, so I don't know why that's an issue here. I made edits just like any user should (see WP:BB). I noted the reasons. Another user disagreed with my edits. So far, that's fine. But then that user started asking for apologies and taking it all personally. That I couldn't explain. As you see from the very title of this section, "Absolutely bizarre behavior," another editor cannot understand conflicting opinions without them being an explosive issue. Perhaps the infoboxes should be changed to reflect "the person who was elected Speaker & the challenger who wasn't," and that's fine. We can discuss that on the talk pages and reach a consensus. But this over-the-top action by an editor is inappropriate. —GoldRingChip 16:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits made by you at any time are done as an admin, since you are an administrator. This is regardless of whether they were actual use of administrator tools. It looks like you've been an administrator since 2005. Do you feel that your knowledge of policies, guidelines and editing norms is current enough? This exchange is a bit odd and certainly disruptive, and perhaps seeking a third opinion or starting a request for comment would have been better than blanking a large batch of infoboxes in an apparently controversial manner. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't know the casual edits of an admin would be treated at a higher standard. That's was my mistake. There was nothing to indicate at the time that the edits would be controversial. I make edits all the time which are taken for what they are: edits. If/when an editor disagrees, then we hash it out the usual Wikipedia way. Instead, the other editor started accusing me and demanding apologies. I didn't blank infoboxes, by the way, I just removed a small portion of data from them because they were unsupported and appeared factually incorrect. Indeed, I assert that there should be no data in those fields, as supported by my claims in the Edit summaries. (see, e.g., here. Unlike the other editor, I am providing a sample diff for this discussion, as suggested by this noticeboard.) If, in fact, I was incorrect, I welcome citations to support the claim and on we go. That's the system working the way it should. Please take the other editor's tone for what it is: a personal affront that there was an edit. I take no insult from other people's edits, because Wikipedia is about teamwork. —GoldRingChip 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, administrators *are* held to a higher standard. That's how they became administrators in the first place, by determination that they were deserving of greater responsibility than the average editor during their RfA. It would also be nice to see some diffs from Themane2 to support their accusations, though. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is an admin not allowed to edit? Can't I make regular uncontroversial ordinary edits? The other editor has made a harsh accusation and I'm being judged just because I'm an admin. —GoldRingChip 17:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have 3 accusations against you: 1. You played the "name-calling" card when I never called you anything offensive, which can be verified through a simple viewing of your talk page. 2. You continued to ignore me when I pointed out that the Speaker of the House was always put in for the portraits. 3. You then refused to at the very least go to the 2012 or 2014 election page, which have been edited by scores of authors and are, at the very least, decent indicators of consensus. Basically, my problem is you came in to change a widely held consensus, without so much as a discussion, and then proceeded to ignore me when I asked some questions. The diffs are pretty much any edit summary from any of these pages, as well as his talk page. It's all in the public record and it's frankly embarrassing for any editor, administrator or not, to act this way. Themane2 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Some diffs of note. I try to get through to him... He continues to ignore me... Themane2 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Anon hogging Iranian military articles, possible disruptive editing

There's an IP user undoing the revisions I've tried to make on these articles on Iranian servicemen Yadollah Javadpour and Jalil Zandi. My edits were aimed at making the wording in them less praise-giving, except apparently that means to this guy that I'm trying to make the Iraqis sound good. On the same matter he also claimed that they're supposed to be biased. I don't think it's going to get anywhere, trying to reason with that sort of thinking. CFFan116 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux removing confirmed status from accounts which have 'never edited'

Xaosflux (talk · contribs) seems to have taken it upon themselves to remove the confirmed status from various accounts, with the reasoning of 'account never used' or similar. The ones who are autoconfirmed I can understand, but why strip the status just because an account has 'never been used'?

I see no policy or precedent for these actions and believe they need to explain themselves publicly. 198.23.71.77 (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I can see Xaosflux's point. Why would an editor need editing rights if they never edited? Sounds counterintuitive to me. Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been problems with sleeper accounts of late. Not sure what his motive is beyond the account not being used but I am sure there is more to it. Chillum 19:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

198.23.71.77, given your familiarity of our policy and precedence do you perhaps have an account here? Chillum 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That is materially irrelevant and you know it. 198.23.71.77 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And that is called a "non-denial denial", a term which you may or may not know. More to the point: Why are you so interested in this? Is he zapping some of your own sleeper socks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mostly I clean up redundant autoconfirmed/confirmed and old tests that were left behind. Any admin is welcome to revert any of these changes immediately without consultation for the good of the project. Yes, some is BEANSy prevention. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What harm are these rights doing? Why do you feel it is your right and responsibility to go around removing them? 198.23.71.77 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Considering that users aren't supposed to be given the confirmed right without demonstrating a need for it, and if the user does end up needing it they can just request the permission again, what harm is there in removing these rights? demize (t · c) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, if any actual account holder has been hampered, I offer apologies, please leave me a talk message from your account and this can be resolved. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Good work. Keep it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

LI do the same boring thankless job every few months on sites where I am an Admin. Why should unused accts be autoconfirmed? Good work User:Xaosflux Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

disruptive editing on Spanish conquest of Chiapas

New user Thymepeekk is repeatedly adding unreferenced templates to this fully referenced article, and moving the page to Spanish arrival to Chiapas, misleading as well as grammatically dubious. The user has not responded to attempts at communication on their talk page and shows no signs of wishing to discuss, or desist. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User just posted here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Spanish arrival to Chiapas. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As a first step, I've moved the page back to the previous title and protected it as Spanish arrival to Chiapas is clearly grammatically incorrect. I will leave an explanatory note on the editor's talk page as English appears not to be his/her first language.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

IBAN violations by The Rambling Man, further evidence

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.

---

(Given this was archived but not closed I am reposting it with further documentaion of prior explicit violations and warnings, as well as historyof the "policy" obsession by TRM. Can an admin Either Notif The Rambling Man that this remains open, or advise me that I may do so on his talk page? Also, please let me know if I need to re-notify people mentioned in the collapsed sect. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC))

Well, once again, in violation of our iban, User:The Rambling Man has quoted (with quote marks!) and responded to me directly at ITN nominations: "For the fiftieth time".

diffs re TRM's disruption

Apparently the last ANI was entirely ignored, as were User:Newyorkbrad's warnings today to TRM to stop the personal comments: that you should stop sullying this page with gratuitous personal comments As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease and these edits and their edit summaries of TRM's: oh dear Jayron oh, what a surprise do what Brad says, he's Arbcom after all you're the pest which show a pattern of unnecessary incivility. Note also this comment by User:SemanticMantis on the Ref Desk talk page: I don't know what you do elsewhere on WP but when you seem only show up on the ref desk to disparage said desk. Let us note that on his user page, TRM first blanked it in response to this complaint, then restored it with the comment he'd be away for two days, during which he himself expects a block: "restore and add note regarding intermittent availability, should i be blocked in absentia" Meanwhile, on his talk page he dismissed (and deleted) notification of the ANI case and his fellow editors and admins with: "more hilarity, more circus games, i'll continue to make decent articles while the parade continues" And on Newyorkbrad's homepage (NYB has expressed his wish to remain impartial) TRM describes himself as "disagreeing" and me as "abusing": "It'd be rewarding to see how such esteemed members of the hierarchy treat content editors who just vocalise their disagreement, while completely ignoring others who directly abuse people." That is, he is just talking civil, while I am attacking him and admins are ignoring me? When NYB merely asks for civil discussion, TRM responds "if you didn't just wade in and act like a schoolmaster" This sounds like a confession and a retreat mixed with, "It's not me, it's Medeis and the admins." See "you're the pest" above. μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'm loathe to respond to these kangaroo proceedings, but given the plethora of false assumptions and incorrect assertions I see (yet again), and given the absolute stone cold intensity with which some users wish to see me "punished", I felt compelled, even today, my son's first birthday, to say a couple of things. I (as well as many many others) have become sick and tired of the self-centred approach, the "why always me?" claims, the incorrect assumptions being hurled around so often at ANI. Some users wish to have their cake and eat it, as evidenced in the multiple responses to the last time I was dragged here. I'm certain if Jayron or NYB have a real problem with me, they are more than capable of doing something about it themselves. Jayron and I frequently have robust discussion, no-one dies and everyone survives to the next time. NYB on the other hand appears from time to time to believe he can sweep into ITN and do exactly as he pleases (usually regarding posting poor quality articles on recently deceased Americans from the movie industry). Indeed, NYB's insistence on threatening to make illegitimate posts has been rejected by four, maybe five different admins in the past. When it comes to ITN, he's just an editor, nothing more. Regarding the policy issue, some users need to be continually reminded that claiming specific policies at ITN is actually factually incorrect. We have policies, guidelines, essays etc. There is a clear difference in the significance of each of these, it's worthwhile understanding that. Finally, I added the holiday notice to my page because, yes, I'm taking my son out for his first birthday and wanted people to know that I'd be unlikely to respond to the current pack of misrepresentations, leave alone any more incorrect claims which may be dug up throughout the day. I restored some of the content with something of an ironic edit summary. Sorry if some users didn't understand that, I must try harder to ensure our "global" audience gets it. Finally, unlike one of the bogus claims above, I have never named any user as being "abusing". If some users wish to assume it to be in reference to them, that is entirely their problem, and they should try hard to address their insecurities. It was, in fact, with reference to those editors who swear at others, who edit war with them etc. If a user believes they meet that profile, bingo. Have a good day all, I'm going to the big smoke for lunch with the little 'un. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Looking at the first accusation re the interaction ban violation (that this edit was a direct response to Medeis), it doesn't look to be the case. I read the response as being directed at Masem, and actually supporting what Medeis said. Number 57 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Of all the diffs above, two are allegedly violations of the IBAN. The rest are alleged incivility, to other editors than μηδείς, and pretty tame by the standards we see here. Am I right? Of the diffs regarding the IBAN, I'm struggling to see the violation in the first one - TRM and μηδείς are making similar points about the lack of policy, but I'm struggling to see it as TRM interacting with μηδείς. The second one might be construed as a violation, I guess - responding to NewYorkBrad who was responding to μηδείς. It's not exactly smoking gun material, though. I've a great deal of respect for both these editors, and a TBAN for both from ITN would be a great loss to ITN. But it seems that the IBAN hasn't helped cool things down between them. Any suggestions for other ways of cooling things down? GoldenRing (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) There is no justification for a TBAN. First, there's no complaint against me, no diffs, and no reason to ban me, since I have not commented once on TRM, while he has on me, as well as reversions, etc. Second, TRM is perfectly capable of doing good work on ITN, all he needs to do is stop addressing me. Third, any such TBAN would be pointless, as we still both edit many overlapping pages. The solution is clear and simple: enforce the IBAN that's already in place. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not seriously suggesting a TBAN, just thinking out loud about how to cool the situation down. It needs cooling down, on both sides. This is the second time this has ended up at ANI in recent times, both times because you've perceived a violation of the IBAN where other editors have said either the violation is not clear or that you have to work very hard to read it as a violation. And this report has a long list of diffs completely unrelated to you or the IBAN tacked on. It reads a lot like you're on the lookout, just waiting for the slip up that you can bring to ANI and get him blocked/banned. On the other hand, TRM'S response is not exactly conciliatory. Both of you remain unprepared to work in a collaborative, collegial way, then. Ideally, tips both take a long, hard look at yourselves (not each other), let the past go and get on with building an encyclopedia which, so long as you don't cross paths, you both do well. Since that seems unlikely to happen, sadly, I'm trying to think about other ways of making the situation less explosive and, largely, coming up empty-handed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Since I was summoned, I might as well make some brief comments. It would be nice if TRM tried to influence discussions by the strength of his arguments, and could also quietly let other people have opinions which differ from him. It's only the ad hominem diversions that create a problem, that and his deliberate attempts to poison the well against people who don't hold the identical opinion he does. Otherwise, I don't really care what happens. TRM makes himself more and more irrelevant the more he behaves in uncooperative ways. It would be nice if he could become a more effective person who was able to actually create the important changes he wants to; but his treatment of others prevents him from being successful in ways that would benefit the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) ^I'll support this. I only know TRM from the ref desks, and it seems he could be a big help there, but he doesn't choose to. That's fine, we spend time where we want. Whatever his abilities and skills are, it seems that TRM has managed to step on a few toes. Then again so has Medeis. If I could hand out sentencing I would give TRM and Medeis both a trouting, remind them both to respect the IBAN, and hope that they learn that a more cooperative attitude would make both of their efforts more productive. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) You people created your own monster. The Rambling Man, a productive editor and an admin, is perfectly justified in expecting the Rule of Corbett (i.e. productivity means you can be as rude as you like) to apply to him as well, and I can't say I blame him. The only difference is he doesn't appear to have the squads of acolytes and fawning admins ready to fall on their swords in his defense. What a joke! --Drmargi (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC) No, the rule defines a "valuable contributor" as one with acolytes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I won't be able to comment at length or research the diffs for about 12 hrs from now, but the issue here really is violations of the iban by TRM. The incivility is just part of the pattern. There have been previous iban violations by TRM, and a previous ANI that documented them in October. I'll search the archives tonight. The "for the fiftieth time" and quotation of the word policy in the edit above was directed at me. He quoted me, and my occassional use of the word policy has been a bugaboo of his apparently for over a year now, hence his "for the fiftieth time" statement. I'll look for these comments tonight, can someone tell me how to search for the use of the word policy by TRM on the ITN nomination page only? I find searching the history of that page very difficult. Bottom line, TRM has repeatedly been warned not to interact with me and continued to do so, I have made no comments regarding him. He should be treated like any other editor would who violated an IBAN. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Several people above have agreed that TRM is too snarky (add me to that list), but is there any chance that you could stop to contemplate that what TRM said about policy is totally correct? He did not address you, and writing "policy" is just a standard use of scare quotes. Being snarky is a problem. But so too is failing to grasp fundamentals such as use of policy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are the previous violations of the IBAN by TRM:

(1) "indeed" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=631102015&oldid=631101365 (TRM comments agreeing with my critic at ITN vote)

(2) "certainly no clear consensus at all" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=630788021&oldid=630787879 (TRM reverts my Ready tag, quoting my comment on consensus)

(3) "good consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=630706886&oldid=630706589 (My comments noting consensus, of which he referred to, showing his awareness of who tagged the article)

(4) "please be careful and do not skirt the ban further or I'll block you" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=608799381&oldid=608797815 (Bishonen's warning to TRM he be blocked immediately on any further violation, I am quoting it here so you don't need to read the markup)

Bish's warning to TRM:

"Picking at your IBAN

"TRM, I've seen you making indirect comments directed at Medeis lately. Here, three minutes after they posted this, you added this immediately below. I hope you're not going to tell me that was just a general comment and you didn't mean anybody in particular had been offering half-arsed opinions and pissing in the wind. At ITN, here, you removed Medeis' "Ready" mark and commented on their reasoning for it, immediately underneath. Here, you reverted their removal of a section tag at H. R. Giger. On that one, I might possibly take it as an accidental interaction, but on the other two I really don't see it. As you know, per WP:IBAN you don't get to make reference to or comment on Medeis anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly, nor undo their edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means). Please be more careful and do not attempt to skirt the ban further, or I'll block you. And before you ask, yes, I'm serious." Bishonen | talk 06:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

"Of course, you've warned her too, right, for her "indirect comments" directed clearly at me? No. Once again a perfect demonstration of your one-sided view of this. And sorry, she removed my edits on Giger first. Do me a favour, get someone else to do your edits here as I'm sick of your undying love and defence of her." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"If there are such edits by Medeis, why don't you tell me about them? I'd appreciate knowing these things. Vague allegations are less useful." Bishonen | talk 06:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)." [This exchange was later deleted by TRM with no response--Medeis]

Here, prior to our IBAN, we can see edits dated NYC time by TRM and his obsession with the use of "policy", which I will place in bold:

Medeis, please, please stop claiming that any update recommendations are policy. As you have been told on a number of occasions, they are simply guidelines, there's a distinct difference. And no, there is no RfC, nor does there need to be one. There was a discussion on the removal of the arbitrary numerical update guideline on the talkpage here. The Rambling Man (talk) 3:16 am, 14 November 2013, Thursday (1 year, 12 days ago) (UTC−5)

Oh dear, try again, look closely!!!! (And for the fifth time, there is no policy, it's only ever been a guideline....) The Rambling Man (talk) 1:21 pm, 14 November 2013, Thursday (1 year, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)

For the sixth time, this is not a policy. There is no RD policy. There is nothing demanding an RfC to change the wording of the guideline. I do suggest you get to grips with terminology: a policy is something that must be adhered to... The Rambling Man (talk) 5:09 pm, 15 November 2013, Friday (1 year, 10 days ago) (UTC−5)

These edits show that the "for the fiftieth time" was not addressed generally, but was a direct interaction with me. Given Drmies' warning, an immediate block of TRM is warranted. Of course, having been directed by private email to Wikipediocracy, I am not sure that expecting an admin and sysop to be blocked is expected. If that's the case, I request an immediate reversal of te IBAN between myself, the violator, and Baseball Bugs (who is not party to this complaint). μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• This section (and my comment) should be removed and Medeis advised to drop the stick. Why should people have to pick through this mess to determine whether anything new has been added? Topics at ANI do not need to be formally closed—the matter got a fair hearing and there was no consensus for action. If there is a problem with someone mentioning that "policy" is wrongly used, the Wikipedian solution would be to stop mentioning it incorrectly. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to strike your comments, Johnuniq but it was falsely asserted that TRM had not addressed me with his "for the fiftieth time" comment on "policy", and I have given direct diffs to his previous comments, as well as direct diffs to his previous direct comments on other issues, his reversions, and warnings about his behaviour. TRM is entirely unable to respond with any evidence that I have addressed him, moral equivalence in this case amounts to negligence. This is quite clear-cut, and if you don't want to read the diffs than simply withdraw. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is possible for people to dominant places like reference desks but that is a lot harder at ANI. Your mental model that ANI is a place to get opponents blocked is only partially correct—in addition, if it is seen that someone has unhelpfully been using incorrect terminology (by repeatedly referring to nonexistent policies), that will be exposed. Why are you not engaging with that issue? How does your comment address "Why should people have to pick through this mess to determine whether anything new has been added?" Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose indefing Medeis and The Rambling Man (listed alphabetically) is out of the question? Could we site ban one on odd months (e.g. Jan, Mar..) and the other on even? Any other ideas??? NE Ent 03:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Just lift the IBAN, they seem to be happier arguing with each other. Count Iblis (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the ANI discussion from two weeks ago that was referenced above but not linked. Dragons flight (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

They weren't ignored, Medeis, they were dismissed as being not obvious breaches of the IBAN. Has the Medeis/TRM saga become the next drama to dominate this board? Referencing months old and year old diffs to show that this is part of some sort of continuous badgering which came before your IBAN just doesn't cut it in my mind and is more like clutching at straws. I'm sure you'll dismiss my commentary as you did Johnuniq's in your unending search for editors whose opinion match yours and you get TRM blocked on some spurious charge of IBAN violation. NE Ent's suggestion isn't a bad one. Maybe we should just ban Medeis from making reports on ANI as well. This is petty and ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

* Whole heartedly agree It's pretty obvious Medeis is trying to get Rambling Man blocked or banned. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have explicitly argued against any sort of ban, and asked for a warning block, which TRM himself expected might be the result of is latest action. TRM is otherwise a very good contributer. Putting words in my mouth is not very helpful. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• (ec)I simply want the violations to stop. I basically had to waste the entire holiday season last year retting the iban in place, yet it's not enforced. According to the Iban we are not to refer to each other directly or indirectly (or revert each other, etc.) Given the violations are all one-sided, I think it's clear some action by this board is warranted, if only a warning note on TRM's talk page.

If editors here are going to say that "for the fiftieth time there is no policy" had nothing to do with me, why should I not show that "for the fifth and sixth time there is no policy" was one of the last things TRM said. Suggesting I be banned from ANI is, frankly, offensive. If I play video of my neighbour throwing trash over the fence into my yard I don't expect to annoyedly by the police that its only a little trash, and he only does it once in a while.

I really have nothing else to say. I would appreciate a ruling as to whether I can place an ani warning on trm's talk page in the future if necessary, and if I need to do so now, or if it would constitute an iban violation on my part. A note can be placed on my talk page, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Legal threat here [323] concerning Brittany Maynard: associated account is Coconot (talk · contribs). IP and account are posting what they claim are the "truth" concerning her relationship with her family, entirely unsourced. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take Wikipedia to court if it does not [...] Yep, bright-line legal threat. A WP:DOLT analysis reveals that, indeed, the editor's contributions were entirely unsourced, and therefore subject to removal per WP:BDP. The argument that she was "survived" by people other than those mentioned in the article, and that failing to mention those people merits a legal threat, is unconvincing in my view. Particularly given our sources are very good. While I could see removing the sentence about her survivors as unnecessary to the article, it's not like it says she was only survived by the people named. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Blatant legal threat. Put him on ice until or if he recants and disavows the threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Now comes 1d4everlol (talk · contribs) [324] as well. I would advise them to take the matter up with the New York Times and People, but they seem to find Wikipedia a more accessible venue. I am busy in Real Life at the moment, so if someone will do what's necessary? Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

All these have been blocked:

• Coconot has been indeffed for obviously having used the IP address for making legal threats,
• 1d4everlol indeffed for illegimate use of a second account
• IP blocked temporarily.

As Acroterion said, any issues should first be settled with the NYT and People and other sources that have allegedly reported wrong facts. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think 1d4everlol was a passing vandal who picked the wrong section for some harassment. It's also worth noting that the account and IP assert that Maynard is alive and that People is covering that up ... Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Surprinsingly though, there is no connection in the edits between Coconot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 1d4everlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), although the latter is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia so the block might be kept. But posting directly in Coconot's thread on the user talk page of Acroterion looks somewhat like an admission. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Coconot (talk · contribs) is persisting on making legal threats on their talk page, despite the block - trying to negotiate terms for its removal by stating "If you do so, I will withdraw my threat of legal action." I have warned the user that persisting in making such threats can result in talk page privileges being revoked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Including some after you posted, but it has quieted down for now. But one more threat, and the user should have talk page access revoked. If an editor has legitimate concerns about a BLP, legal threats are totally the wrong way to go about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to avoid escalating the issue by blocking their talk page access, even though I notified them of that potentiality.

I gave one more try to explain the issue, as well as providing them with links to Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects and wmf:Contact us. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Skamecrazy123 Tendentious Editing

Api Chaining has kept getting brought up for deletion by Skamercrazy123 and now it is up for discussion for deletion. This time he openly stated his issues with user in the discussion. When having discussions to 'delete', editors are to take into consideration WP:HERE, are to have WP:NPOV and NOT to do WP:TE. As a first time creator of a page, I am trying to learn as I go and learn the rules and editors are supposed to not WP:BITE. But to punish the ontent because they don't like the user breaks all the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orubel (talk • contribs)

Um.... I only prodded it once here. Mcmatter then nominated it for AfD. As for biting you, I have apologised both on your talk page and at the AfD request here and struck through the offending comments. If my edits were truly tendentious, I would have not offered the apology and struck through the relevant comment. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• You've done nothing wrong. No problems with listing the article. Now WP:BOOMERANG time: Orubel, your history here has not been on great help to the project. Your editing has been problematic to say the least. You need to knock off the attacks on everyone. I'd say it's pretty close to a WP:NOTHERE solution and moving on if you continue on this routine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Have to disagree User shows a history of attack against user by editing content and now stated it in page. This has been happening previously on the api chaining page and then he is more than happy to vote for delete because he has issue with user. If you have issue with user, you dont bring it WP:HERE Orubel (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have a feeling you are making this up as you go along. All these accusations of me bringing the page to deletion when I only prodded it once. All this stuff about me having a problem with you when I struck out the only comment that could be perceived as an attack and apologised for it. At the end of the day, I voted the way I voted because of a perceived lack of notability, not because I wanted to rub your nose in it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• ' I have a feeling you are making this up as you go along'... obviously, you are completely unbiased. Orubel (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note - this is the AfD discussion in question. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As per the nomination on the on the AFD, I nominated it because the prod had been removed by a new single purpose account during my new user patrol. After looking at the article I questioned the validity of the references and the article itself and initiated the AFD process to gather input from the community. It was not until after I nominated the article that I found out the creator had been blocked or was having issues and it was his wife who was the SPA account which removed the prod. So far, through this process Orubel has been very combative and has taken everything very personally. A review of WP:OWN may be helpful, especially since he has admitted to a conflict of interest as the creator of the pattern as per this post [325] which he later retracted and removed.[326]. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• You've done nothing wrong either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I do not question McMatter, I have felt the effect of WP:BITE and am just knee jerk responding as a user. Regardless of my actions, editors need to remember why we are WP:HERE and understand that scientific evidence for tech community is not presented in magazines anymore... it is at peer reviewed technical conferences, open source conferences, etc. This is where a board reviews your work to see if it is noteworthy and then invites you to present and a group of peers then sees and begins to implement your work. Magazines may never write about the intricacies of software... it just becomes fact. And it is up to us to make sure people can have access to that information. Orubel (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have begun a mediation process between these 2 users and have begun work to assist Orubel with his articles for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please review Orubel's talk page for the discussion. At this point I believe we can close this topic.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

More Ararat arev IP-hopping

An IP editor has recently been editing articles related to Orion (constellation) and Osiris as a roundabout way of promoting his nationalist fringe theories. This is a typical example. He was identified as Ararat arev in the discussion at Talk:Orion (constellation)#Ancient Egypt, and several of his IP addresses were rangeblocked a couple of days ago, in this AN discussion. He has reappeared today, under a wider range of addresses, at ancient Egyptian deities, dying-and-rising god, winged sun and, judging by this message on my talk page, probably elsewhere. At the very least, these three pages need semi-protection. Because he's willing to insert his claims in just about any article, the IP addresses should probably be blocked, too:

• 64.134.224.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.95.223.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.87.39.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.134.230.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.198.43.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 104.173.89.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.119.236.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.134.238.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The last one should certainly be blocked, as it's the one he's used most recently. A. Parrot (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And apparently he is able to leave one IP address, edit from another, and come back to the first, so they should all be blocked. A. Parrot (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And 166.170.14.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Hayk. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All + 166.170.14.60 blocked. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Another one 166.170.14.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Threat to edit war

Requesting review of my actions.

In 2014 World Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the user Beuschman (talk · contribs) had stated in an edit summary: "I will keep deleting this section over and over and over! It is unwarranted and biased!"

I warned them, asked them to take it to the article talk page, and asked them to self-revert the threat. Instead, when someone else reverted them, they again blanked the material. As a result, I blocked the user. I was involved with reverting them, is the only reason I am bringing it here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Good block. He was at four reverts and threatened to continue. -- GB fan 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not good content, though. The blocked editor shouldn't edit-war, but he's got a point. This past Series was being touted as one of the best, with the drama not atypical of a 7-game Series. The "criticism" section has at least three problems: (1) Other Series articles don't have a "criticism" section, so it's undue weight and it sounds like a sour-grapes POV-push. (2) The actual "worst" World Series was probably 1945, but anything prior to about 2010 is ancient history to ESPN types; nor does the 1945 Series have a "criticism" section, although I could find you a good quote from a contemporary reporter which supports that. (3) It's not even a criticism of the Series itself, but rather of the method used to produce the Series contenders. That's not the fault of either the Series or of the teams within it. It might belong somewhere, but it doesn't belong in that article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal if consensus supports it - but it needs to be discussed; using WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments in the summary while edit warring just isn't going to fly. Even if left in the article, the contrary opinion of the criticism (which is linked in the section) needs to be emphasized more to better balance the section. And, as you said, the criticism is of the methodology to determine contenders, not the series itself, so it may be better suited to a different article entirely. All that can be hashed out in the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Arab related articles

Infantom claims that none of the Arab Americans can be Jewish and that Arab-Israeli footballers are not Palestinians because "Not all Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinians" according to him. I don't think he is willing to talk in a civilized manner. He has been active here for 14 months and most of his edits are controversial. Also, since he came he has been involved in edit conflicts and blocked twice. It clearly seems that he don't adopt a neutral point of view.--Uishaki (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

First, Uishaki violated a topic ban[327] and refused to discuss his changes while edit warring on Category:Arab-Israeli footballers. He's the one that added content and was reverted, so he's the one that need to reach consensus. He hasn't tried to discuss that, he just warned me on my talkpage, his accusations about " not willing to talk in a civilized manner" are simply ridiculous. Now, i have clean history here, i was never blocked(you a free to check) while Uishaki has a long history with violations on these topics and had been blocked numerous times (including block evasions) and has a topic ban. --Infantom (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See your block log and then talk about violations. I added the content but you removed it after one and a half year so who is ridiculous.--Uishaki (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

He calls for a block after hidding behind an IP address to make problematic edits see here--Uishaki (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

My block log is clean. As for the IP editor, that's not me, i have nothing to hide. Think otherwise? Prove it, i have no time for your games Infantom (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is absloutely no need for your childish behavior. I know you since you came here and began with your disruptive vandalising acts.--Uishaki (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor

I'm sorry to keep troubling you, but I really hope someone there could have a word with User:Alansohn. I've made thousands of edits to cities and towns across the United States, but have carefully avoided New Jersey due to this one editor. Please look at the ridiculous edits he reverted today on Linden, New Jersey, and in his edit summaries called me "disruptive". All my edits followed policy and were in good faith. This person DOES NOT OWN NEW JERSEY! As long as he continues to bully and intimidate, editors will avoid this state. This isn't what Wikipedia is about. Thank you again for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be related to a series of edits adding Rhashonna C. Cosby-Hurling to the "people from" section of Linden, New Jersey. No comment on the addition itself, but from the look of things Alansohn is at 4 or 5 reverts in the last 24 hours on that article (one of those reverts was almost immediately self-reverted by Alansohn, but was followed by another revert). Magnolia667 is at 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have backed away from this already after a self revert in an effort to find a place to keep a non-notable in the article. The material was relocated to the government section, where it properly belongs. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look carefully at the Linden, New Jersey article, you'll see that User:Alansohn quickly removed from the list of notable people Rhashonna Cosby-Hurling, the first African American female elected to Linden City Council. Yet, he carefully passed over Cathy Dorin-Lizzi, a non-notable bowler who has been redlinked since Alansohn added her to the list SEVEN YEARS AGO! see [328]. Can we please bring some democracy to these New Jersey articles? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I took the entry and shifted it to the government section, an appropriate shift for someone who is not notable. If there is an issue with the claim of notability for Cathy Dorin-Lizzi, a notable professional bowler added with an appropriate reference in an entry apparently made seven years ago, then it should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And so it goes, the same old arguments and deflections. I'm sure you folks have seen these before, every time someone makes an edit to one of Alansohn's personal New Jersey articles. The real problem here, is it chases away other editors who have something valuable to add. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Democracy? I heard a rumor that Wikipedia is not democracy. That rumor suggested that wikipedia is based off consensus or some such nonsense.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I created Foul Rift, New Jersey, and in less than 24 hours, Alansohn made two edits to the article. While all of us welcome constructive edits, Alansohn insists on adding "his" favorite map to the article. Unfortunately, his map is hard to see, with a tiny map-within-a-map, while the map I had added is easy to see. So, he increased the map size in the infobox to 400, destroying the look of the article. Is this my punishment for adding a new article about New Jersey? C'mon folks, please lend a hand. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I followed the editor from Linden, NJ article to their new one and changed the map. We used to use the state size maps with a pushpin in the township years ago as the default map. We now use the more information dense county size maps to show the township for all the US articles. When I see one of the old maps, I know the article has not been updated in over a year. If the consensus is to go back to the state size maps, then we can change all of them back. Do we want a consistent look and feel to the township articles or are outliers ok? Should we be patrolling pages to make them comply, or allow drift into different styles? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is drifting into content territory now, which is out of the purview of ANI. You should continue this discussion on the talk page for Foul Rift rather than here. demize (t · c) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty to add to this discussion, but unfortunately I do not have the time today. I also formatted this discussion for ease of reading. I should have time tomorrow night. John from Idegon (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Collusion / Canvassing by User:Magnolia677 and User:John from Idegon

It took a little bit longer for User:John from Idegon than expected, but they had been colluding in advance to manufacture an incident. Here are some snippets from a conversation earlier this week:

• John from Idegon: this edit - "have you had similar problems perhaps from a similar source?"
• Magnolia677: this edit - "I was a new editor at the time and made some poorly sourced edits to New Jersey articles. I learned my lesson through rudeness and intimidation. When you and I see a well-intentioned new editor we offer a hand. That being said, that editor has made a huge contribution to New Jersey articles (but likely scared a few great editors away too)."
• John fron Idegon: this edit - "do you have email enabled? The first subject needs a private conversation."
• Magnolia677: this edit - "Email on."

Magnolia677 has been desperately trying to generate an argument about the type and size of a map in an article he claims to own, among other efforts to generate a controversy that he could manufacture for ANI purposes. Surprise! John from Idegon now comes along and has to refactor the existing comments because we've done it all wrong. I'd be curious to read the text of the email conversation, but I bet it lays out what we see in front of us. I hope both can explain this improper collusion. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Two editors have a similar problem with another editor and discuss it a bit. How is that a violation of anything? I never got around to emailing Magnolia and an administrator is welcome to look at the email log to verify that. I do not have much time on a PC these days and do most of my editing from my phone (not a smart phone either). I resent having what little time on a PC I do have wasted dealing with frivolous crap like this. I do not have to prove a damn thing to Alansohn and neither does Magnolia. Even if we did do what he is accusing us of doing, that isn't a violation of any policy. Frankly, this should result in a boomerang. I will not have anything further to say on either this or the above subject. So it appears he got what he wanted. The red herring worked. This is just another in a line of problems like this and I do not have the time or inclination to go find all the diffs for it. And Alan, the text of my emails are never going to be your concern. It is illustrative of the problem at hand that you think it is. John from Idegon (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Did these two editors have a problem with the same editor in the same article?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion is selectively enforcing bans related to the Gamergate Controversy page for relatively minor transgressions

breach of topic ban
The following discussion has been closed by Future Perfect At Sunrise. Please do not modify it.
Acroterion chose to ban me for "your observations on the subject's sexual behavior", which was limited to observations that unethical conduct had occurred. I wrote that cheating had occurred, which is unethical conduct and in direct contradiction to the article's statement that "unethical conduct by (the subject) had not occurred" and painted the subject as an innocent victim. Additionally, Acroterion has stated that "(Visitantehumanoide was) blocked for speculating about the private sexual behavior of someone who has been extensively harassed, primarily for being female in a male-dominated culture" (refers to the subject). It is worth noting that the subject of the Arbcom notice, Tarc, was insulting and baiting me in the Arbcom request I was banned for, with such statements as "SPAs, like you, have come here to ensure that your minority point-of-view is jammed down the reader's throat. Fortunately, this isn't reddit or somethingawful or wherever you came from; we have standards and rules here to uphold." and "I have made a conscious effort lately to not be explicitly profane on-project, but at times a little steam-releasing is warranted, and all this was was me beginning a post to a user's talk page with "Eh, bullshit".". I was later banned, first for BLP violations and then, after Acroterion realized he had not followed proper procedure to initiate such a ban, for the Gamergate sanctions. It is also worth noting that he later changed his story from "observations about sexual behavior" to "I do not see an equivalent level of battleground behavior to yours, which has been going on for several days.". Despite this, several other users were engaging in similar baiting on the Arbcom page, yet Acroterion saw it necessary to only enforce sanctions against me. Additionally, I later discovered Tarc has been in direct contact and abused his preferential treatment to give favorable coverage to subjects related to Gamergate. He has also proven unwilling to enforce sanctions for WP:BLP violations regarding (the subject's) boyfriend. Despite the boyfriend being referenced by name in earlier iterations of the Gamergate article, Acroterion states "I take no action on the content: nobody is named, and it is clear in the article that (the subject)'s detractors are the source. You are the one linking (the subject)'s boyfriend to the allegations and taking pot shots at people's sexual behavior." I do not appreciate this assumption of bad faith, as I was clarifying that unethical action had occurred against the boyfriend, who in my opinion was emotionally abused and a victim. I request Acroterion be barred from enforcing any further sanctions concerning [the subject] and Gamergate, as he has proven incapable of separating his views concerning the matter from his duties as an administrator. I also request all sanctions he enforced concerning the article be reviewed.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) This appears to be WP:FORUMSHOPPING on content issues that have been discussed repeatedly on Talk:Gamergate controversy. That ArmyLine has an opinion which disagrees with the broad consensus of reliable sources on this matter is interesting, but of no consequence to Wikipedia, which does not operate based on editors' personal opinions but on the conclusions of reliable sources. Acroterion did not block Visitantehumanoide, Dreadstar did. The fact that Acroterion recognizes that we need to be sensitive about how we present living people in the encyclopedia is cause for commendation, not condemnation. Exactly what BLP violation do you claim exists in re: the article's discussion of Eron Gjoni? He is currently mentioned in the article, as the author of the blogpost which sparked the firestorm. Given his publicity-seeking behavior in widely spreading his claims about Zoe Quinn, he can hardly be considered an unwilling participant in the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The final paragraph written by NorthBySouthBaranof is a blatant violation of BLP and I request it be scrubbed from the history by an admin and the offending user be topic banned. Specifically the last sentence which speculates about the motivations and actions or Eron Gjoni.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Err, no. Everything I said is supported by reliable sources, notably this interview Gjoni voluntarily conducted with Vice, in which Gjoni states on the record that I wrote a blog to warn those who will be romantically or professionally involved with her (usually both) that they should exercise caution around her. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Yet I fail to see where anything he is doing is out of a desire for fame or publicity. Requesting a topic ban for NorthBySouthBaranof and also for User:Ryulong for restoring this blatant violation of BLP.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof's statements regarding Mr. Gjoni are supported by reliable sources in use across the project. Just because they're negative does not mean it's a BLP vio.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Perhaps you need to read what I said again, slowly. I said "publicity-seeking behavior." When a person publicly posts a 3,000-word "screed" about their relationship drama on the Internet, complete with personal information and then posts links to that blog on a variety of other Internet forums and chatrooms, that is seeking publicity for themselves and/or their allegations. I said nothing about "fame." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) This is the sort of behavior favored editors are allowed to get by with. Note I did not ask for NorthBySouthBaranof's opinion nor did I notify or include him in this report.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The "sort of behavior" which involves responding to a thread on ANI? I was unaware that you were granted the right to determine who may or may not respond to public discussions on a community noticeboard. Moreover, the above user is subject to an active topic ban on this subject, and the only exception is a properly-formatted appeal of the ban, which this frankly doesn't appear to be. Rather, it's an assault on the admin who placed the ban, along with other users. The above user should be, at the least, warned for violating their topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) This is about your attack on me in the earlier statement. Claiming that "(I have) an opinion which disagrees with the broad consensus of reliable sources on this matter is interesting, but of no consequence to Wikipedia, which does not operate based on editors' personal opinions but on the conclusions of reliable sources." is an unsolicited assumption of bad faith and a personal attack.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Noting that a person's opinion disagrees with the consensus of reliable sources is not a personal attack under even the most stretched interpretations of WP:NPA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I don't appreciate your unsolicited "noting", particularly when it has no relevance I posted.--ArmyLine (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

All involved parties in the GG dispute: all of you, immediately cease squabbling with each other in this noticeboard thread. ArmyLine, you raised your complaint here, now everybody leave it to uninvolved editors to evaluate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking further through this, I come to the conclusion that this posting is in itself a breach of the earlier topic-ban, since it (a) goes far beyond appealing ArmyLine's own sanction or any of the other legitimate purposes that are regularly exempt from topic bans, (b) contains accusations against other editors unrelated to ArmyLine's own sanction, and (c) repeats the offending allegations about BLP subjects for which ArmyLine was banned in the first place. I will therefore be hatting off this thread and blocking ArmyLine as an enforcement action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I was going to comment that the topic ban seems perfectly valid and no good reason to reconsider it has been given. The enforcement block by FPaS is quite correct, since both the OP and later posts went far beyond a reconsideration request. Fram (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the real problem here, Armyline was -never- notified of any discretionary sanctions for Gamergate or for BLP.]] So as a result, the topic ban does not exist because the topic ban was imposed without the editor ever being notified of any sanctions relating to Gamergate or for BLP. A notice on the talk page does not count. They need to be formally notified. The block and topic ban should be overturned as a result. Administrators are not allowed to impose sanctions out of process. Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a new battleground for involved parties, it is a forum for uninvolved parties to evaluate this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This block is as inappropriate as the underlying sanction. In regards to Future's points: a) Challenging the general administrative conduct of the admin who imposed the sanction does fall within the scope of a legitimate appeal. b) The accusations against other editors appear to be part and parcel to the questioning of the general administrative conduct of the admin and thus fall within the scope of a legitimate appeal. c) Stating that Quinn cheated and that cheating is unethical conduct is not a BLP violation, given that many reliable sources mentioning the cheating allegations ([329] [330] [331] [332]). Even the emotional abuse aspect to the allegations is covered ([333] [334]). Only other comments by ArmyLine in this discusson seem to concern an alleged BLP violation by North, so I fail to see why those subsequent comments are cause for a block either. Seems to me that Future and Baranof just wanted an excuse to shut this appeal down.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC) * Agreed The Devil's Advocate is correct. The block is wrong, let's reverse course on that. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti The block is wrong for that, and for the fact that Armyline was never made aware of sanctions, a prerequisite for application of them. Future Perfect has reverted TDA's application of this under the enigmatic 'don't mess with my log entries'. The fact that Future Perfect has done this twice now shoud be noted, first with Titanium Dragon and now with Armyline. Tutelary (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Technically, the log was just in the wrong spot. Army's topic ban was enacted through BLPSE rather than the GG/GS, because only the former could be applied to Army given the lack of notification about GG/GS. I moved his log of the block to BLPSE. Future is just being a dork.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Gamaliel, these comments are directly related to the above. Hatting them is inappropriate. Specifically, reading the template for the hat template, it refers to follow the refactor advice, which says at WP:REFACTOR If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Consider this my objection. Tutelary (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your objections have been noted. Now please stop disrupting this thread and allow uninvolved editors to discuss this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

More selective enforcement

Technicalities just get us back to a repeat of Titanium Dragon's ban. Enough of this. You're all severely lacking in good faith. ArmyLine directly accused Tarc of colluding offsite because he tweeted at an article subject. It's nothing like TDA going onto The Escapist's forums and making these accusations to fuel the offsite fire against me or several other editors' constant threads on Reddit calling for my head over something as minimal as thinking 8chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't pass WP:NWEB. And the useless pedantry over where ArmyLine's ban should be logged is really pointless. These pre-WP:GS/GG bans should be grandfathered in at this point if only to save everyone this drama.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein has accused others of colluding off site too, multiple times too yet I see no topic ban for him as of now. Diffs located here: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement#Statement_by_Tutelary_2 In any case, I don't want to get too off topic. The block for asking to examine conduct of an administrator is out of line. The fact that he is blocked just demonstrates the power dynamic that administrators have over other users. This is the appropriate avenue for review of administrator conduct. Instead, he gets blocked for a flimsy topic ban by an administrator who didn't even notify him of sanctions of BLP or even Gamergate. The conduct issues not even discussed. Tutelary (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Then report him FFS. That's what the enforcement page is for. And ArmyLine was banned a month ago "for one year from edits and discussion regarding GamerGate under BLP discretionary sanctions". Just because that's not the new GamerGate specific set of general sanctions does not mean he should be unblocked due to this loophole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We have reported him, many of us numerous times. The problem is that no one wants to enforce the sanctions on editors who are perceived to be on a specific side of the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Has any one of you actually opened up a thread at WP:GS/GG/E on Mark Bernstein or not?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying we should? Are you going to get your side to act? Are the dozens of diffs at the existing thread not enough to act? Can you only act on a specific thread being opened, or is reporting in the proper venue enough? Tell me, how much red tape must we go through to get bad actors sanctioned? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could act on some of these things if all of you didn't start using every goddamn single thread on every single page to fight your GamerGate war, and then when we finally sort through it all to act on something, we have to go participate in another thread complaining about the actions we took, which then also degenerates into another GamerGate war. Do you have any idea how many hours Dreadstar and Future Perfect and EdJohnson and I and others have spent on your ridiculous squabble? Gamaliel (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that an administrator sees their fellow editors as fighting a 'GamerGate war' or saying they've spent many hours on their 'ridiculous squabble' is apalling, maybe even WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Tutelary (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just insinuate that I'm a sockpuppet? Tutelary (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not enough if certain editors are still avoiding sanctions. This isn't "my war," so stop assuming anything about my motives beyond wanting to be able to see this project move past it. You've had the diffs in front of you for days, maybe you can explain why you're not acting on them? You have enough time to hat discussions you don't like, after all. Maybe it might actually free up some time for more useful pursuits if some demonstration that the rules are being enforced equitably was in place? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume nothing about your motives, all I can see is the evidence of the constant squabbling from both sides. I have spend many hours this week dealing with this matter. If you want me to devote more time to a particular aspect of it, then stop spreading this edit war around multiple pages and threads so I can concentrate on one thing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why hasn't MarkBernstein been dealt with? As far as I can tell, I brought the diffs to the correct place, and you have clearly read them because you selectively read diffs listed about me. Are you saying what Ryulong is saying, that I need to start a whole new thread over there for it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I have to deal with this thread and everyone's disruptive grousing, and with the thread complaining about Cobbsaladin, and the ArbCom case, and the emails that I'm getting from everyone, and a thousand other things. My time is limited. Stop opening a thousand goddamn complaint threads and you'll get what you want. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The thread has been open for days. You have even commented on it. Your time is limited, fine, mine is as well and I hate that I even bothered to dip my toes into this topic at all. You'd probably get less "disruptive grousing" had the situation been dealt with responsibly by you or anyone else up to this point, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is easy to complain about the responsibilities of others when you have none of them. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And maybe someday I'll have the opportunity to change that. If you're not up for it, though, please seek out people who are. Help spread the responsibility. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of other administrators are also participating at the sanctions enforcement page. I am not the only person there, nor am I obstructing other administrators from their work. So feel free to bring your complaints to them. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have, don't worry. But you're here, and you're continuing on this line of somehow not having enough time while spending it complaining about not having enough time when you could be dealing with the problems that are causing these complaints. Right now, all it looks like is that the sanctions are not for everyone. Is that the perception we should be getting? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm saying put up or shut up. Make a thread on the enforcement page calling out people for their violations of the general sanctions just like you feel they're doing to you. Prove through process that there's unfair treatment when you try to go tit for tat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a thread, it's under the Masem accusation. If we're at the point of the bureaucracy where we need to repeat the allegations again, fine, but how incredibly stupid. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it a formal attempt at sanctioning him or is it just a boomerang attempt under Masem's sanctioning request?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you just want me to make some bureaucratic move. Got it. That's probably why you haven't been sanctioned either, I suppose. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is this very situation with ArmyLine that creates this problem where editors seen as favoring one side get sanctioned over absurd technicalities while editors seen as favoring the other side get away with so much more despite being repeatedly reported to admins for rather flagrant misconduct. To be clear, you and others have been repeatedly reported both before and after the general sanctions. Hell, ArmyLine's sanction came about in a report filed against Tarc. Even the "enforcement page" is simply a diversion by people sympathetic to an extreme anti-GamerGate POV to try and stop an arbitration case from happening. Having an enforcement page means shit since admins seemed quite capable of taking action beforehand and part of the problem is that select admins have shown such blatant bias in their adminning that only one side can trust the process at this point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate refactoring

Administrator Gamaliel has insisted on refactoring my comments when I've already let him know that I've objected to such. Per WP:REFACTOR. Tutelary (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And User:Thargor Orlando wonders why we can't get anything done. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop refactoring and hatting others comments per WP:REFACTOR and The template's hat usage notes. The fragrant violating and oversight of this has been evident on the talk and on WP:ANI for a long time. It's no excuse to keep violating it. I've objected to refactoring of my comments and to continue to do such is disruptive and goes against WP:REFACTOR. Tutelary (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is keeping you from acting on MarkBernstein's edits right now. You're opting to spend your time fighting this battle when we're begging you to deal with real issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing except the several hours of mine you and others have already wasted. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, keep using this excuse. I listed the diffs days ago. You have had ample time to review other people's alleged crimes, but somehow no time for Mark's. Why? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A comment from a little bit against his better judgement involved contributor: Gamaliel, your time would be better spent not wasting it on stupid things, like haggling over hats. (Which, incidentally, act as giant neon signs saying "Look here for drama!!!") Please see Wikipedia:Wikidryl. Oh, and since the arbcom accept a case requirements have been met, it's all going to get dumped on those guys and gal anyway, so why waste your time responding to every post?? I greatly believe in the power of WP:The Last Word -- if you let the other parties have it, they kind of have to stop, right? What are they going to do, keep talking to themselves? NE Ent 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm going attempt to drop GamerGate matters for today. Thank you, User:NE Ent. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Please only post in this section if you are uninvolved in the content dispute (feel free to create another section or post in another section). (KoshVorlons is also an uninvolved with the gamergate (as far as I know) editor whos opinion was hidden above.)

To me the block was not good. It seems that ArmyLine was attempting to claim that the admin who blocked her was selectively enforcing sanctions against her that he was not doing so on others similarly situationed based on the admin’s personal views on the content dispute. That, if true, is a valid reason to appeal a ban and requires the person appealing to talk about the admin actions taken by the admin and the context in which they were applied. I do not consider that to be a violation of the topic ban as it is a valid reason to appeal a ban if true. Now in this case, but it at least seems plausible enough to not warrant a block for violation of the topic ban. But I have not seen enough proof of it yet.

(PS. My mistake, she was not notified of Gamergate sanctions, but was notified of BLP sanctions and that is what she was topic banned under)

• Affirm She said that the subject cheated, but all I can find from reliable sources is Quinn’sGjoni's accusations of cheating (accusations are not a reliable source saying it occurred). She was notified of BLP sanctions [[335]]. --Obsidi (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• As involved as I am, I still think it is important to correct you here rather than trying to have another section for it, though I won't state my position. Quinn did not accuse anyone of cheating. I believe you mean Gjoni's accusations. Sources freely acknowledge the relationship with Grayson occurred, but avoid exactly stating that it was cheating. This argument about the difference between presenting it as an accusation and presenting it as fact in a noticeboard discussion when the whole point was that these were allegations of unethical conduct that were not proven wrong is basically splitting hairs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you are right, I meant Gjoni's accusations. And you are right the allegations were not proven wrong, but nor were they proven right, so to just say they are true is not good. --Obsidi (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Except what you have is that he alleged Quinn cheated on him with Grayson, among others. Reliable sources note this allegation and also confirm the existence of the relationship with Grayson. Only thing they don't confirm is that the relationship constituted cheating. Someone taking confirmation of the relationship as confirmation of the cheating aspect is hardly obscene since no source actually argues anything to the contrary. They just don't outright confirm it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that Gjoni and Quinn were not married, whether anyone was "cheating" can only ever be a subjective question of each party's perception of the status of their relationship. Such "allegations" are a) inherently unprovable and b) not relevant in any way to the article in question. Reliable sources have, understandably, refused to be party to he-said-she-said investigations of relationship drama spilled on the Internet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The mental gymnastics in the above post are so impressive even the Chinese judge scored it at 10. Bravo 173.2.177.118 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The mental gymnastics required to believe that there is any public interest in who an indie developer slept with are so impressive that even 4chan said "No thanks." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Affirm - She was duly alerted and thus appropriately banned. I question whether ANI has jurisdiction to overturn such a ban, as I understand BLP sanctions are authorized by Arbcom. I would not support overturning this ban anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A silly proposal

Alright, I'm sure this is going to go nowhere, but I'm putting it out here anyway. This page has been inundated with nonsense from all sides of the Gamergate controversy, and many uninvolved editors have pointed out how disruptive it is to have these petty squabbles repeated on this page and on other pages over and over and over again. And as Gamaliel has strained to point out here (though he's being shouted down) it's impossible for any admin to reasonably and neutrally intervene with all of this going on. So why don't we just let these editors battle it out amongst themselves and continue turning that page into a stinking cesspool of hatred and disruption, but strictly limit it to the Gamergate controversy talk page and the Arbcom case page? I therefore propose that any post about Gamergate anywhere else on the project by any editor be subject to an immediate block, at a minimum until Arbcom hears the case, but preferably for much longer. Likewise, the Gamergate controversy page be full-protected until May 26, 2015. Yes, it's draconian; if editors don't like it they can simply not edit there. You know where to put the trouts. Ivanvector (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Or we can stop proposing draconian, totalitarian and stuff that violates the pillars in terms of proposals. And it's in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND policy and in good decency. Wikipedia is not a circus, and there are certain things I've objected to in terms of administrator conduct, but trying to give the talk page and arbcom immediate immunity towards any and everything would just turn out to be very nasty. (But if this is a secret proposal to make the worst come out of people and try to have them sanctioned for that, good work I wasn't able to tell the difference.) Plus ArbCom's justice wheel turns slowly but surely. Tutelary (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the opposite, unless I worded it wrong. I'm proposing giving the rest of the project immunity from the disruption of the petty battles going on over this controversy. Honestly it's hard to look at the discussion above and reconcile that with "Wikipedia is not a circus". I'll refer you to WP:BLOCKDETERRENT and suggest that this proposal does in fact prevent continuing damage to Wikipedia, as well as deter the continuation of disruptive behaviour and encourage a more productive editing style, at least on pages which are not Gamergate controversy. I'm not proposing any changes to the community sanctions already in place at that article, but without admins willing to delve into it they're completely, utterly useless anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(as involved) I would actually support a slightly less draconian approach but with the same effect of removing the kudzu of the controversy on other pages: that is, unless the editor has already been notified of the sanctions, such posts about GG that fall in WP space (excluding ArbCom for the present, and ANI for any unusual situations) should be simply hatted and the poster notified that such discussion should be limited to the appropriate GG pages. Editors that are aware of this sanction (as documented on that page) and that purposely start something outside the GG pages about GG directly should be warned/blocked/handled with as seen fit. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I support this in theory, but that is exactly what happened above and it just exploded in more drama. Gamergate is an unusually disruptive situation which requires an unusually harsh solution. Ivanvector (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm only considering the issue of new editors to the debate (fully aware the bulk of these are outside editors that are trying to influence the article as well), we don't want to be too bitey to actual potentially editors that might miss the sanctions notice. And if it is a case of a pointless ANI, rapid close and pointing to the GS page still is an option. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternate

I was thinking something somewhat similar in concept; a simple topic ban for all editors for raising gamergate issues on AN or ANI. If any editor starts a thread, it is simply removed and the editor redirected to the WP:GS/GG/E page. No blocks should be necessarily unless an editor edit wars the post back in after being notified of the topic ban. NE Ent 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll support that as a much simpler version of my proposal which accomplishes the same effect. Would like to see it extend to AN3 as well. Ivanvector (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This actually isn't a terrible idea, except that the sanctions don't appear to be working in all directions, nor are administrators apparently willing to act. There's a reason this devolved so quickly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Above, Gamaliel exemplifies that administrators are slow to act because they are exasperated by the volume and frequency of complaints being posted in multiple forums. We can't stop users from emailing but we can at least limit them to a single forum. And it is appropriate to do so. Ivanvector (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If Gamaliel and the like were actually dealing with the problem children, we wouldn't see threads like this. Instead, certain editors are allowed to run rampant and the rest of us in the crossfire are forced to keep begging for enforcement when it isn't forthcoming from the so-called "proper channels." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do we even have a subpage for GamerGate sanctions? I just realized that admins have to manually watchlist that page, rather than just the general 'requests for enforcement' page. Plus, the requests for enforcement has way more administrators watching it than the former. Why is it needed to be a separate page? (Not to mention the issue of the same admins commenting each time.) Tutelary (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just did it anyway, as a WP:BOLD action. No users have been warned. Ivanvector (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like this and would ask for a reversion from you. What we need is more eyes on the sanction page, not shunting this issue to the same page where things are being ignored. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And then you hat it over there, ensuring no one takes a look at it? What is that going to accomplish? The entire complaint is about the lax enforcement! Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the hat here per your request here and Tutelary's request on my talk page. Apologies for the delay, I had to step away for a bit. I wouldn't have considered it a hostile act for either of you to have undone the edit yourself per WP:BRD, and in that spirit I'll leave you to do what you like with the copy on the enforcement page. I'll also note that hatting does not make comments invisible - if anyone is interested in reading your comments there, they can click the button. I simply felt it would be extremely disruptive to copy 36,000 characters worth of fairly pointless back-and-forth without putting a hat on it. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it. The trigger finger people have on this thing has pretty much frozen me from acting on anything lest it get someone to decide to pursue sanctions, so I'm trying to be careful. I know hatting doesn't make it actually invisible, but the problem of the enforcement page is one of visible petitions being pointedly ignored, so hiding a thread about that in particular seems significantly counterproductive. Still, thank you for listening. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think cross-posting things here is actually drawing any more attention to the problems there. It's just making problems here, disabling the central noticeboard for admin attention for the rest of the project, hence my admittedly extreme siloing proposal above. I can understand why no admins want to act against the mob and I don't blame them at all. Ivanvector (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism, fringe problems, and badhand IP editing by Bozo33

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.

---

Bozo33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 174.4.163.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Bozo33 (who falsely claims to be an administrator on his user page) and the IP 174.4.163.53 stick to the same topics of rap and esoteric Christianity (angels, mystics, so forth). I'm absolutely confident that a quick CU would confirm they're the same individual. They're also the main contributors for Blac Haze, which uses OR based on user-generated sites or merchant sites when the article isn't outright stealing from those "sources". They've also been focusing on the Cartesian ideas, particularly the Evil demon, making the same fringe claim.

• Here Bozo33 calls for the Evil demon and Deus deceptor to be distinguished, and here the IP makes an edit to that effect (which is like trying to split hairs by holding up one and saying there are two). Here Bozo33 carries out a similar edit on another page (while demonstrating a touch of the IP's problem with overlinking in the See also section).
• Here the IP plagiarizes the source cited (a blog) for the "Critical Reception" section. Here, Bozo33 plagiarizes most of the sources cited to cobble together the "Biography" section.
• Both editors will switch "Yahweh" to "YHWH," even altering quotes to change references to God to YHWH
• Here the IP plagiarizes the source cited again.
• Here, here, here the IP cites ridiculously fringe blog sources, one of which cites Wikipedia in turn!

While editing logged out is fine, doing so to avoid scrutiny is not. Even if there was no intention to avoid scrutiny, Bozo33/174.4.163.53 has left a bunch of messes all over the place, and those messes are not going to be easier to clean up if he's still going to be making them.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

N.B. I removed the {{administrator}} tag from their page. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you filed a WP:SPI? Ivanvector (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not yet, I thought it would be a formality given the WP:DUCK involved and that they've almost done enough separately to earn separate blocks (Also due to juggling a WP:ARARAT IP on the side). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly moot, but SPI is where the checkusers lurk. Ivanvector (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bozo33 continues to claim to be an administrator, though I've removed it and told him not to re-add it. Will someone just block him already? Do I really need to file an SPI despite the clear WP:DUCK, just because I mentioned checkuser offhand? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

24 hour block placed, this type of issue appears to be nothing new for this user. Suggest someone follow up on the SPI. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behavior by IndianBio

This user has had a hostile attitude towards me for awhile now, culminating in this discussion on SNUGGUMS' talk page, where I was repeatedly accused of assuming bad faith by nominating various Rihanna song articles for deletion, having a personal vendetta against the Rihanna WikiProject, shooting down any suggestions I may have for another article's improvement, and baselessly accusing me of WP:OWN behavior.

After trying to resolve the matter on their own talk page, it got nowhere, with more comments about how my contributions are "shitty", a snide/sarcastic remark about suicide that may or may not be suggesting I do so, refusing my request to stop assuming bad faith, and discouraging me from making bold suggestions/contributions.

This user refuses to assume good faith with me or cooperate and is making it increasingly difficult to collaborate here. There are major civility concerns here that need to be addressed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Based primarily on the content User talk:IndianBio I'd generally say a minor trouting is in order on both sides and some disengagement is in order. On your end, have you had a broader discussion at WP:RIRI on the AfDs? That said, you have faced a few personal attacks that could fall deeper than what could be said is "standard" incivility. Debating content and bickering over policies is immediately trumped by incivility, making the other matters moot temporarily, at least.

Would welcome an admin's perspective, please!, but my entirley-non-binding random powerless editor's opinion would be a "last chance" warning for IndianBio before any blocks. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 23:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: I don't see anything actionable here in terms of behavior, but I agree that IndianBio should turn it down a notch ([336]). Seems like the two of you don't work so well together sometimes; it's best if you simply make your arguments once and avoid debating each other until you feel like you can do it productively. Relatedly, an RfC really needs to be opened on Talk:Lady_Gaga#Poor_image stat, so both of you can just move on. As for the discussions on Snuggums' talkpage, both of you should listen to Snuggums' advice there, which is sound with regard to the whole merge/AfD issue. And honestly, rather than hotly contest how best to organize an article for an FA review, do the best you can and if you cannot agree, just ask the reviewers. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)